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

Why Are the Same People Irate About the NBA’s Hong Kong Stance Silent About the Same Thing Happening to Americans

Westlake Legal Group hong-kong-protesters-620x317 Why Are the Same People Irate About the NBA’s Hong Kong Stance Silent About the Same Thing Happening to Americans twitter Pro-Life Politics North Carolina NBA Hong Kong Google Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook Conservatives Censorship Business & Economy bathroom bill Allow Media Exception

A protester waves a U.S. flag as hundreds of protesters gather outside Kwai Chung police station in Hong Kong, Tuesday, July 30, 2019. Protesters clashed with police again in Hong Kong on Tuesday night after reports that some of their detained colleagues would be charged with the relatively serious charge of rioting. (AP Photo/Vincent Yu)

The outrage du jour is over the NBA and a gaming company, Blizzard Entertainment, following the old adage of “money talks and bullsh** walks” and forbidding players or, in the case of the NBA, fans from making any overt gesture of support for the demonstrators in Hong Kong.

I don’t have a particular dog in the geopolitical part of this argument. Hong Kong, since the Brits pulled out in 1997, has been part of Communist China. They may not like it, but there it is and the odds of Beijing just letting it go approaches zero. While I have sympathy for their cause, I don’t have enough sympathy to get Americans killed over it. I’m also doubtful that egging on demonstrators when you have zero intention of doing anything but clucking over the massacre videos streamed into your home is a particularly ethical thing to do (see East Germany 1953 an Hungary 1956 for examples of what that looks like). I certainly don’t fault China for bringing to bear whatever power it has to shut down sympathy for the demonstrators because we, ourselves, are the ones who’ve given them that power and they, like most governments, will act in their own interests.

What I’m sort of at a loss to understand is why I’m supposed to feel outraged by the NBA, a private company, engaging in suppression of speech that it doesn’t like.

For at least three years now, ever since it has become obvious that the large tech companies like Facebook and Twitter and Google were actively suppressing conservative viewpoints and ever since Trump was elected, I’ve been lectured by TrueConservativesWestlake Legal Group 2122 Why Are the Same People Irate About the NBA’s Hong Kong Stance Silent About the Same Thing Happening to Americans twitter Pro-Life Politics North Carolina NBA Hong Kong Google Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook Conservatives Censorship Business & Economy bathroom bill Allow Media Exception   and VichyConsWestlake Legal Group 2122 Why Are the Same People Irate About the NBA’s Hong Kong Stance Silent About the Same Thing Happening to Americans twitter Pro-Life Politics North Carolina NBA Hong Kong Google Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook Conservatives Censorship Business & Economy bathroom bill Allow Media Exception   (though it is getting increasingly hard to separate the two groups in any meaningful way so great is the overlap in that Venn Diagram) on how “muh private company” can’t engage in censorship and how if I don’t like being suspended from Twitter for suggesting some sloppy fat goober laid off from BuzzFeed learn a useful occupation that I could just start my own social media company and my problems would be solved.

Over and over, conservative viewpoints, whether they are pro-biology, pro-traditional-family, or pro-life are being overtly crushed via demonetization or by having access to their materials deliberately restricted. The most recent example of this is Facebook refusing to let the pro-life group Live Action distribute its videos to followers of its Facebook page because professional pro-aborts who double as “fact checkers” for Politifact didn’t like the content. Twitter has forbidden Live Action from showing ultrasound images of babies in utero.

Back in 2016, when the NBA went to war with the state of North Carolina over the “bathroom bill,” a commonsense measure that ensure adult men were not going to be hanging out in women’s bathrooms, outlets, such as National Review, posted articles like A Conservative Defense of Transgender Rights. Few people on the right said boo about the NBA using its economic power to coerce the government of North Carolina into abandoning its defense of common decency and Western Civilization.

Why is it any more odious for the NBA to follow the money their autocratic impulses and shut down support of the Hong Kong demonstrators in their venues than for it to follow the money and their autocratic impulses and shut down opposition to trans activists in North Carolina? In both cases, the NBA is telling people how to live their lives. In both cases, it is refusing to lend its economic support to political causes that it disagrees with on the merits or perceives to be a financial loser. How is security at an NBA game evicting pro-Hong-Kong protesters any different than YouTube or Facebook or Twitter blocking pro-life or pro-actual-marriage or pro-Second-Amendment information? It really isn’t.

The bottom line is that you either believe corporations, particularly large monopolistic ones, either have an obligation to observe what we, in America, perceive to be basic human rights or you don’t. You don’t get to choose what the cause is. It is binary. If your position is that the difference is the Chinese government calling the tune, does that mean you’d only oppose corporate thuggery if the current administration was behind it? If you are trying to shame the NBA into changing policy, then I’d submit the hundreds of millions of dollars they get from China is going to prove more influential that a lot of media saying meany-pants things. In other words, you’re engaging in nothing more than the most grotesque form of virtue signaling. You could take action, like have Congress outlaw this dumbf***ery, but then you’d just be a poseur with very malleable principles.

So, while I have a great deal of sympathy for the people in Hong Kong, I can’t in good conscience sign onto some kind of selective outrage over a corporation silencing speech it dislikes. When all of you folks who are outraged about the NBA and Hong Kong decide you’re outraged by Facebook and Twitter and Google and you’re ready to go to war with them and the NBA to end this bullsh**, well, give me a call. If you want me to get exercised over something happening in China while telling me that the same exact thing directed at conservative causes taking place in the US (and in Europe) is just the private sector at work, sorry, I don’t want to be bothered. I’ll be clipping my toe nails or taking a dump or doing something else that is actually meaningful.

As a parting note, my colleague Brad Slager discussed this topic on KLRNRadio last night in the second half of the show.



=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post Why Are the Same People Irate About the NBA’s Hong Kong Stance Silent About the Same Thing Happening to Americans appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group hong-kong-protesters-300x153 Why Are the Same People Irate About the NBA’s Hong Kong Stance Silent About the Same Thing Happening to Americans twitter Pro-Life Politics North Carolina NBA Hong Kong Google Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook Conservatives Censorship Business & Economy bathroom bill Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Iowa Family Donates $10 Elizabeth Warren Spent at Their Lemonade Stand to Pro-Life Movement

Westlake Legal Group ElizabethWarrenAPimage-620x317 Iowa Family Donates $10 Elizabeth Warren Spent at Their Lemonade Stand to Pro-Life Movement republicans progressives Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Massachusetts lemonade stands Iowa Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Elizabeth Warren elections democrats Culture Conservatives Campaigns Allow Media Exception Abortion 2020 Elections 2020

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., speaks at the Iowa State Fair, Saturday, Aug. 10, 2019, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/John Locher)

After Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) made a pit stop in Iowa last month to purchase some lemonade from two 11-year-old girls at a lemonade stand, she posted an image of the meeting on Twitter to promote making lemonade out of lemons:

As it turns out, making lemonade out of lemons is exactly what the family of one of the girls did after the encounter. They donated the $10 they received from Warren, who is pro-abortion, to the pro-life movement:

“Our daughters thought [Warren] was nice,” Dan Michels, a Trump supporter and a father to one of the girls, told the Washington Free Beacon. “She came by and told us we should vote for her. And our daughters told us she was a nice person, but we don’t align with her politically and … because she’s pro-choice, we said we should donate her money to a pro-life [cause].”
[…]
The two kids were excited about meeting a presidential candidate in person. The Michels girl urged her parents to vote for the Massachusetts senator in 2020 after the photo op. The parents instead explained Warren’s stance on abortion. The girls and their parents decided to donate to the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, a non-profit that supports pro-life legislation.

“My daughter told us she wanted us to vote for her,” Michels said. “We talked about the abortion part of things and said maybe we should donate money to stop abortion, and my daughter was all for that.”

Warren has made clear during the course of her 2020 presidential campaign that she is one of the most radically extreme pro-choice candidates among those running. She supports abortion on demand for any reason at any point in time during a woman’s pregnancy, including once the baby is viable.

During the first Democratic debate in June, Warren refused to say if she’d put any limits on abortion rights:

According to the New York Post, Warren paid $3 extra for the lemonades to “account for gender inequality.” Good thing to know that the extra money she gave to account for so-called “gender inequality” may go towards saving an unborn girl’s (or boy’s) life.

—–
— 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 Iowa Family Donates $10 Elizabeth Warren Spent at Their Lemonade Stand to Pro-Life Movement appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ElizabethWarrenAPimage-300x153 Iowa Family Donates $10 Elizabeth Warren Spent at Their Lemonade Stand to Pro-Life Movement republicans progressives Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Massachusetts lemonade stands Iowa Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Elizabeth Warren elections democrats Culture Conservatives Campaigns Allow Media Exception Abortion 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Squad Blues: AOC Stomps Feet After Pro-Life Democrat Says His Primary Opponent Is as Extreme as She Is

Westlake Legal Group AlexandraOcasioCortez-620x317 Squad Blues: AOC Stomps Feet After Pro-Life Democrat Says His Primary Opponent Is as Extreme as She Is washington D.C. The Squad Social Media progressives Pro-Life Politics North Carolina New York Media Marie Newman Justice Democrats Illinois Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats Dan Lipinski Culture Congress Campaigns Blue Dog Democrats AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Abortion 2020 Elections 2020

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., listens during a House Financial Services Committee hearing with leaders of major banks, Wednesday, April 10, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Earlier this year, pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood, Emily’s List, and NARAL enthusiastically threw their support behind Marie Newman in the IL-3 Congressional race. Newman is a pro-abortion Democrat who is trying to primary out Rep. Dan Lipinski, who is one of the last pro-life Democrats in Congress.

Newman tried and failed in 2018 to unseat Lipinski, and decided to give it another go again this year. In addition to having the backing of the pro-abortion groups mentioned above, former presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) also endorsed her this election cycle – as she did in 2018.

Though Gillibrand’s endorsement and that of current Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders (VT) and Elizabeth Warren (MA) are feathers in Newman’s cap, she received an endorsement this week that is even much more coveted in the fever swamps of the progressive left: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY).

The New York Times reports:

“Marie Newman is a textbook example of one of the ways that we could be better as a party — to come from a deep blue seat and to be championing all the issues we need to be championing,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview.

Of Mr. Lipinski, she said: “The fact that a deep blue seat is advocating for many parts of the Republican agenda is extremely problematic. We’re not talking about a swing state that is being forced to take tough votes.”
[…]
“We are so proud that Marie Newman is the first Justice Democrat of this cycle to receive an endorsement from Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,” said Alexandra Rojas, the executive director of Justice Democrats.

Lipinski responded to the news by noting that Newman would be the equivalent of a 5th member of the Squad if she defeated him:

“Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement of Marie Newman makes crystal clear that Ms. Newman is an extreme candidate who is completely out of step with the voters of Illinois’ Third District who do not want to be represented by a fifth member of the “Squad,” Lipinski said in a statement.

“The Democratic Party — and our country — cannot afford an obstructionist “Tea Party of the Left” when we need to focus on winning this next election and passing policies that will truly help working families and all who are struggling in America today,” he said.

This fauxfended tough girl AOC bigly. She clapped back on the Twitter machine:

“Aggressive statements” – is she … serious? I’d say Lipinski kept it pretty tepid (read his full statement here) in comparison to what he could have (and perhaps should have) said about the unquestionable extremism of the Squad.

AOC’s little tantrum just proves once again how incapable she is of handling even the mildest of criticisms. I’m surprised she didn’t accuse Lipinski of inciting violence against the Squad, which as we all know by now is Standard Operating Procedure for the Queenie Quartet.

——-
— 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 Squad Blues: AOC Stomps Feet After Pro-Life Democrat Says His Primary Opponent Is as Extreme as She Is appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AlexandraOcasioCortez-300x153 Squad Blues: AOC Stomps Feet After Pro-Life Democrat Says His Primary Opponent Is as Extreme as She Is washington D.C. The Squad Social Media progressives Pro-Life Politics North Carolina New York Media Marie Newman Justice Democrats Illinois Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats Dan Lipinski Culture Congress Campaigns Blue Dog Democrats AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Abortion 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Tulsi Gabbard: Yes, abortion should be regulated in the third trimester

Westlake Legal Group tg Tulsi Gabbard: Yes, abortion should be regulated in the third trimester tulsi gabbard trimester third The Blog Pro-Life pro-choice planned parenthood late term Abortion

Via Alexandra DeSanctis, who was the last Democratic candidate for president to support any restrictions on abortion?

I don’t mean this year, I mean any year.

Someone in the 2004 field, maybe? I have no memory of any Dem in recent history with a national future daring to challenge “kill ’em whenever” orthodoxy. Gabbard is breaking new ground, which is also old ground:

Gabbard told Rubin she views abortion in a “libertarian” way, saying she doesn’t think government should be dictating women’s choices. “I think that there should be some restrictions though,” she added. Rubin asked if she had a “cutoff point,” to which she replied: “I think the third trimester. Unless a woman’s life or severe health consequences is at risk, then there shouldn’t be an abortion in the third trimester.”

When Gabbard first became involved in politics in the Hawaii state legislature, she called herself pro-life, but later said having been deployed to Iraq changed her view of the issue. Since becoming a member of Congress, Gabbard has maintained a 100-percent rating from Planned Parenthood. She supports federal funding of abortion, but she did not co-sponsor a Democratic bill in the House that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the direct use of taxpayer funds to cover abortion procedures. She also did not sponsor the Democratic “Women’s Health Protection Act,” a piece of federal legislation that would override state restrictions on abortion.

By no means is she pro-life, she’s just a bit — a meaningful bit — less pro-choice than everyone else. Which is something.

And so we turn again to one of the most confounding mysteries in politics this year: Why is Tulsi Gabbard running for president? What’s her political endgame in taking a position like this, which is welcome to people like me who won’t vote in a Democratic primary and not so welcome to people who will?

The Atlantic mulled Gabbard’s strategy a few days ago and had no more luck than anyone else did in figuring out what she’s up to.

Many high-level Democrats I spoke with for this story, who insisted on anonymity to share their true feelings about her, suspect that Gabbard is up to something other than actually trying to win the party’s nomination—even if they can’t quite identify what her goal is. These are people who have been wary since Gabbard became a Fox News favorite for criticizing Obama’s foreign policy. They believed that their distrust was vindicated when Steve Bannon brought her in for a meeting with then-president-elect Donald Trump just two weeks after the 2016 election, which was one of Trump’s first meetings with a Democrat. To this group, Gabbard looks like Jill Stein, who also talked about progressive politics and peace, but whose 2016 Green Party run was, to them, a self-centered campaign that blew a crucial hole in Hillary Clinton’s chances, eating up money and getting Russian support along the way…

Theories I’ve heard from top Democrats include that Gabbard is trying to get a TV show—“I already know which network: Fox,” one senior Democrat not affiliated with any campaign said, speaking anonymously to remain publicly neutral—and that she’s gearing up for a Trump-benefiting third-party run. “Green Party. Willing to take bets on this,” Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden tweeted last week after Gabbard appeared on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show to trash the Democratic National Committee because she hadn’t qualified for the September debate. Gabbard later tweeted the clip with the banner “No transparency = no trust.” (Gabbard has said publicly, and confirmed to me, that she will run only as a Democrat, but when I repeated that to Tanden, she remained skeptical.)

Is that her game, winning over the hearts of Fox News fans with guest shots on Tucker, broadsides at Kamala Harris, and support for abortion regulations in the third trimester? I don’t know how well a “Tulsi!” show on Fox would fare if Trump ended up bombing Iran after all and the adamantly anti-war Gabbard had to face the Fox audience in “rally ’round the flag” mode. And if ingratiating herself to Fox viewers while damaging her chances at the Democratic nomination is her new aim, she’d have been better off renouncing support for abortion altogether. “I oppose it in the third trimester” is a nice start but still leaves Gabbard in the position of supporting the vast majority of abortions in the U.S.

As far as I’m aware, there’s no meaningful constituency for her position in a Democratic primary. Black Democrats are often called socially conservative by pundits, which may be true relative to the fringy weirdness of leftists on an array of “values” issues. But black Protestants support abortion in all or most cases to the tune of 64 percent, a higher percentage than white mainline Protestants. Overall, 82 percent of Democrats favor abortion rights in all or most instances. Gabbard’s in roughly the same position here as a Republican candidate who supports abortion rights in the first trimester: Most pro-lifers wouldn’t dare vote for that person even though his or her position on the issue is “moderate” since they wouldn’t be able to trust the candidate not to “evolve” further once in office. Likewise for pro-choice Dems who want a president who’ll show indomitable resolve in holding the line on abortion rights against Republicans, I assume. To those people, Gabbard’s a nonstarter.

Increasingly I think she’s just speaking her mind and letting the chips fall where they may, knowing that she has no chance at the nomination and believing/hoping that American politics will catch up with her in a few years. She’d be one of the more compelling politicians in the country if not for her Assad baggage. Maybe she’ll renounce that over the next few years, reposition herself as an unorthodox Democrat, and test her luck in 2024 with the benefit of higher name recognition and a national political scene that seems to be in constant flux. Gabbard’s just 38 years old. Going her own way on issues — within reason — and refusing to apologize for it might build her a base over time.

The post Tulsi Gabbard: Yes, abortion should be regulated in the third trimester appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group tg-300x159 Tulsi Gabbard: Yes, abortion should be regulated in the third trimester tulsi gabbard trimester third The Blog Pro-Life pro-choice planned parenthood late term Abortion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Radicalization: 82% of Dems now say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up almost 20 points since 2007

Westlake Legal Group p-2 Radicalization: 82% of Dems now say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up almost 20 points since 2007 wade The Blog roe Radical Pro-Life pro-choice poll pew Legal chappelle Abortion

An eye-popping trend from Pew, destined to spark a new argument between pro-lifers and pro-choicers about cause and effect.

That is, are lefties radicalizing in defense of abortion rights because righties are becoming more radical in trying to restrict those rights, as with “heartbeat laws”?

Or have righties become more radical in trying to restrict abortion rights because lefty politicians keep growing more absolutist about abortion on demand, even in the third trimester?

Westlake Legal Group 5-3 Radicalization: 82% of Dems now say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up almost 20 points since 2007 wade The Blog roe Radical Pro-Life pro-choice poll pew Legal chappelle Abortion

Pro-choicers will point to the recent upswing in that trend line and lay it at Trump’s feet. How can you blame us for becoming more extreme, they’ll say, when we have a president who may have just assembled a five-vote Supreme Court majority for overturning Roe? It’s only natural that one side’s gains in the abortion war will ignite a backlash in the opposing side. Case in point: This same poll shows opposition to overturning Roe surging to 69 percent in December 2016, a month after Trump’s election, despite barely budging between 2003 (62 percent) and 2013 (63 percent). The out-party inevitably adopts a siege mentality.

And yet … the same phenomenon doesn’t seem to have happened with Republicans during the Obama era. There were minor fluctuations here and there but the share of GOPers who think abortion should be legal in all or most cases is about the same as it was at the end of Dubya’s presidency. So maybe there’s more to the Democratic shift than some quasi-organic partisan backlash cycle.

Another question shows a further asymmetry between the parties. Although conservative Republicans are solidly pro-life, moderate Republicans are actually fairly firmly pro-choice. The GOP skews right overall on abortion because conservatives outnumber moderates but there’s a genuine division within the party. There’s no similar division among Democratic factions:

Westlake Legal Group abortion-3 Radicalization: 82% of Dems now say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up almost 20 points since 2007 wade The Blog roe Radical Pro-Life pro-choice poll pew Legal chappelle Abortion

A different question shows that no less than 70 percent of moderate Republicans oppose overturning Roe versus 61 percent of conservatives who support overturning it. Combine Republican ambivalence about abortion with Democratic unanimity in favor and we’ve reached a modern high in the number of Americans overall who think abortion should be legal in all or most cases — 61 percent.

Imagine what the “siege mentality” numbers will look like if Trump ends up replacing Ginsburg or Breyer on the Court after all. In lieu of an exit question, here’s a choice bit from Dave Chappelle’s new stand-up special on Netflix that veers from pro-life to extremely pro-choice back to pro-life again in less than two minutes. Lots of profanity so take care if you’re listening at work or around the little ones.

The post Radicalization: 82% of Dems now say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up almost 20 points since 2007 appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group p-2-300x153 Radicalization: 82% of Dems now say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up almost 20 points since 2007 wade The Blog roe Radical Pro-Life pro-choice poll pew Legal chappelle Abortion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Dave Chappelle Takes the Abortion Argument to Its Logical End During Comedy Special

Westlake Legal Group Capture-9-620x371 Dave Chappelle Takes the Abortion Argument to Its Logical End During Comedy Special Women Pro-Life men Front Page Stories Featured Story dave chappelle comedy children Abortion

Dave Chappelle’s new comedy special on Netflix is making massive waves, and while I’ve already covered it twice, this moment in his special is one of the ones that really had me paying attention to what he was saying behind what he was saying.

During his set, Chappelle began discussing abortion and began by saying something you typically hear from the left when it comes to making arguments in that if you’re a man, you should stay out of the abortion debate altogether.

Wait for it.

Chappelle doesn’t stop there as many “comedians” do. Instead, Chappelle takes the argument to its logical end and then says something afterward that caught my attention.

“Gentleman, that is fair,” said Chappelle after saying that women shouldn’t have to consult anyone except a physician.

“And ladies, to be fair to us, I also believe that if you decide to have the baby, a man should not have to pay,” said Chappelle. “That’s fair.”

“If you can kill this motherf***er, I can at least abandon them,” he continued. “It’s my money, my choice.”

Chappelle finished by leaving the crowd and the viewer something to ponder. It wasn’t even a joke, just an interesting thing to say after all of that.

“And if I’m wrong, then perhaps we’re wrong,” he said.

*Language warning*

Even when agreeing with the pro-abortion argument, Chappelle manages to find a way to make them angry by declaring that if women can be so independent, then so can the men. I should not that I’m personally not in favor of either of these, but it can’t be ignored that women can’t have it so that they can be both unconcerned with what a man thinks but lay claim to his wallet.

What got my attention, however, was the ending phrase. There is no doubt that many women would take exception to his argument about men not having to be responsible for babies they don’t want. If these women are saying that Chappelle is wrong for standing by that philosophy, then they fall into the category about being wrong about abortion altogether.

I should note that as a pro-life man myself, I think fathers should take absolute responsibility for the children they helped create. Fatherless homes create a myriad of problems all on their own, so I’m not in agreement with Chappelle on either point.

But I like the fact that Chappelle leaves the answer open for discovery, claiming that if it’s wrong for him to think that way about the rights of fathers then perhaps he’s also wrong about the arguments toward abortion.

In effect, Chappelle destroys the idea that men shouldn’t be a part of the conversation. He may, or may not have meant to do that, but he tends to do that a few times throughout his special, where he makes the crowd believe he’s going one way, then turns it on them.

If you want to hear further argument as to why you should be watching this Netflix special, click the link below.

(READ: Why You Should Definitely Watch Dave Chappelle’s New Stand-Up Special, And Ignore The Outrage Brigades)

 

The post Dave Chappelle Takes the Abortion Argument to Its Logical End During Comedy Special appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Capture-9-300x180 Dave Chappelle Takes the Abortion Argument to Its Logical End During Comedy Special Women Pro-Life men Front Page Stories Featured Story dave chappelle comedy children Abortion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Update: In Twitter Post, Beto O’Rourke Doubles Down on Ghoulish Third Trimester Abortion Position

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourke-APimage1-620x317 Update: In Twitter Post, Beto O’Rourke Doubles Down on Ghoulish Third Trimester Abortion Position south carolina Social Media Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Media Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post elections Education democrats Culture Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto Abortion 2020 Elections 2020

Former Democratic Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke waves to the audience as he is introduced prior to an interview with Oprah Winfrey live on a Times Square stage at “Oprah’s SuperSoul Conversations from Times Square,” Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2019, in New York. (AP Photo/Kathy Willens)

This morning I wrote about a campaign appearance 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke made in Charleston, SC on Monday where he was asked by a pro-life voter about his stance on abortions late into the third trimester of pregnancy when the unborn baby is viable.

O’Rourke’s answer was not surprising but was very disturbing nevertheless, and spoke volumes about the left’s ghoulish position on abortion. To quickly recap, here’s an abbreviated version of the transcript:

Voter: And someone asked you specifically, specifically about third trimester abortions, and you said that’s a decision left up to the mother. So, my question is this: I was born September 8th, 1989, and I want to know if you think on September 7th, 1989, my life had no value.

Beto: Of course I don’t think that. And of course I’m glad that you’re here. But you referenced my answer in Ohio, and it remains the same. This is a decision that neither you, nor I, nor the United States government should be making. That’s a decision for the woman to make.

(The College of Charleston crowd uproariously applauds)

We want her to have the best possible access to care and to a medical provider, and I’ll tell you the consequence of this, this attack on a woman’s right to choose …

Voter interjects: But what about my right to life?

Beto:I listened to you and I heard your question. I’m answering it. And the attack on Roe v. Wade, which we thought was the settled law of the land, and lest we had any illusion that the achievements that we’ve made are protected forever, or that progress is inevitable, that has been shattered right now.

As I noted in my post, it was mostly a stock answer he gave on the issue, designed to win applause. But reading between the lines, here’s what Beto was really telling that pro-life voter even though he didn’t actually say the words:

“Yes, I’m glad you’re here but I’m also glad your mother had the right to abort you up to the moment of birth and it would have been ok if she did because it’s legal and we should respect a woman’s decision no matter what it is.”

Unfortunately, O’Rourke doubled down on that position in a tweet posted this afternoon, which includes video of the voter’s question and Beto’s answer:

Several conservative websites have written about this story, but the only mainstream media outlet I’ve seen report on it is Fox News. Don’t look for many – if any – journalists from other major news outlets to write about it, or press him for more specifics on his answer, or ask him if there should be any exceptions for third trimester abortions.

Because when it comes to the so-called “right” to terminate an unborn life up until the moment of birth – and beyond, the mainstream media have made it very clear where they stand: with Democrats.

Sad.

——-
— 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 Update: In Twitter Post, Beto O’Rourke Doubles Down on Ghoulish Third Trimester Abortion Position appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourke-APimage1-300x153 Update: In Twitter Post, Beto O’Rourke Doubles Down on Ghoulish Third Trimester Abortion Position south carolina Social Media Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Media Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post elections Education democrats Culture Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto Abortion 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Pro-lifer to Beto O’Rourke: Did my life have no meaning the day before I was born?

Westlake Legal Group bo-4 Pro-lifer to Beto O’Rourke: Did my life have no meaning the day before I was born? trimester third The Blog Pro-Life Beto O'Rourke Abortion

Via Joel Pollak, a stumper from an event in South Carolina. What’s the politic answer to give here if you’re a modern right-thinking “kill ’em up to the moment of crowning” liberal?

Clearly the answer Beto wants to give, the one that’s consonant with left-wing thinking, is “No, your life had no meaning until you were born.” But that’s a tough thing to say to someone’s face when he’s asking about his own life specifically. The less abstract and more concrete questions about abortion get, the more uncomfortable they are.

So no, O’Rourke won’t say that. “Of course I don’t think” that life has no meaning until birth, he says.

But that places him in the awkward position of arguing that meaningful lives are in fact being snuffed out every day in America’s abortion regime. A pro-choicer who takes the hardline view that fetal life isn’t “real” needn’t contend with the implications of ending that life. Beto’s not taking that view, so he does need to. But he punts: We shouldn’t question what a woman decides to do, he insists — period. If he had been feeling bolder, he might have gone on to compare abortion to justifiable homicide. Every life has meaning, he could have said, but there are certain rare circumstances in which the law subordinates the value of life to some greater interest. You’re allowed to take someone else’s life if they’re a lethal threat to your own. You’re allowed to take a murderer’s life in the death chamber if you’re a state-sanctioned executioner. It simply isn’t the case that “all life has meaning” inevitably leads to the conclusion “and therefore life can never rightly be taken.”

But that wouldn’t work either, since it would lead to another very uncomfortable question: If abortion is justifiable homicide, i.e. the taking of a life to serve some greater end, why don’t we demand that the women and doctors who commit it provide some specific justification for their actions? We scrutinize self-defense claims to make sure that the victim really was the aggressor and genuinely did pose a mortal threat to the defendant. We entitle condemned prisoners to a jury trial, a presentation of mitigating evidence during their sentencing phase, and many long years of appeal before executing them. When it comes to abortion, though, all a woman need say is “I felt like it” and that’s good enough for this clown and his clown party. No “medical necessity” required. Abortion might be the only form of homicide in which unjustifiable reasons suffice as a legal excuse.

This is a guy, remember, who frequently denounces Trump for “dehumanizing” people.

The post Pro-lifer to Beto O’Rourke: Did my life have no meaning the day before I was born? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group bo-4-300x159 Pro-lifer to Beto O’Rourke: Did my life have no meaning the day before I was born? trimester third The Blog Pro-Life Beto O'Rourke Abortion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Washington Post Smears Pro-Lifers As White Supremacists Because No One Is Safe

Westlake Legal Group planned-parenthood-tx2-620x432 The Washington Post Smears Pro-Lifers As White Supremacists Because No One Is Safe the washington post Steve King sanger Pro-Life pro-abortion Politics political planned parenthood media bias J.D. Vance Gross Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Disgusting democrats Brostoff

The Washington Post is just awful.

If you’d like more evidence of that, here’s a piece they put out today tying pro-lifers to white supremacy and suggesting that J.D. Vance subscribes to the white nationalist replacement theory. The author of the article is someone names Marissa Brostoff, who epitomizes the know nothing nature of so many current journalists.

Her proof of such a stupid, ahistorical claim? That Steve King is pro-life. Really, that’s pretty much what here argument boils down to. I hear Steve King also drives a car, thereby cars are clearly white nationalist garbage.

Last fall, speaking to a far-right Austrian magazine, the Iowa Republican congressman Steve King succinctly laid out his theory of Western decline. The problem, he suggested, was a demographic born at the nexus of reproduction and immigration. “If we continue to abort our babies and import a replacement for them in the form of young violent men, we are supplanting our culture, our civilization,” King said.

King’s views are certainly problematic, especially if you take the worst interpretation of them (to be fair, he doesn’t actually say “white” anywhere in his comments). But King is hardly dispositive that the greater pro-life movement is somehow tied to white supremacy. History tells quite the opposite story.

In fact, Brostoff’s article is an exercise in contradiction. Abortion is a form of eugenics, one she supports. 36% of all babies aborted are black. Planned Parenthood exists today because a founder who sought to use abortion to eradicate minorities founded it. What does any of this have to do with the largely religiously based pro-life movement?

Take this word salad for example.

This juxtaposition has been particularly cruel over the past year, as revelations about the imprisonment of migrant children in concentration camps have coincided with a wave of draconian antiabortion legislation. (Just last week, a federal appeals court approved Trump administration rules cutting off federal funds from health-care providers that offer abortions or even discuss the procedure with patients, effectively slashing the budget of organizations like Planned Parenthood.) But understanding this confluence as ironic can actually mislead us. In fact, as King and his white nationalist allies have become increasingly comfortable admitting, state crackdowns on reproductive and immigrant rights are inextricably linked.

In other words, she’s essentially asserting that Republicans are evil and want to kill everyone, but also they are pro-life and that’s super evil as well. If you are struggling to square that circle logically, don’t be too hard on yourself. It makes absolutely no sense.

Here’s the reality. Being pro-life means eliminating abortion for all races. It means more black and Hispanic babies being born, not less. There is absolutely nothing even resembling white supremacy is such a viewpoint. It’s actually the complete opposite. Pro-abortion advocates, on the other hand, are an ally of the white nationalist movement because they largely target minority women and their unborn children.

To assert that being against abortion is actually helping white supremacists is ludicrous on its face. In short, this writer is attempting to link two diametrically opposed ideas simply to cram the circle of her politics into the square of what abortion actually does and who it affects the most.

As you read Brostoff’s piece, it’s lack of any actual citation for her claims is notable. What she’s attempting to do is claim that because white supremacists are concerned with falling birthrates (of white people), that this means all people encouraging more births (of all races) are white supremacists. This is nonsense. It’s like saying that because the Christchurch shooter was concerned about the environment that environmentalism is therefore white supremacy. An idea can be adopted by bad actors. It does not make the idea defined by those bad actors.

Falling birthrates are actually an issue for economies and we’ve seen countries of all different racial makeups encouraging parenthood. That movement has exactly nothing to do with white nationalism and everything to do with nations acting in their own self-interests. If someone wants to argue for abortion and be against governments encouraging more births, fine. But trying to connect that to white supremacy and then claim pro-lifers are white supremacists is disgusting garbage.

To end her piece, Brostoff then smeared J.D. Vance by claiming he was touting white nationalist replacement theory. This despite him clearly spelling out what he was talking about.

J.D. Vance’s wife is a minority and his children are half Asian. The modern woke movement has no room for critical thinking or facts though, so Brostoff ran with her gross insinuation anyway. The Washington Post has since scrubbed that paragraph and offered a correction, no doubt to avoid being sued. What she had originally written was likely actionable defamation.

I’ll end by reiterating that the modern white supremacist movement, however tiny it actually is, is largely pro-abortion. Richard Spencer, for example, supports abortion. Brostoff, whether she wants to accept it or not, is finding far more common cause with racists than pro-lifers are. Her entire piece smacks of looking in the mirror and not liking what she sees. Instead of reflecting on the immorality of her own views though, she sought to project evil on others via illogical nonsense lacking any and all evidence.

While many conservatives on social media acted shocked that the Post would even publish this, I’m not surprised at all. This is who these people are. This is their agenda. We either push back against it vehemently or we collapse under its weight.

————————————————

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

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

The post The Washington Post Smears Pro-Lifers As White Supremacists Because No One Is Safe appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 2zr8u6-1-300x201 The Washington Post Smears Pro-Lifers As White Supremacists Because No One Is Safe the washington post Steve King sanger Pro-Life pro-abortion Politics political planned parenthood media bias J.D. Vance Gross Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Disgusting democrats Brostoff   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Video: Beto Gives Ghoulish, Appalling Answer to Pro-Lifer’s Question About Whether Pre-Born Lives Matter

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeAPimage-620x317 Video: Beto Gives Ghoulish, Appalling Answer to Pro-Lifer’s Question About Whether Pre-Born Lives Matter south carolina Social Media Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post elections Education democrats Culture Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto Allow Media Exception Abortion 2020 Elections 2020

Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke talks to reporters after the first of two Democratic presidential primary debates hosted by CNN Tuesday, July 30, 2019, in the Fox Theatre in Detroit. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)

Democratic candidate Beto O’Rourke made a campaign stop in Charleston, South Carolina on Monday where he gave an answer to a pro-life voter’s question on abortion that was so appalling it honestly speaks for itself, and speaks volumes about the left’s ghoulish position on abortion.

Here’s what the voter asked and how O’Rourke answered (transcribed):

Voter: And someone asked you specifically, specifically about third trimester abortions, and you said that’s a decision left up to the mother. So, my question is this: I was born September 8th, 1989, and I want to know if you think on September 7th, 1989, my life had no value.

Beto: Of course I don’t think that. And of course I’m glad that you’re here. But you referenced my answer in Ohio, and it remains the same. This is a decision that neither you, nor I, nor the United States government should be making. That’s a decision for the woman to make. (the College of Charleston crowd uproariously applauds)

We want her to have the best possible access to care and to a medical provider, and I’ll tell you the consequence of this, this attack on a woman’s right to choose …

Voter interjects: But what about my right to life?

Beto: I listened to you and I heard your question. I’m answering it. And the attack on Roe v. Wade, which we thought was the settled law of the land, and lest we had any illusion that the achievements that we’ve made are protected forever, or that progress is inevitable, that has been shattered right now.

And I want to tell you some of the consequences of this. In my home state of Texas, thanks to these TRAP laws that make it harder for providers to offer the full spectrum of reproductive care, more than a quarter of our family planning clinics have closed. And it has made us one of the epicenters of this maternal mortality crisis because not only can you not get safe, legal access to an abortion, you cannot get access to a cervical cancer screening, or a family planning provider, or — in a state that refused to expand Medicaid — any provider at all, and we are losing the lives of women in our state as a result.

I don’t question the decisions that a woman makes. Only she knows what she knows, and I want to trust her with that. So, I appreciate the question. Thank you. (More applause from the crowd)

Watch video of Beto answering the question below:

What will be completely ignored by the mainstream media regarding his answer and largely ignored by pro-choice Democrats and commentators about it is that Beto basically told the voter, “yes, I’m glad you’re here but I’m also glad your mother had the right to abort you up to the moment of birth and it would have been ok if she did because it’s legal and we should respect her decision.”

Seriously. When you take out all the stock answers about so-called TRAP laws, etc., what he basically told this voter is he exists only because his mother chose to have him and furthermore, that that is completely ok, y’all.

Beto, like other Democrats, likes to paint himself as the moral authority when it comes to which lives matter. He’d have you believe that he thinks all lives matter and should be respected. But here’s the reality: That is not who he is, nor is it what his party is.

Because when it comes to life, they’ve made it clear that unborn lives are not as important as a woman’s “right” to terminate them even if she decides to do it moments before birth.

Think about it.

Related/Flashback –>> Video: Rep. Katie Porter Ghoulishly Explains to ‘Squishy’ Bill Maher His Mom Had the Right to Abort Him

——-
— 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 Video: Beto Gives Ghoulish, Appalling Answer to Pro-Lifer’s Question About Whether Pre-Born Lives Matter appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeAPimage-300x153 Video: Beto Gives Ghoulish, Appalling Answer to Pro-Lifer’s Question About Whether Pre-Born Lives Matter south carolina Social Media Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post elections Education democrats Culture Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto Allow Media Exception Abortion 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com