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 > Posts tagged "Allow Media Exception" (Page 26)

Hillary ‘Believe All Women’ Clinton Pressured Ronan Farrow To Spike Weinstein Story

Westlake Legal Group ap-clinton-speech-620x483 Hillary ‘Believe All Women’ Clinton Pressured Ronan Farrow To Spike Weinstein Story Woody Allen Ted Frank Ronan Farrow Popular Culture Politics Hollywood Hillary Clinton harvey weinstein Front Page Stories Featured Story Culture Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton reacts after giving an address on national security, Thursday, June 2, 2016, in San Diego, Calif. (AP Photo/John Locher)

 

Washington attorney, activist and writer Ted Frank tweeted this morning that “Hillary put pressure on Ronan Farrow to spike Weinstein story. (In contrast, Woody Allen refused.)”

In his new book, Ronan Farrow reveals that former film producer Harvey Weinstein tried to use his long-time relationship with Hillary Clinton to pressure him into spiking the Weinstein’s scoop.

Frank’s tweet includes the following excerpt:

In summer 2017, while Farrow was trying to lock down an interview with Clinton for his foreign policy book – while also still working on the Weinstein story – he received a call from Clinton’s publicist, Nick Merrill, who told him that the “big story”  Farrow was working on was a “concern for us.” Then, in September 2017, according to an email cited in the book, Weinstein wrote to Deborah Turness, the ex-president of NBC News who now runs NBC News International, to propose a docuseries on Clinton. “Your Hillary doc series sounds absolutely stunning,” Turness responded.

Weinstein’s tentacles even stretched to Farrow’s own estranged father. Days before the Times story broke, Weinstein is said to have called Allen on a film set in Central Park, soliciting advice about how to deal with his son. Allen declined. “Jeez. I’m so sorry. Good luck.”

So, why would Hillary Clinton, who often repeated that all women must be believed, go to bat for the notorious Harvey Weinstein? I guess for the same reasons she didn’t believe Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, or Kathleen Willey. It didn’t serve her purposes. She’s not exactly one who is known for her principles.

Several days ago, she expected people to believe her when she said the gutsiest thing she ever did was to stay in her marriage.

Actually, a woman with any self-respect would have quietly left him and moved on. But, had she done so, she wouldn’t have had the Clinton machine behind her as she ran for the Senate in 2000. Nor would she have it for any of her future political endeavors.

No Hill, sorry, not buying it.

Even Woody Allen has higher principles than Hillary Clinton.

The post Hillary ‘Believe All Women’ Clinton Pressured Ronan Farrow To Spike Weinstein Story appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-clinton-speech-300x234 Hillary ‘Believe All Women’ Clinton Pressured Ronan Farrow To Spike Weinstein Story Woody Allen Ted Frank Ronan Farrow Popular Culture Politics Hollywood Hillary Clinton harvey weinstein Front Page Stories Featured Story Culture Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Hillary ‘Believe All Women’ Clinton Pressured Ronan Farrow To Spike Weinstein Story

Westlake Legal Group ap-clinton-speech-620x483 Hillary ‘Believe All Women’ Clinton Pressured Ronan Farrow To Spike Weinstein Story Woody Allen Ted Frank Ronan Farrow Popular Culture Politics Hollywood Hillary Clinton harvey weinstein Front Page Stories Featured Story Culture Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton reacts after giving an address on national security, Thursday, June 2, 2016, in San Diego, Calif. (AP Photo/John Locher)

 

Washington attorney, activist and writer Ted Frank tweeted this morning that “Hillary put pressure on Ronan Farrow to spike Weinstein story. (In contrast, Woody Allen refused.)”

In his new book, Ronan Farrow reveals that former film producer Harvey Weinstein tried to use his long-time relationship with Hillary Clinton to pressure him into spiking the Weinstein’s scoop.

Frank’s tweet includes the following excerpt:

In summer 2017, while Farrow was trying to lock down an interview with Clinton for his foreign policy book – while also still working on the Weinstein story – he received a call from Clinton’s publicist, Nick Merrill, who told him that the “big story”  Farrow was working on was a “concern for us.” Then, in September 2017, according to an email cited in the book, Weinstein wrote to Deborah Turness, the ex-president of NBC News who now runs NBC News International, to propose a docuseries on Clinton. “Your Hillary doc series sounds absolutely stunning,” Turness responded.

Weinstein’s tentacles even stretched to Farrow’s own estranged father. Days before the Times story broke, Weinstein is said to have called Allen on a film set in Central Park, soliciting advice about how to deal with his son. Allen declined. “Jeez. I’m so sorry. Good luck.”

So, why would Hillary Clinton, who often repeated that all women must be believed, go to bat for the notorious Harvey Weinstein? I guess for the same reasons she didn’t believe Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, or Kathleen Willey. It didn’t serve her purposes. She’s not exactly one who is known for her principles.

Several days ago, she expected people to believe her when she said the gutsiest thing she ever did was to stay in her marriage.

Actually, a woman with any self-respect would have quietly left him and moved on. But, had she done so, she wouldn’t have had the Clinton machine behind her as she ran for the Senate in 2000. Nor would she have it for any of her future political endeavors.

No Hill, sorry, not buying it.

Even Woody Allen has higher principles than Hillary Clinton.

The post Hillary ‘Believe All Women’ Clinton Pressured Ronan Farrow To Spike Weinstein Story appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-clinton-speech-300x234 Hillary ‘Believe All Women’ Clinton Pressured Ronan Farrow To Spike Weinstein Story Woody Allen Ted Frank Ronan Farrow Popular Culture Politics Hollywood Hillary Clinton harvey weinstein Front Page Stories Featured Story Culture Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Court Is in Session – Part I

October brings with it so many good things: Playoff baseball (go, Cards!), hockey (go, Blues!), football (go, Packers!), brilliant fall colors, pumpkin everything…and for SCOTUS geeks like me, the beginning of a new term for the Court. Oral arguments for the October sitting began Monday and continued yesterday, with eight more slated to be heard next week. This term promises to include some controversial topics and fascinating decisions, both in terms of outcome and alignments among the justices. Following is a quick rundown of the cases heard Monday. We’ll have a separate rundown of Tuesday’s cases and follow that with an overview of what we can expect to see going forward.

On Monday, the Court heard oral argument in Kahler v. Kansas, a case involving the insanity defense. In 1995, Kansas abolished insanity as an affirmative defense, enacting a law that, instead, allows for a criminal defendant to assert that he was unable to form the requisite intent to commit the crime due to mental illness.  James Kahler shot and killed his estranged wife, her grandmother, and his two teenage daughters in 2009. Kahler was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. His sentence was upheld by the Kansas Supreme Court. Kahler contends that the Kansas law which prevented him from raising an insanity defense violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Amy Howe over at SCOTUSblog (an invaluable resource for SCOTUS junkies) provided a thorough post-argument analysis here.  The transcript of the argument can be found here.

Next up was Ramos v. Louisiana, a case involving the question of whether the Sixth Amendment a) requires a unanimous verdict in a criminal case; and b) is incorporated to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. This might not seem like an earth-shattering sort of thing. However, this case could shape up to be a game-changer.  At the heart of the dispute is the 1972 Supreme Court Case of Apodaca v. Oregon, which involved a divided court decision: four of the justices took the position that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee the right to a unanimous verdict at all, while four others contended it guaranteed it both at the federal and the state level. Justice Lewis Powell split the difference and asserted that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a unanimous verdict in federal criminal cases but not in state cases.  Ramos, the defendant in the current case, was convicted of second-degree murder by a 10-2 jury verdict.  Louisiana is one of only two states that, prior to 2019, that followed the non-unanimity rule (Oregon being the other one.) That rule was repealed by Louisiana voters in 2018 and the unanimity requirement went into effect for all crimes committed on or after January 1, 2019. (The crime for which Ramos was convicted occurred in 2014.) What is truly fascinating about this case is that during the argument the liberal wing of the Court appeared to be pushing back the hardest against the defense position (which would require overruling Apodaca – possibly signaling concern about disregard for stare decisis and the “sanctity” of Roe v. Wade, particularly in light of Louisiana abortion cases looming.)  Catch a full analysis of the argument here and the transcript here.

Also on Monday, the Court heard argument in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., a case involving the award of attorney fees for appeals of patent application denials. This one’s a bit on the drier side, but interesting nonetheless, since it involves a close look at the “American Rule,” which presumes that losing litigants should not be compelled to pay the winning side’s attorney’s fees. What’s unusual about this case is that it involves a process under Section 145 of the Patent Act which compels the party appealing the patent application denial to pay for the other side’s (i.e., the Patent & Trademark Office’s) “expenses” regardless of whether the appeal is successful or fails.  Until recently, “expenses” were thought to include only out-of-pocket expenses, such as copying fees and travel. The PTO has now interpreted that to include attorney fees and other attendant expenses. Ronald Mann’s analysis of the argument can be found here. The transcript is here.

Stay tuned for our next installment – a review of the cases heard by the Court yesterday.  (Talk about controversial!)

 


Follow me on Twitter @SmoosieQ

Find my RedState archive here.

 

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

Westlake Legal Group SupremeCourtSCOTUS-300x153 The Court Is in Session – Part I Supreme Court SCOTUS Judicial Front Page Stories Front Page Fourteenth Amendment Criminal Justice Reform crime Courts Constitution Allow Media Exception 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Rand Paul Stands Almost Alone On Backing Troop Withdrawal From Syria

Westlake Legal Group rand-paul-AP-620x413 Rand Paul Stands Almost Alone On Backing Troop Withdrawal From Syria Turkey Syria Rand Paul President Trump libertarian Kurds International Affairs Human Rights Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump Conservatives Congress Allow Media Exception

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks during an event at the University of Chicago’s Ida Noyes Hall in Chicago on Tuesday, April 22, 2014. (AP Photo/Andrew A. Nelles)

As Turkey launches “Operation Peace Spring” with the goal of preventing what they call a “terror corridor” along the Southern border of the country, those who did not support the U.S.’s decision to slowly move troops out of Syria are held in contrast to the Senator who stands almost completely alone in backing President Trump’s move in the region: Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul.

Republicans who worry removal of troops might create a situation leading to an emboldened ISIS also claim concern for Kurdish fighters in the region who have fought alongside U.S. troops to battle terrorists.

Trump’s decision, which he correctly reminds the nation is one he ran on, is being viewed favorably by Paul, who, as a libertarian, prefers a more isolationist foreign policy.

The Kentucky Republican has been pushing Trump to take a less interventionist foreign policy approach for nearly three years, much to the chagrin and discomfort of most Republicans in Congress. And in the face of near unanimous condemnation from both parties in the wake of Trump’s Syria move, Paul is stepping in as the most vociferous defender of the president’s move and a notable beneficiary of his efforts to build an alliance with Trump after their ugly 2016 campaign attacks against each other.

With Republicans and Democrats alike piling on Trump and raising concerns that his decision could lead to Turkish attacks on U.S. Kurdish allies and a resurgence of ISIS, Paul declared that “most Americans would actually agree with President Trump that this is not a war that has our national interest at stake.”

“These are the people that have never met a war they didn’t like and have never met a war they wanted to end,” Paul told reporters on Tuesday afternoon, singling out the Cheney family as part of their long-running feud with Paul. “They’ve been wrong about everything in foreign policy for the last several decades.”

Paul has engaged in foreign policy twitter disputes with GOP Rep. Liz Cheney (MT) of late, accusing her father Dick Cheney, former Vice President under George W. Bush, of the same warmonger spirit he says he sees with the “war caucus.”

As Turkey made its announcement of their intent to secure the southern border, reports of air strikes began leaking out noting Turkish jets “began pounding suspected positions of Syrian Kurdish forces in the town of Ras al Ayn, the Associated Press reported, citing Turkish media and Syrian activists.”

The post Rand Paul Stands Almost Alone On Backing Troop Withdrawal From Syria appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group syrian-kurds-300x153 Rand Paul Stands Almost Alone On Backing Troop Withdrawal From Syria Turkey Syria Rand Paul President Trump libertarian Kurds International Affairs Human Rights Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump Conservatives Congress Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Court Is in Session – Part I

October brings with it so many good things: Playoff baseball (go, Cards!), hockey (go, Blues!), football (go, Packers!), brilliant fall colors, pumpkin everything…and for SCOTUS geeks like me, the beginning of a new term for the Court. Oral arguments for the October sitting began Monday and continued yesterday, with eight more slated to be heard next week. This term promises to include some controversial topics and fascinating decisions, both in terms of outcome and alignments among the justices. Following is a quick rundown of the cases heard Monday. We’ll have a separate rundown of Tuesday’s cases and follow that with an overview of what we can expect to see going forward.

On Monday, the Court heard oral argument in Kahler v. Kansas, a case involving the insanity defense. In 1995, Kansas abolished insanity as an affirmative defense, enacting a law that, instead, allows for a criminal defendant to assert that he was unable to form the requisite intent to commit the crime due to mental illness.  James Kahler shot and killed his estranged wife, her grandmother, and his two teenage daughters in 2009. Kahler was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. His sentence was upheld by the Kansas Supreme Court. Kahler contends that the Kansas law which prevented him from raising an insanity defense violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Amy Howe over at SCOTUSblog (an invaluable resource for SCOTUS junkies) provided a thorough post-argument analysis here.  The transcript of the argument can be found here.

Next up was Ramos v. Louisiana, a case involving the question of whether the Sixth Amendment a) requires a unanimous verdict in a criminal case; and b) is incorporated to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. This might not seem like an earth-shattering sort of thing. However, this case could shape up to be a game-changer.  At the heart of the dispute is the 1972 Supreme Court Case of Apodaca v. Oregon, which involved a divided court decision: four of the justices took the position that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee the right to a unanimous verdict at all, while four others contended it guaranteed it both at the federal and the state level. Justice Lewis Powell split the difference and asserted that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a unanimous verdict in federal criminal cases but not in state cases.  Ramos, the defendant in the current case, was convicted of second-degree murder by a 10-2 jury verdict.  Louisiana is one of only two states that, prior to 2019, that followed the non-unanimity rule (Oregon being the other one.) That rule was repealed by Louisiana voters in 2018 and the unanimity requirement went into effect for all crimes committed on or after January 1, 2019. (The crime for which Ramos was convicted occurred in 2014.) What is truly fascinating about this case is that during the argument the liberal wing of the Court appeared to be pushing back the hardest against the defense position (which would require overruling Apodaca – possibly signaling concern about disregard for stare decisis and the “sanctity” of Roe v. Wade, particularly in light of Louisiana abortion cases looming.)  Catch a full analysis of the argument here and the transcript here.

Also on Monday, the Court heard argument in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., a case involving the award of attorney fees for appeals of patent application denials. This one’s a bit on the drier side, but interesting nonetheless, since it involves a close look at the “American Rule,” which presumes that losing litigants should not be compelled to pay the winning side’s attorney’s fees. What’s unusual about this case is that it involves a process under Section 145 of the Patent Act which compels the party appealing the patent application denial to pay for the other side’s (i.e., the Patent & Trademark Office’s) “expenses” regardless of whether the appeal is successful or fails.  Until recently, “expenses” were thought to include only out-of-pocket expenses, such as copying fees and travel. The PTO has now interpreted that to include attorney fees and other attendant expenses. Ronald Mann’s analysis of the argument can be found here. The transcript is here.

Stay tuned for our next installment – a review of the cases heard by the Court yesterday.  (Talk about controversial!)

 


Follow me on Twitter @SmoosieQ

Find my RedState archive here.

 

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

Westlake Legal Group SupremeCourtSCOTUS-300x153 The Court Is in Session – Part I Supreme Court Sixth Amendment SCOTUS Patent Law october Judicial Incorporation Doctrine Front Page Stories Front Page Fourteenth Amendment Criminal Justice Reform crime Courts Constitution Allow Media Exception 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Lindsey Graham Draws Senate Battle Lines Against Pelosi On Impeachment

Westlake Legal Group lindsey-graham-pointing-620x413 Lindsey Graham Draws Senate Battle Lines Against Pelosi On Impeachment Ukraine Senate republicans Politics Nancy Pelosi Lindsey Graham impeachment gop Front Page Stories donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception

Lindsey Graham by Gage Skidmore, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original

Leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham, is making it clear to Democrat leadership that if they attempt to impeach President Donald Trump over his call with Ukraine.

According to The Hill, Graham appeared on “Fox and Friends” and reaffirmed that the GOP doesn’t believe the phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president was anything impeachable, and that she can forget about Republican support in the Senate:

Graham, in an appearance on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends,” said that he was going to ask other Senate Republicans to sign a letter to Pelosi saying that they “do not believe the transcript of the phone call between the president and the Ukraine is an impeachable offense.”

“They’re about to destroy the nation for no good reason,” Graham said. “And I want Nancy Pelosi to know that Republican senators are not going to impeach this president based on this transcript, so she can stop now before she destroys the country.”

Graham has been making it absolutely clear from day one that the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had no quid-pro-quo attached to it, and that the Democratic circus surrounding it was a “sham.”

He also said that the whistleblower complaint that began this controversy was all hearsay, and that a president wouldn’t be impached on hearsay as along as he was around.

(Watch: Lindsey Graham Buries Any Hope That Dems Will Impeach Trump On Whistleblower “Sham”)

He later said that to impeach a president over this phone call would be “insane.”

At this time, Democrats are still in their “impeachment inquiry” phase. It seems to be moving rather slowly and despite there being support from Democrats for it, its leadership has seemed more than a little wary on the subject. However, while Democrats are rallying behind the strategy of impeachment, Republicans have been raising millions of dollars off of it.

In fact, only 24 hours after the impeachment announcement, Trump raised $5 million from small donations.

The post Lindsey Graham Draws Senate Battle Lines Against Pelosi On Impeachment appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group lindsey-graham-pointing-300x200 Lindsey Graham Draws Senate Battle Lines Against Pelosi On Impeachment Ukraine Senate republicans Politics Nancy Pelosi Lindsey Graham impeachment gop Front Page Stories donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Court Is in Session – Part I

October brings with it so many good things: Playoff baseball (go, Cards!), hockey (go, Blues!), football (go, Packers!), brilliant fall colors, pumpkin everything…and for SCOTUS geeks like me, the beginning of a new term for the Court. Oral arguments for the October sitting began Monday and continued yesterday, with eight more slated to be heard next week. This term promises to include some controversial topics and fascinating decisions, both in terms of outcome and alignments among the justices. Following is a quick rundown of the cases heard Monday. We’ll have a separate rundown of Tuesday’s cases and follow that with an overview of what we can expect to see going forward.

On Monday, the Court heard oral argument in Kahler v. Kansas, a case involving the insanity defense. In 1995, Kansas abolished insanity as an affirmative defense, enacting a law that, instead, allows for a criminal defendant to assert that he was unable to form the requisite intent to commit the crime due to mental illness.  James Kahler shot and killed his estranged wife, her grandmother, and his two teenage daughters in 2009. Kahler was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. His sentence was upheld by the Kansas Supreme Court. Kahler contends that the Kansas law which prevented him from raising an insanity defense violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Amy Howe over at SCOTUSblog (an invaluable resource for SCOTUS junkies) provided a thorough post-argument analysis here.  The transcript of the argument can be found here.

Next up was Ramos v. Louisiana, a case involving the question of whether the Sixth Amendment a) requires a unanimous verdict in a criminal case; and b) is incorporated to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. This might not seem like an earth-shattering sort of thing. However, this case could shape up to be a game-changer.  At the heart of the dispute is the 1972 Supreme Court Case of Apodaca v. Oregon, which involved a divided court decision: four of the justices took the position that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee the right to a unanimous verdict at all, while four others contended it guaranteed it both at the federal and the state level. Justice Lewis Powell split the difference and asserted that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a unanimous verdict in federal criminal cases but not in state cases.  Ramos, the defendant in the current case, was convicted of second-degree murder by a 10-2 jury verdict.  Louisiana is one of only two states that, prior to 2019, that followed the non-unanimity rule (Oregon being the other one.) That rule was repealed by Louisiana voters in 2018 and the unanimity requirement went into effect for all crimes committed on or after January 1, 2019. (The crime for which Ramos was convicted occurred in 2014.) What is truly fascinating about this case is that during the argument the liberal wing of the Court appeared to be pushing back the hardest against the defense position (which would require overruling Apodaca – possibly signaling concern about disregard for stare decisis and the “sanctity” of Roe v. Wade, particularly in light of Louisiana abortion cases looming.)  Catch a full analysis of the argument here and the transcript here.

Also on Monday, the Court heard argument in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., a case involving the award of attorney fees for appeals of patent application denials. This one’s a bit on the drier side, but interesting nonetheless, since it involves a close look at the “American Rule,” which presumes that losing litigants should not be compelled to pay the winning side’s attorney’s fees. What’s unusual about this case is that it involves a process under Section 145 of the Patent Act which compels the party appealing the patent application denial to pay for the other side’s (i.e., the Patent & Trademark Office’s) “expenses” regardless of whether the appeal is successful or fails.  Until recently, “expenses” were thought to include only out-of-pocket expenses, such as copying fees and travel. The PTO has now interpreted that to include attorney fees and other attendant expenses. Ronald Mann’s analysis of the argument can be found here. The transcript is here.

Stay tuned for our next installment – a review of the cases heard by the Court yesterday.  (Talk about controversial!)

 


Follow me on Twitter @SmoosieQ

Find my RedState archive here.

 

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

Westlake Legal Group SupremeCourtSCOTUS-300x153 The Court Is in Session – Part I Supreme Court Sixth Amendment SCOTUS Patent Law october Judicial Incorporation Doctrine Front Page Stories Front Page Fourteenth Amendment Criminal Justice Reform crime Courts Constitution Allow Media Exception 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

UN May Run out of Money by the End of the Month

Westlake Legal Group United-Nations-General-Assembly UN May Run out of Money by the End of the Month United Nations Trump Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Economy donald trump democrats Ambassador Nikki Haley Allow Media Exception

Large display monitors show the result of voting from member states during a meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, Wednesday Oct. 26, 2016, at U.N. headquarters. The United States abstained for the first time in 25 years on a U.N. resolution condemning America’s economic embargo against Cuba, a measure it had always vehemently opposed. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)

President Donald Trump caught a lot of flack from media when early onion his tenure, he insisted that NATO members should pay their own way, that the U.S. shouldn’t always have to be carrying the organization when other countries weren’t paying into it according to what they had agreed.

Media called his criticisms an attack on NATO and tried to link it to their Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

But as the Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, later noted, Trump’s tough talk forced other countries to come across and at least up their contributions, thus, in his words, making NATO stronger. He praised Trump’s efforts to get everyone to pay their own way.

From USA Today:

President Donald Trump “is committed to NATO” and deserves credit in obtaining $100 billion more in defense spending for the alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, said Sunday.

“President Trump has been very clear: He is committed to NATO. He stated that clearly just a few days ago and also at the NATO summit in July,” Stoltenberg said on “Fox News Sunday.”

That’s thinking like a Republican and a business person.

Now, let’s compare that with thinking like a Democrat and believing there’s an endless pot of money from which you can plumb.

Let’s look at the news today that the U.N. may run out of money by the end of the month.

From Yahoo:

The United Nations is running a deficit of $230 million, Secretary General Antonio Guterres said on Monday, and may run out of money by the end of October.

In a letter intended for the 37,000 employees at the UN secretariat and obtained by AFP, Guterres said unspecified “additional stop-gap measures” would have to be taken to ensure salaries and entitlements are paid.

“Member States have paid only 70 per cent of the total amount needed for our regular budget operations in 2019. This translates into a cash shortage of $230 million at the end of September. We run the risk of depleting our backup liquidity reserves by the end of the month,” he wrote.

Their response to being $230 million in the red? Maybe now we should cut down on expenses and restrict travel to “only essential activities.” So they were traveling for “non-essential activities” while they were continuing to rack up that deficit?

And unlike Trump, when member states refused to come across with the money they were obligated to pay, the U.N. simply let the members get away with it.

Of course, it’s always been the U.S. who has contributed the most, despite being the state who needs the U.N. the least. The U.S. pays 22 percent of their operating budget which is about $5.4 billion. It’s been the U.S. whose provided them a safe haven here.

Meanwhile their leadership has been staunchly anti-American for years.

The only president who has seemed to care about that, at least recently, has been Trump who has held their feet to the fire and tried to condition aid, and whose last ambassador, Nikki Haley, stood up to their frequent anti-American moves.

If they go under, one has to wonder what would be lost and how that would change the landscape.

The post UN May Run out of Money by the End of the Month appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group United-Nations-General-Assembly-300x162 UN May Run out of Money by the End of the Month United Nations Trump Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Economy donald trump democrats Ambassador Nikki Haley Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

NBA Kicks Out Paying Fans for Bringing Pro-Hong Kong Sign to Sixers Game

Westlake Legal Group nba-620x407 NBA Kicks Out Paying Fans for Bringing Pro-Hong Kong Sign to Sixers Game Sports south park protests Politics NBA Matt Stone and Trey Parker Hong Kong Front Page Stories China Censorship Allow Media Exception 76ers

While the NBA said it won’t censor players and coaches from speaking out freely, apparently they’re not extending that privilege to fans.

According to Philadelphia 76ers fan Sam Wachs, he and his wife were attending a pre-season game against the Guangzhou Loong-Lions of the Chinese Basketball Association at the Wells Fargo Center. Wachs had apparently brought along a sign that read “Free Hong Kong” with them.

According to NBC10, Wachs and his wife were sitting near the Chinese bench when he held up the sign.

Wachs then claims that security came and escorted the couple out after he shouted “Free Hong Kong.”

“We were saying, ‘Free Hong Kong,’’ Wachs told NBC10. “What’s wrong with that?”

This move is already going to make the tarnished reputation of the NBA look even worse. The controversy that inspired Wachs to bring that sign all started when the general manager of the Houston Rockets tweeted his support for the Hong Kong protesters.

China responded by killing the broadcasts of two NBA preseason games and giving a not-so-subtle hint to the NBA that anyone who speaks out against China should be punished in some way.

The NBA responded by saying that it would not censor its players or coaches in light of the fact that it would likely anger China even further.

(READ: The NBA Isn’t Caving To China’s Not-So-Subtle Hint That It Should Censor Players And Coaches)

However, many considered this a bare minimum response and a lukewarm approach to China’s demand for censorship. It would appear that in light of this man’s claim that he was removed from the game, the NBA was only paying lip service to the American people to keep them tuned in.

In truth, many have noted that the response to Chinese demands for censorship from the creators of South Park is the standard route to follow. Matt Stone and Trey Parker not only directly criticized China’s censorship and America’s capitulation to it, but verbally antagonized China with a fake apology after China had wiped any mention of South Park from its media.

(READ: South Park Creators Matt Stone And Trey Parker Gave China The “Apology” It Deserves)

It’s unlikely that the NBA would be as bold as Stone and Parker as there is a lot of money to be made thanks to Chinese markets. However, to the American people, this will be seen as weakness and capitulation to a foreign totalitarian government.

People are willing to tune out of major sports events if it upsets them politically. You can ask the NFL about that.

The post NBA Kicks Out Paying Fans for Bringing Pro-Hong Kong Sign to Sixers Game appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group nba-300x197 NBA Kicks Out Paying Fans for Bringing Pro-Hong Kong Sign to Sixers Game Sports south park protests Politics NBA Matt Stone and Trey Parker Hong Kong Front Page Stories China Censorship Allow Media Exception 76ers   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

ESPN Cowers Like a Scared Dog On Hong Kong

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-1-17-620x354 ESPN Cowers Like a Scared Dog On Hong Kong tweet SCARED Rachel Nichols Politics NBA Morey memo Hong Kong Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story ESPN Deadspin Cowering communists China Allow Media Exception

Earlier in the week, we saw the Houston Rocket’s GM send out a social media post simply encouraging people to support democracy in Hong Kong. That led to the thin-skinned Chinese losing their minds. Worse, it led to the NBA folding like a cheap suit, essentially apologizing to the communist state.

In what was probably one of the only unifying episodes on Twitter in years, the dumpster fire that is the NBA was roundly condemned, but then something amazing happened. ESPN, which has prided itself on its wokeness and speaking political truth to power, suddenly decided they aren’t going to be political anymore. Whatever it takes I guess?

Unfortunately, I have to link to Deadspin here, but their wokeness is at least sincere, so they covered the issue and obtained a memo from ESPN on the matter.

If you paid attention to ESPN channels yesterday, you saw the network repeatedly attempt to grapple with the story of Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey creating an international incident after tweeting and then deleting his support for pro-democracy protestors in Hong Kong. You heard talking head after talking head castigate Morey for sending the tweet, speculation over whether he’d keep his job, speculation about the sincerity of his convictions, discussions about what this meant for the Rockets’ bottom line, the observation that it’s unreasonable to expect for-profit companies like the NBA to act morally, and the non-take that cowing to China is simply the cost of doing business in China.

What you didn’t hear was much discussion about what is actually happening on the ground with protestors in Hong Kong, why they’re protesting, or any other acknowledgment of China’s political situation, past or present.

This could be because Chuck Salituro, the senior news director of ESPN, sent a memo to shows mandating that any discussion of the Daryl Morey story avoid any political discussions about China and Hong Kong, and instead focus on the related basketball issues. The memo, obtained by Deadspin, explicitly discouraged any political discussion about China and Hong Kong. Multiple ESPN sources confirmed to Deadspin that network higher-ups were keeping a close eye on how the topic was discussed on ESPN’s airwaves.

Well, isn’t that convenient. The moment being political means they might have to stand up to the Chinese, they suddenly get cold feet.

This is the same network that compared fighting the transgender bathroom bill in North Carolina to the civil rights movement. It’s the same network that has had multiple, high level personalities personally go after Trump and call him a racist. They have shows dedicated specifically to political takes on sports. They praised Kaepernick’s stunt, and to this day, you’ll find many of them still commenting on how brave and stunning it was.

But standing up for democracy in Hong Kong? That’s a bridge too far I guess.

What this shows is that these people are one-sided cowards. In fact, Rachel Nichols, who made the aforementioned comments on the transgender bathroom issue, did a glowing live spot from China the day after the news broke on Morey’s tweet. No mention of what China had done or that the controversy was brewing. She bowed before her communist masters and their buckets of cash.

Clay Travis, one of the more sane voices in sports, lambasted her, ESPN, and the NBA for it.

What’s so sad here is that even in the face of all this folding, China is still throwing a fit. They pulled all preseason NBA games off the airwaves and stated that free speech doesn’t cover anything that challenges “national sovereignty.”

In conclusion, it’s easy being woke when you are slapping at Trump. Kneeling for the national anthem carries no risks. But when push comes to shove, the wokest among us cower like scared dogs.

————————————————

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 ESPN Cowers Like a Scared Dog On Hong Kong appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group woke-300x170 ESPN Cowers Like a Scared Dog On Hong Kong tweet SCARED Rachel Nichols Politics NBA Morey memo Hong Kong Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story ESPN Deadspin Cowering communists China Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com