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 "democrats" (Page 197)

Democrats worry the forthcoming IG report could undercut their Trump investigations

Westlake Legal Group Horowitz Democrats worry the forthcoming IG report could undercut their Trump investigations The Blog Michael Horowitz democrats crossfire hurricane

We’ve been hearing for weeks that Inspector General Michael Horowitz report would be released soon and that it would cast a very different light on elements of the Russia collusion investigation, including the Steele dossier and the behavior of the FBI. Today, Politico reports Democrats are worried the report is going to deliver on those promises and, in the process, wind up undermining their endless investigations of President Trump:

“I don’t think it will throw us off track, but it will certainly give Republicans ammunition to try to divert attention away from the specifics of the Mueller investigation,” said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee…

Democrats, wary of Republicans’ narrative becoming dominant, are preemptively trying to dispel those claims.

“If there’s really a ‘deep state’ within DOJ to tank Donald Trump, then they should’ve revealed in 2016 that they had a counterintelligence investigation ongoing with regard to the Trump campaign,” said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), who sits on the Intelligence and Oversight committees…

“There’s nothing there. It’s a big nothingburger,” Krishnamoorthi added.

It’s a nothingburger, they said nervously. I don’t think that’s likely to be the case. More importantly, Democrats don’t think that’s the case or they wouldn’t be doing their best to dismiss it before it has even been seen by anyone.

Meanwhile, Republican Rep. Mark Meadows thinks the report is going to change the tone in Washington: “Because Inspector General Horowitz is known for calling balls and strikes, any validity that he offers in his report that substantiates some of the things that conservative members have been saying for some time … will change the narrative overnight,” Meadows told Politico.

Meadows has already suggested there is “game-changing” information about the Crossfire Hurricane investigation which will be declassified soon. It’s not clear if that is part of the IG’s report or will be part of a separate investigation launched by AG Barr.

But there’s another reason to assume IG Horowitz’ report will have an impact: His record. Horowitz’ previous report on the Clinton investigation had an impact as did his report on Andrew McCabe, which led to McCabe’s firing. The only way Horowitz’ report won’t have an impact is if he found nothing of import in the past year. And that seems very unlikely. There have already been suggestions that his report will take aim at Christopher Steele and his dossier. We’ll have to wait and see what else it contains but Democrats are right to be worried.

The post Democrats worry the forthcoming IG report could undercut their Trump investigations appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Horowitz-300x153 Democrats worry the forthcoming IG report could undercut their Trump investigations The Blog Michael Horowitz democrats crossfire hurricane   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Infantilization Of Our Youth Continues

Westlake Legal Group E6F3EAF9-A2BB-4B11-9F9D-CFA47ED3F77E-300x199 The Infantilization Of Our Youth Continues Youth Uncategorized republicans Politics maturity Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats cars Automobile safety measures Allow Media Exception
The infantilization of our youth continues.
Who doesn’t remember the day you got your driver’s license? Who doesn’t remember your first car? It won’t be long before a goodly part of America won’t have those memories. Eric Peters over at American Spectator has a great article out today regarding what I like to call the “Mommy effect,” on our young folks. His position is that in the name of safety, we’ve taken away a great learning opportunity for young people on their way to full adulthood. From the article.

You have probably read about the younger crowd being more interested in their cell phones than in cars. The statistic most often cited in support of this claim — which is true — is that about a fourth of those in the 18-30 bracket don’t even have a driver’s license. Which is also true.

And it’s probably on purpose. Most states don’t allow a teenager to get a full driver’s license until he’s almost not a teenager. He’s allowed to drive — but only by himself. Or with an adult (someone over 18) in the car with him. Not with his friends (or his girlfriend). Not at night.

Forget beach week/spring break — unless driven there by mom and dad. Might as well stay home.

And so, they do. Which is just the point. To sever the emotional bond that heretofore formed between teenagers and cars — and driving them — which lasted a lifetime. It’s much easier to get people out of cars when they haven’t got much interest in getting in them.

And it’s working. Peters does a stellar job in outlining the the benefit to both kids and parents the rite of passage getting that first driver’s license entailed. He then goes on to detail all of the restrictions laid on young people who wish to drive. The ultimate effect of this being young people who may be legally adult, but are a long way from being able to make adult decisions, because we’ve infantilized them in the name of safety. Peters wraps up with

The kids lose interest in cars because driving isn’t much fun. Many no longer even bother to get a license because it’s a hassle without much reward.

Can you blame them?

It would be like blaming the veal calf who shows little interest in walking. The blame lies properly at the feet of the infantilizing priests of the Safety Cult, whose motives may be well-intended but which have caused horrendous damage to the national character.
A free country needs people capable of being free adults — and the sooner the better.

Please take the time to look this article over. My modest post really doesn’t do it justice.

Mike Ford writes on Military, Foreign Affairs and occasionally dabbles in Political and Economic matters.

Follow him on Twitter: @MikeFor10394583

You can find his other Red State work here.

The post The Infantilization Of Our Youth Continues appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group E6F3EAF9-A2BB-4B11-9F9D-CFA47ED3F77E-300x199 The Infantilization Of Our Youth Continues Youth Uncategorized republicans Politics maturity Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats cars Automobile safety measures Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

In Hilarious Turn of Events, Vox Employees Walk Out Over Wages After Targeting Steven Crowder

Westlake Legal Group Vox-Credibility-622-620x564 In Hilarious Turn of Events, Vox Employees Walk Out Over Wages After Targeting Steven Crowder youtube walk out wages vox union Steven Crowder schadenfreude Politics Living wage karma hypocrites Hilarious Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story democrats Collective Bargaining carlos maza

If you’ve been on the internet the past two days, you probably know about Vox’s crusade against Steven Crowder. Carlos Maza, host of a silly show called “Strikethrough,” got his feelings hurt over a few jokes and decided it was his duty to try to banish Crowder from YouTube.

In what’s been a confusing back and forth, YouTube has settled on demonetizing Crowder’s channel until he deletes the link to a “socialism is for figs” t-shirt.

(Steven Crowder Live Streams Update on His Situation As Carlos Maza Keeps Freaking Out)

Today, Vox got a break from going after conservative content creators though, and it wasn’t exactly voluntary.

Writers from the site are even telling people not to click on Vox links.

Other employees at Vox took to Twitter to share their stories of not being paid a living wage (by D.C. and NY standards).

Inject this directly into my veins.

Not only is it hilarious to see Vox taking punches internally after they spent the past two days desperately trying to get Steven Crowder banned from YouTube, but it also exposes an incredible hypocritical that exists at the NBC backed outlet.

Vox is as liberal as it gets. They constantly push the idea of a “living wage” and support Democrat politicians who stump for such policies. They are also an outfit that’s had no problem targeting other companies in the past for supposedly not paying enough.

Yet, here they are paying people $30K a year to work in one of the most expensive cities in the country. It’s your typical “do as I say, not as I do” situation that permeates throughout left-wing politics.

I for one support the full unionization of Vox and all left-wing media outlets. Let them actually have to live under the system they promote and we’ll see how far they get.

In the meantime, Steven Crowder has to be laughing his head off at this turn of events.

————————————————-

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 In Hilarious Turn of Events, Vox Employees Walk Out Over Wages After Targeting Steven Crowder appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group seinfeld-laughing-SCREENSHOT-300x161 In Hilarious Turn of Events, Vox Employees Walk Out Over Wages After Targeting Steven Crowder youtube walk out wages vox union Steven Crowder schadenfreude Politics Living wage karma hypocrites Hilarious Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story democrats Collective Bargaining carlos maza   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Prosecutors Refuse to Release Transcript of December 2016 Flynn/Kislyak Call; What Are They Hiding?

Westlake Legal Group MichaelFlynn-620x349 Prosecutors Refuse to Release Transcript of December 2016 Flynn/Kislyak Call; What Are They Hiding? Sergey Kislyak Robert Mueller President Obama Mueller Investigation Michael Flynn Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption donald trump democrats corruption Barack Obama Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power

 

Several weeks ago, Judge Emmet Sullivan, who has presided over the case of General Michael Flynn, requested that Special Counsel prosecutors turn over transcripts of Michael Flynn’s telephone conversations with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak from December 2016.

Last Friday, prosecutors refused to provide the information.

On Tuesday, Sullivan issued the following statement:

Upon consideration of the government’s submissions in response to those orders, the government is not required to file any additional materials or information on the public docket pursuant to the Court’s Orders.

There has been much speculation over why prosecutors have refused to release the transcripts, especially after it came to light last Friday that the Mueller Report had materially mischaracterized the nature of a voicemail from Trump’s attorney, John Dowd, to Michael Flynn’s attorney, Robert Kelner.

It’s been months since Michael Flynn has been in the news. If anyone would like a refresher on the background of the Flynn case, please read the “Back Story.” Others, please scroll down to “Recent Developments.”

Update: It was just reported that Flynn has fired his legal team. My colleague, Streiff, has reported on this story here.

The Back Story:

During the transition period, Flynn held several conversations with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during which the two had discussed Obama’s sanctions. As Flynn had already been tapped to become Trump’s National Security Advisor, it was perfectly legal for Flynn and Kislyak to talk to each other and it was also legal for them to discuss the sanctions. (He was  fired by Trump for lying to Vice President Mike Pence about those conversations.)

Kislyak was under US surveillance and Obama intelligence officials had access to recordings and transcriptions of his calls. Upon hearing the calls, several of Obama’s DOJ officials, believed Flynn was in violation of the Logan Act, a law enacted in 1799, “under which no one has ever been prosecuted, that prohibits private citizens from acting on behalf of the United States in disputes with foreign governments.” The Washington Examiner’s Byron York explains:

The Obama officials also said they were concerned by reports that Flynn, in a conversation with Vice President Mike Pence, had denied discussing sanctions. This, the officials felt, might somehow expose Flynn to Russian blackmail.

So Obama appointees atop the Justice Department sent FBI agents to the White House to interview Flynn, who was ultimately charged with lying in that interview.

Note: Flynn had served as Obama’s Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) from July 2012 to August 2014 when he was “forced out.” The expressed concern by Obama officials that Flynn might become the target of a Russian blackmail scheme was a smokescreen.

PJ Media’s Debra Heine explains:

Throughout his tenure, Flynn “clashed mightily with the Obama administration’s policies on ISIS and the Iran nuclear deal, among other things, which put him at odds with the Obama-friendly deep state.” Following his ouster, Flynn’s public remarks deepened the rift. “For instance, in November 2015 during an appearance on Fox News, Flynn called for an investigation into the ISIS intel-skewing scandal, recommending that it “start right at the top.”

Obama already despised Flynn. But his hate likely turned to fear when his former DIA decided to throw his support behind Donald J. Trump, another boat-rocker who had a real chance of winning. Obama made a point after the 2016 election of advising Trump not to hire Flynn. But Trump didn’t listen.

Next thing Flynn knew, government spies were listening in on his innocuous phone conversations with Kislyak, his name was unmasked by someone in the Obama administration, and the contents of the call were leaked to the Washington Post (which remains the only serious crime to have emerged in the Russia investigation).

Dan Bongino explains the sequence of events on his podcast:

Note: This is a summary of Bongino’s remarks. His podcasts don’t lend themselves to direct quotes.

Bongino discusses Flynn’s opposition to the Iran Deal, that he had information on how dangerous the deal was for the US. Because of this and Flynn’s knowledge of other administration business, “they need to make Flynn go away. He knows too much. He’s got the goods. Obama officials watch Flynn supporting Trump on the campaign trail.” They’re afraid of what he might reveal. Obama spoke to Trump to try to discourage him from hiring Flynn. Trump hires him anyway.

On December 29, 2016, two important incidents occurred. Mike Flynn was vacationing in the Dominican Republic where he did not have secure communications. The Obama team knew this. “Obama needs to do something to piss off the Russians, but not start WWIII” hoping that they will contact Flynn and they do. Obama orders sanctions against Russia and expels 35 diplomats in retaliation for their interference in our election. Why would he do this nearly two months after the election?

As the Obama team hoped, Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak calls Flynn in the Dominican Republic. They discussed the events of the day including the sanctions.

And the Obama team now has a transcript and a recording of the call. They use this later when agents interview Flynn. They know that Flynn will not remember all the details of the call and they will use this in the future to set him up for a “false statement” charge.

On January 12, 2017, an Obama official leaked Flynn’s name and details of his December 29, 2016 call with Kislyak to David Ignatius at the Washington Post who then published a story about it. The identity of the leaker is unknown. Whoever leaked it has committed a felony.

On January 24, 2017, two FBI agents arrive unannounced at the White House to question Flynn, omitting the fact that they were conducting a criminal interview, 

Both agents have said they believed Flynn had been truthful in answering their questions.

Yet, Flynn is later charged with lying to the FBI.

Recent Developments:

It would be extremely beneficial to obtain a copy of the transcript from the December 29, 2016 call. Investigative reporter Sarah Carter believes it could a “game changer.”

Prosecutors are trying to prevent that from happening.

It is noteworthy that the Mueller Report does not contain any information about which intelligence official leaked details of the December 29, 2016 Flynn/Kisylak call (which was classified information) to Ignatius. But then, why would they bother to investigate wrongdoing by members of the deep state?

An intelligence official who has personally seen the transcripts told NPR “they contained “no evidence” of criminal wrongdoing, although the official said it can’t be definitively ruled out. The official also said there was “absolutely nothing” in the transcripts that suggests Flynn was acting under instructions “or that the trail leads higher.”

The official added, “I don’t think [Flynn] knew he was doing anything wrong. Flynn talked about sanctions, but no specific promises were made. Flynn was speaking more in general ‘maybe we’ll take a look at this going forward’ terms.”

The transcripts might contain exculpatory evidence that would benefit Flynn.

Last Friday, we learned that the Mueller Report omitted the critical sentence of a voicemail from Trump’s attorney, John Dowd, to Flynn’s attorney, Robert Kelner. This missing sentence completely altered the meaning of Dowd’s message. The only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that the Mueller team intended to mislead the public.

Dowd appeared on Sean Hannity early this week and said, “Isn’t it ironic that this man [Mueller], who kept indicting and prosecuting people for process crimes, committed a false statement in his own report.” Yes, it is.

And, if prosecutors tried to mislead the public about that voicemail, there is reason to believe the transcripts which prosecutors have refused to hand over to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, may contain information they want to hide. Sullivan formally requested the transcripts on May 16th and prosecutors have refused to release them.

The Special Counsel prosecutors’ “Addendum to the Government’s Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing” stated:

The government further represents that it is not relying on any other recordings of any person, for purposes of establishing the defendant’s guilt or determining his sentence, nor are there any other recordings that are part of the sentencing record.

Okay, we’ll just take your word for it gentlemen, because you’ve proven yourselves to be so trustworthy in the past.

Former DOJ official Joshua Geltzer told The New York Times that “intelligence collection would be a rare step to make public. What you see in today’s filing is the government trying to avoid disclosing that material.”

There have been several oddities surrounding the FBI’s investigation of General Flynn. First, neither of the two FBI agents who interviewed him on January 24, 2017, Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka, thought he was lying about his “recollection of the conversation.” Comey even said this during congressional testimony.

Flynn eventually plead guilty to lying to the FBI. But this was only after he had gone deeply into debt and lost his home due to his mounting legal bills. Some believe that Mueller’s investigators threatened to go after Flynn’s son as well.

It was found that the FBI’s 302 (interview report) was not written until August 22, 2017, seven months after Strzok and Pientka had interviewed Flynn. It is standard FBI protocol for 302 reports to be written with a day or two of speaking with a witness.

Carter suggests comparing the transcripts (if they are released) to the FBI’s 302s to search for discrepancies.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned over the last few years, it’s that Robert Mueller cannot be trusted.

The post Prosecutors Refuse to Release Transcript of December 2016 Flynn/Kislyak Call; What Are They Hiding? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-mike-flynn2-300x264 Prosecutors Refuse to Release Transcript of December 2016 Flynn/Kislyak Call; What Are They Hiding? Sergey Kislyak Robert Mueller President Obama Mueller Investigation Michael Flynn Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption donald trump democrats corruption Barack Obama Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Joe Biden Tries to Play the Middle of the Road Game on Abortion, but Democrats Demand Total Compliance

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenTheView Joe Biden Tries to Play the Middle of the Road Game on Abortion, but Democrats Demand Total Compliance washington D.C. republicans Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Joe Biden Hyde Amendment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Campaigns Bernie Sanders Allow Media Exception Abortion 2020 Elections 2020

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden speaks on ABC’s The View – 4/26/19.

2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden is facing massive backlash from other Democratic candidates over his campaign’s comments earlier this week on where he stands on the Hyde Amendment.

NBC News reports:

Yet his presidential campaign confirmed to NBC News that Biden still supports the Hyde Amendment, a four-decade-old ban on using federal funds for abortion services, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the woman.

Biden’s continued support for Hyde not only sets him apart from the rest of his 2020 Democratic competitors, but it may surprise progressive groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, which promoted a recent tweet by one of its activists appearing to get Biden to commit to ending Hyde during a rope-line exchange in South Carolina. Biden’s campaign told NBC he would be open to repealing Hyde if abortion avenues currently protected under Roe were threatened.

Here’s the exchange Biden had with the woman in South Carolina:

The Biden campaign, in turn, issued this response to the ACLU’s tweet:

Biden misheard the woman on the ropeline and thought she was referring to the Mexico City rule, which prevents federal aid money from going to organizations overseas that perform abortions. He supports the repeal of the Mexico City rule because it prevents critical aid from going to organizations even if abortion is a very small fraction of the work they are doing. He has not at this point changed his position on the Hyde Amendment.

How could he have “misheard” the question? It was as plain as day:

It’s hard to imagine Biden “misheard” the activist: The words “Hyde amendment” don’t sound much like “Mexico City Policy.” What the campaign is trying to say is that the candidate “confused” the two policies. It’s still odd that the campaign waited two weeks after the Washington Post first reported Biden opposes the Hyde amendment to clean up this gaffe.

Other Democratic candidates for president condemned Biden’s postion:

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who has campaigned as an unapologetic feminist, tweeted “reproductive rights are human rights, period. They should be nonnegotiable for all Democrats.” On Capitol Hill, California Sen. Kamala Harris told The Associated Press she was “absolutely opposed to the idea that a woman is not going to have an ability to exercise her choice based on how much money she’s got.”

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, during an MSNBC town hall in Indiana, said Biden was wrong to support the abortion funding restriction. “Women of means will still have access to abortions,” Warren said. “Who won’t will be poor women, will be working women, will be women who can’t afford to take off three days from work.”

Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke said on CBS News that Biden was “absolutely wrong” on his stance on the Hyde Amendment. “I hope that Joe Biden rethinks his position,” O’Rourke said. “Perhaps he doesn’t have all the facts. Perhaps he doesn’t understand who the Hyde Amendment huts the most.”

As part of his new “no middle ground” mantra, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) tweeted out his position on the Hyde Amendment yesterday:

It would appear that Biden is trying to have it both ways on the Hyde Amendment, as part of what he calls his “middle of the road” approach to the abortion issue. While other candidates have said they disagree with him, it’s not likely to matter to Biden who is still far out-polling everyone else.

———————
—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 Joe Biden Tries to Play the Middle of the Road Game on Abortion, but Democrats Demand Total Compliance appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenTheView-300x170 Joe Biden Tries to Play the Middle of the Road Game on Abortion, but Democrats Demand Total Compliance washington D.C. republicans Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Joe Biden Hyde Amendment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Campaigns Bernie Sanders Allow Media Exception Abortion 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Nancy Pelosi Says She Wants to See Trump in Prison, Media Oddly Un-Phased

Westlake Legal Group chuck-schumer-and-nancy-pelosi-responding-to-trum-2-23931-1547040396-4_dblbig-620x412 Nancy Pelosi Says She Wants to See Trump in Prison, Media Oddly Un-Phased prison Politics Politico Nancy Pelosi Lock Him Up lock her up jail impeachment Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story double standards donald trump democrats

Remember the sheer amount of gnashing of teeth that took place throughout 2016 when Republicans would suggest that Hillary Clinton should have been charged for her crimes? Then there were the “lock her up” chants at Trump rallies that really set hair on fire in newsrooms across the country.

Was it a little brash? Sure. But Hillary had clearly violated the law and people were rightly upset that she was being evaluated under a different set of rules.

Enter Nancy Pelosi.

The remarks came in a meeting with Jerry Nadler. Pelosi was actually attempting to rebut calls for impeachment because she knows it will backfire. Now, her new line to sell to the base is that if we don’t impeach now, then Trump can be arrested when he leaves office.

She’s trying desperately to hold back the tide and this latest line is pretty pathetic. If you think he should be in prison, why in the world would you not impeach him? None of this makes sense.

The real question is, will CNN run in terror at her remarks? Will The New York Times write dozens of op-eds letting us know how dangerous this is to our democracy? Nah, of course not.

The double standards at play here are obvious. If a Republican suggests criminal liability against a political opponent, it’s the end of the world and it will spawn hundreds of media reports condemning the action. If a Democrat does it, meh, whatever. Trump is always different.

————————————————-

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 Nancy Pelosi Says She Wants to See Trump in Prison, Media Oddly Un-Phased appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group nancy-pelosi-cbs-this-morning-closeup-SCREENSHOT-300x156 Nancy Pelosi Says She Wants to See Trump in Prison, Media Oddly Un-Phased prison Politics Politico Nancy Pelosi Lock Him Up lock her up jail impeachment Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story double standards donald trump democrats   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Tolerance: San Mateo County Supervisor Launches Shame Campaign to Force Chick-fil-A to Withdraw Expansion Plans

Westlake Legal Group ChickFilAMBStadium Tolerance: San Mateo County Supervisor Launches Shame Campaign to Force Chick-fil-A to Withdraw Expansion Plans Politics North Carolina LGBTQ LGBT gay rights Front Page Stories Front Page First Amendment Featured Story Featured Post Faith democrats Culture & Faith Culture Chick-Fil-A California Allow Media Exception

The Chick-fil-A at Mercedes Benz Stadium in Atlanta, GA. Screen grab via CFA.

Inspired by the success of the San Antonio city council banning Chick-fil-A from opening a location at their airport, and a Democratic state lawmaker’s successful push to get the restaurant banned from the Buffalo Niagara International Airport, a San Mateo County supervisor has come up with a plan he thinks will stop the company’s expansion in Redwood City, CA.

The San Mateo Daily Journal reports:

“Chick-fil-A’s values don’t represent our values,” said San Mateo County Supervisor David Canepa. “The logo might as well say ‘we hate gay people.”

[…]

Canepa hopes for a similar outcome [to San Antonio and Buffalo] in San Mateo County and plans to write a letter to the company discouraging it from setting up shop in Redwood City.

“I expect demonstrations and protests,” he said. “My goal ultimately is that they withdraw their permit and not do business in San Mateo County.”

Unlike the Buffalo and San Antonio locations that came under fire, the one in Redwood City would be on private property:

The Georgia-based purveyor of chicken sandwiches has obtained city approval for renovations and will replace the McDonald’s at 536 Whipple Ave., city spokeswoman Meghan Horrigan confirmed last week.

Another local official is in agreement with Canepa that the proposed location is not welcome in San Mateo county:

Craig Wiesner, sits on the San Mateo County LGBTQ Commission, said the community should stand up to the company.

“I don’t think that we should necessarily be regulating what businesses can open in Redwood City, but I do think that as a community, we can stand up and say we don’t want this particular business which has taken a very open stand against LGBTQ people and spent millions of dollars against us at the heart of our county,” Wiesner said.

Canepa told KPIX 5 that “When people think of the Chick-fil-A logo — what they think of is anti-LGBTQ.”

Literally nobody thinks about this outside of concern-trolling social justice warrior types and their authoritarian government allies who have nothing better to do with their time than to try to force private businesses to conform to their belief system – or else.

I get that Canepa is not using his position as a county supervisor to get the county to ban the restaurant from opening, but he IS using his position to whip up phony outrage and essentially shame the company into withdrawing their expansion plans – all because he disagrees with the owner’s personal beliefs.

That is a key point in all of this anti-Chick-fil-A madness, I think. There is zero evidence – nada, none – that the company discriminates against the LGBTQ company in its hiring practices. But because the owner of the chain is personally opposed to gay marriage, he should be outed, shamed, and – ultimately – forced out of business.

What will happen if Chick-fil-A doesn’t comply with Canepa’s letter encouraging them to withdraw their plans? Will government force be the next step? It doesn’t appear that local media outlets have asked him that question, but they should.

———————
—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 Tolerance: San Mateo County Supervisor Launches Shame Campaign to Force Chick-fil-A to Withdraw Expansion Plans appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ChickFilAMBStadium-300x171 Tolerance: San Mateo County Supervisor Launches Shame Campaign to Force Chick-fil-A to Withdraw Expansion Plans Politics North Carolina LGBTQ LGBT gay rights Front Page Stories Front Page First Amendment Featured Story Featured Post Faith democrats Culture & Faith Culture Chick-Fil-A California Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

New Poll Shows Vulnerabilities for Trump, GOP in Texas

A new Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday shows former Vice President Joe Biden and a number of the other top Democratic presidential candidates within the margin of error with President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential race in Texas. It’s over a year before the election, and there are fair questions to ask about some details regarding the polling sample, but the results of this poll show some real vulnerabilities for Texas Republicans all down the ballot.

According to Quinnipiac’s polling memo, the poll was conducted by telephone using landline and cell numbers from May 29 through June 4, using live interviewers who spoke English or Spanish according to the respondents’ preference. They spoke to 1,159 self-identified registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.4 percent for the overall sample. Additional questions were directed at the 407 Democratic or Democratic leaning voters regarding the Democratic presidential primary. For those questions, the margin of error was +/- 5.8 percent.

When asked about party identification, 34 percent said Republican, 30 percent said Democrat, 25 percent said Independent, and 10 percent said other.

The respondents were asked who they preferred, one at a time, between Trump and various Democrats:

  • Former Vice President Joe Biden 48 percent to Trump 44 percent;
  • Trump at 46 percent to Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 45 percent;
  • Trump at 47 percent to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders at 44 percent;
  • Trump at 48 percent to former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke with 45 percent;
  • Trump with 46 percent to South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s 44 percent;
  • Trump at 47 percent to California Sen. Kamala Harris at 43 percent;
  • Trump with 46 percent to former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro at 43 percent.

Remember, the margin of error for the overall sample is 3.4 percent, so Biden’s 4 point advantage over Trump is just barely above that. The rest of these contests range between 2 and 4 points separating the candidates, leading Quinnipiac to characterize the races as “too-close-to-call,” especially at this early date.

Among the Democratic respondents, 30 percent preferred Biden, 16 percent O’Rourke, 15 percent Sanders, 11 percent Warren, 4 percent each for Harris and Castro, and 3 percent for Buttigieg. No other Democrat received more than 2 percent.

In general, the partisan breakdown of the polling sample is fair for Texas. It would be helpful to see additional information about the precise geographic breakdown of the location of the voters — specifically the urban vs. rural breakdown, a critically important factor in elections in Texas — but in general this is not far off from 2018 when O’Rourke challenged Sen. Ted Cruz for Texas’ Senate seat.

In that race, Democrats watched O’Rourke come tantalizingly close to breaking their long Lone Star State losing streak — a little more than two hundred thousand votes out of over eight million cast separated the candidates (Cruz 50.9 percent to O’Rourke 48.3 percent) — but the race brought national press attention and donor funds pouring into Texas, and that had consequences for down ballot races.

“The longer Democrats can keep saying, ‘Texas is in play,’ the more money is going to get spent here and the more Democrats here that are going to get energized,” said Derek Ryan, an Austin-based political consultant. “While Texas may not go blue in the presidential race, that could spell disaster for several congressional races and many more down further on the ballot.”

In 2018, O’Rourke out-raised Cruz, hauling in about $70.2 million to Cruz’s $40.2 million. A significant portion of that money was spent on get-out-the-vote efforts that benefitted Democrats running for Congressional and state legislative seats.

The Texas Congressional delegation saw two of its Republican members knocked out in 2018: Rep. John Culberson and Rep. Pete Sessions, and Rep. Will Hurd saw the results of his race take days to settle, finally retaining his seat by less than a thousand votes.

In the Texas Legislature, Republicans maintained majority control in both the Senate and House, but saw their numbers diminish, losing State Sens. Konni Burton and Don Huffines, State Reps. Paul Workman and Ron Simmons, and a number of other races nerve-wrackingly close.

“You had numerous Republican congressional and legislative candidates who squeaked by with less than 55% in 2018,” observed Ryan. “There are enough of those races in the Texas House to where if things go really bad, Democrats could take over the House.”

Ryan broke down the 2018 Texas numbers, noting that in 2018 there were six Republicans elected to Congress with less than 52 percent of the vote, and another four who were elected with between 52 percent and 55 percent. In the Texas House, there were nine Republicans elected with less than 52 percent and an additional ten who were elected with between 52 percent and 55 percent. If nine of those swing D in 2020, Democrats take the majority.

One final tidbit from the poll: O’Rourke, who was the Democrats’ great hope in 2018, still has high favorability among Texas Democrats, but they do not want him to be president. An overwhelming 60 percent to 27 percent of the Democrats and Democratic leaners in the poll said they preferred that O’Rourke challenge the Republican incumbent Sen. John Cornyn for his seat in 2020 rather than continue running for president.

Read my RedState article archive here.

Follow Sarah Rumpf on Twitter: @rumpfshaker.

The post New Poll Shows Vulnerabilities for Trump, GOP in Texas appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-1-28-300x169 New Poll Shows Vulnerabilities for Trump, GOP in Texas Texas Ted Cruz republicans Quinnipiac Poll polls Politics Joe Biden Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats Beto O'Rourke Allow Media Exception 2020 election 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Anti-Trumper George Will: Democrats may simply be too weird to win next year

Westlake Legal Group gw Anti-Trumper George Will: Democrats may simply be too weird to win next year Trump The Blog republican party George Will democrats cult 2020

First he comes out against impeachment, now he’s kinda sorta predicting a Trump victory in 2020.

He’ll be on the MAGA Train before you know it.

Well, no, that’s unlikely. His summary of the dilemma Democrats are creating for voters with their more outlandish policy proposals suggests otherwise: “Do I stick with the doofus I’ve got or pick the doofus I don’t know?” They’re likely to stick with the doofus they know, he reasons. Are they, though? The 2016 election posed the same dilemma, after all. Hillary wasn’t an incumbent but her party was, and she’d spent enough time in power as a senator and Secretary of State for Americans to have formed a very good idea of what they’d be getting if they made her president. They went with the doofus they don’t know instead. They wanted a change from the status quo. Why would this time be different?

I wonder if, paradoxically, the sitting president might end up as the “doofus you don’t know” in this election too. The reason Democrats are rolling out so many radical policy proposals is to distinguish themselves in a very crowded field. By the time the nomination’s decided, the nominee will have staked out a lot of policy terrain, much of it unstable. One of Trump’s defining features in the 2016 campaign, though, was that he didn’t bother with a lot of different policy proposals, choosing instead to fashion his brand out of a few memorably bold ideas — build the wall, revisit trade deals, no foreign interventions. He remains hugely unpredictable as president apart from those few issues. No one would be surprised if he reached a deal with Democrats on a $2 trillion infrastructure bill; no one would be very surprised either if deficit hawks prevailed upon him to tackle entitlements in his second term. (A little surprised, sure.) He’s malleable on most things. So which candidate realistically is apt to be the doofus you know and which the doofus you don’t come next November?

Maybe it depends on whether Biden is the nominee or not. If he is, Trump might try to run a replay of 2016 in which he, the incumbent, remains the change agent on the ballot opposed to the neoliberal conventional wisdom that governed America for years, embodied by Biden. Whereas if it’s Bernie or Warren as nominee, maybe Trump follows Will’s instincts here and gambles that Americans won’t want to elect two wildly different change agents in successive elections. In that case he’d position himself as a pillar of stability and a bulwark against radical transformation. Although I’m probably overthinking it, just as Will is overthinking it. Trump’s personality dominates American politics so totally that it’s hard to imagine the election ultimately being anything but a referendum on him. Which may be why Bernie and the rest feel so comfortable getting crazy with the policy cheez whiz in the primaries: In the end, everyone’s vote will come down to how they feel about Trump, not the Democrat.

The post Anti-Trumper George Will: Democrats may simply be too weird to win next year appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group gw-300x159 Anti-Trumper George Will: Democrats may simply be too weird to win next year Trump The Blog republican party George Will democrats cult 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

CNN Is Really Upset that Scot Peterson Got Arrested Over His Cowardice During the Parkland Shooting

Westlake Legal Group don-lemon-chris-cuomo-SCREENSHOT-620x330 CNN Is Really Upset that Scot Peterson Got Arrested Over His Cowardice During the Parkland Shooting Scott Israel Scot Peterson Politics Parkland Shooting media bias low ratings Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story dumpster fire Don Lemon democrats CNN Chris Cuomo Broward County arrested

You can always count on CNN to be on the wrong side of every issue and their response to Scot Peterson being arrested for his cowardice (among other things) during the Parkland shooting is no exception.

While there are questions about whether Peterson has legal liability, there’s no doubt he was a primary factor in so many children being killed that day. He sat idly by as a gunman walked around the school shooting people when it was his job to respond with force.

To give you an idea of CNN’s bias on this issue, Chris Cillizza once notably quipped on Twitter that a “good guy with a gun doesn’t always stop a bad guy.” This echoed CNN’s softball treatment of Sheriff Scott Israel at a town hall where they instead savaged Dana Loesch, who had nothing to do with the shooting.

In reality, Peterson wasn’t a “good guy with a gun.” He was a guy who failed to do his job and cost people their lives as a result.

Now that some action is finally being taken, how does CNN respond? By getting Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon together to moan at the fact that Peterson is being held accountable.

I can’t imagine why these guys are running behind The Hallmark Channel in prime time.

I’m not sure his characterization of “only in America” is correct, but let’s assume it is. There’s a reason we are the most prosperous, powerful country in human history. It’s not because we take our pointers from other countries who do stupid, illiberal things in response to tragedies. New Zealand’s response to the Christchurch shooting was irrational and emotional. So far, we’ve chosen to take a more logical path of not putting into place more laws that won’t actually help matters.

The most direct link to the capacity of the shooter to do what he did, at the level he did was Peterson’s inaction. Yet, Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon are upset that something is being done about that.

Why? Because they didn’t get their pet gun laws passed as a result of the shooting. The crisis “went to waste,” in the words of Rahm Emmanuel. It didn’t matter that nothing they were pushing would have made a difference. Politics was the primary driver of CNN’s coverage and reaction.

Cuomo is an expert at non sequiturs. He’s always playing false choices against each other and shamelessly pushing his personal politics.

From what I can tell, most of the surviving victims of the shooting are happy Peterson is being charged. Cuomo might want to think before he talks next time, because in this case, he chose to defend a person who got people killed just to shill for his own political positions. That’s not a good look at all.

————————————————-

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

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

The post CNN Is Really Upset that Scot Peterson Got Arrested Over His Cowardice During the Parkland Shooting appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group cuomo-lemon-felons-voting-300x152 CNN Is Really Upset that Scot Peterson Got Arrested Over His Cowardice During the Parkland Shooting Scott Israel Scot Peterson Politics Parkland Shooting media bias low ratings Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story dumpster fire Don Lemon democrats CNN Chris Cuomo Broward County arrested   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com