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 204)

Legacy Time: Hillary Clinton Selfishly Uses College Commencement Speech to Talk Mueller and Bash Trump, Facebook

Westlake Legal Group HillaryClintonHunterCollege-620x337 Legacy Time: Hillary Clinton Selfishly Uses College Commencement Speech to Talk Mueller and Bash Trump, Facebook Politics North Carolina New York Mueller Investigation Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Education donald trump democrats Culture Allow Media Exception

Hillary Clinton speaks at the Hunter College graduation ceremony in NYC. 5/29/19. Screen grab via NBC News.

Students ready to put years of hard work behind them, celebrate their graduation, and get started on their respective career paths were treated to a blatantly political and self-centered commencement speech given by twice failed candidate for president Hillary Clinton on Wednesday.

The Associated Press reports:

Clinton’s bluntly political speech to members of the class of 2019 at Hunter College was delivered at Madison Square Garden hours after Mueller made his first public comments about his probe into election meddling.

Referencing Mueller’s remarks, Clinton said the allegation that Russians had attempted to sway U.S. voters “deserves the attention of every American,” and she condemned Trump for largely dismissing Mueller’s work as a witch hunt.

“What we’ve seen from the administration is a complete refusal to condemn a foreign power who attacked our democracy,” she said. “We’ve got to deal with what has been investigated and reported.”

[…]

“What do we do when people in positions of authority are not held accountable? When they defy requests from Congress? When they spread misinformation online?” the Democrat said, suggesting it was up to the graduates to find solutions to such problems.

Clinton also took a jab at Facebook:

“When Facebook refused to take down a fake video of Nancy Pelosi, it wasn’t even a close call,” Clinton told the graduates. “The video is sexist trash. And YouTube took it down but Facebook kept it up.”

The former presidential candidate then suggested that a message be sent to Facebook to show opposition to the tech giant’s decision, and she warned that the site would be “flooded” with “false and doctored videos” if nothing happens.

Her full speech can be viewed below:

Twitter users called Clinton out for using the speech to air her personal and political grievances instead of making it about the students:

Some Twitter users pointed out something I noticed, too: Some of the graduates sitting behind Clinton looked visibly bored and agitated:

As I’ve written before when she’s made similar remarks, it’s just really rich to see her of all people complaining about people in positions of authority not being held accountable, especially when you consider how Clinton herself managed to avoid indictment in 2016 in spite of all the evidence against her as it related to her email server scandal.

Clinton’s rationale for continuing to bang the Mueller drum is not just political, it’s personal – very personal. Her loss to Trump in 2016 had to be devastating to her. Very embarrassing, too, considering she was a “sure thing” if you listened to so-called political experts and polling gurus.

Some have called the investigation into Russian interference a “coup attempt” against Trump, but for Hillary, the investigation has been a way for her to soothe her bruised ego over the fact she was defeated. She’s convinced herself that without the interference she would have won the election.

The students at Hunter College deserved a speech that was centered around them, their accomplishments, and their futures, not a political bashfest with insinuations about what could have been for her in 2016. Clinton’s defenders will call this her greatest speech ever, but in reality this was not a good look for her. Not good a good look at all.

————
—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 Legacy Time: Hillary Clinton Selfishly Uses College Commencement Speech to Talk Mueller and Bash Trump, Facebook appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group HillaryClintonHunterCollege-300x163 Legacy Time: Hillary Clinton Selfishly Uses College Commencement Speech to Talk Mueller and Bash Trump, Facebook Politics North Carolina New York Mueller Investigation Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Education donald trump democrats Culture Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

History Much? In an Effort to Raise the Minimum Wage, AOC Speaks Again About Something She Doesn’t Know

Westlake Legal Group alexandria-ocasio-cortez-roc-united-indentured-servitude-SCREENSHOT--620x348 History Much? In an Effort to Raise the Minimum Wage, AOC Speaks Again About Something She Doesn’t Know Uncategorized ROC restaurant opportunities centers united raise the wage act one fair wage act New York minimum wage Front Page Stories Featured Story encyclopedia virginia Economy democrats Business & Economy Bernie Sanders AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Screenshot from ROC, https://twitter.com/rocunited/status/1134572365671780355?]

 

Remember indentured servitude from History class?

If not, here’s somethin’ from Encyclopedia Virginia:

Indentured servants were men and women who signed a contract (also known as an indenture or a covenant) by which they agreed to work for a certain number of years in exchange for transportation to Virginia and, once they arrived, food, clothing, and shelter. Adults usually served for four to seven years and children sometimes for much longer, with most working in the colony’s tobacco fields. With a long history in England, indentured servitude became, during most of the seventeenth century, the primary means by which Virginia planters filled their nearly inexhaustible need for labor.

As per USHistory.org:

Upon completion of the contract, the servant would receive “freedom dues,” a pre-arranged termination bonus. This might include land, money, a gun, clothes or food.

And more, courtesy of PBS.org:

While the life of an indentured servant was harsh and restrictive, it wasn’t slavery. There were laws that protected some of their rights. But their life was not an easy one, and the punishments meted out to people who wronged were harsher than those for non-servants.

For those that survived the work and received their freedom package, many historians argue that they were better off than those new immigrants who came freely to the country. Their contract may have included at least 25 acres of land, a year’s worth of corn, arms, a cow and new clothes.

Got it? Now let’s go to History Professor Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

At an event hosted by Restaurant Opportunities Centers United in order to promote a higher minimum wage via the One Fair Wage Act, AOC worked for a bit as bartender Friday.

The Act would, it should be noted, prohibit tipped workers from being paid less than the federal hourly minimum.

ROC reports table-waiters can currently be paid as low as $2.13/hr — an amount, it claims, that hasn’t changed since 1991.

Here are the New York freshman representative’s words to the crowd:

“Any job that pays $2.13 an hour is not a job. It’s indentured servitude.”

I believe it’s safe to assume she doesn’t own an Encyclopedia Virginia.

Sometimes, I genuinely wonder: Has she ever, at any time, made any statement of knowledge that was accurate?

I digress.

Or do I?

43 states allow for two minimum wages. The federal minimum is $7.25 per hour. Many states adhere to something higher. This week, Connecticut passed a bill to raise it to $15 by 2023.

Some Democrats want to make that the national low by 2024 via their Raise the Wage Act. It boasts more than 180 co-sponsors, including Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, and Chuck Schumer.

I could write here about the ramifications of raising the cost of business, the workings of supply and demand, etc. But you already know all of those. Unfortunately, (most of) you weren’t recently granted a seat in Congress.

But that’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for ya (here, here, here, and here). It follows my much-lamented, referenced contemporary political M.O.: Say things that sound powerful, whether they make any sense or not (here).

Politic on, AOC.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here, here, herehere, and here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Violent Angry Moron Leftist Idiot ID’d In Berkeley Attack On Conservative; A Warrant Is Being Sought

Tucker Carlson: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is An Awful, Idiotic, Nasty, Self-Righteous Moron. BUT…

13-Time Felon Accidentally Shoots Himself In The Testicles While Carrying Drugs In His Anus – As You Do

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. For iPhone instructions, see the bottom of this page.

 

 

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

The post History Much? In an Effort to Raise the Minimum Wage, AOC Speaks Again About Something She Doesn’t Know appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group alexandria-ocasio-cortez-roc-united-indentured-servitude-SCREENSHOT--300x168 History Much? In an Effort to Raise the Minimum Wage, AOC Speaks Again About Something She Doesn’t Know Uncategorized ROC restaurant opportunities centers united raise the wage act one fair wage act New York minimum wage Front Page Stories Featured Story encyclopedia virginia Economy democrats Business & Economy Bernie Sanders AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Anti-Trumper George Will to Democrats: Just say no to impeachment

Westlake Legal Group dt-1 Anti-Trumper George Will to Democrats: Just say no to impeachment Trump The Blog republican impeachment impeach George Will democrats aesthetic

A mild surprise, as he’s been known to refer to Trump as a “lowlife from Queens.” His antipathy to the president runs so deep that he ended up backing Democrats in the midterm elections on grounds that it was the patriotic thing to do under the circumstances.

Not a man opposed in principle to cutting Trump’s term short, to put it mildly.

But he’s a no on impeachment, for three reasons. One: Overturning the voters’ verdict is not something to be done lightly. If Trump had conspired with Russia, that would be one thing. But he didn’t, so what are you going to impeach him for? Firing James Comey, which he was authorized by law to do? C’mon.

Two: General sleaziness *is* good grounds for impeachment, says Will, but in this case that brings us back to point one. Overturning the will of the voters isn’t to be done lightly. If Trump’s sleaziness, his “incessant lying and increasingly contemptible coarseness,” had been hidden from the public during the campaign only to reveal itself once in office there’d be an argument for Congress to step in. But since it wasn’t…

Democrats should heed Weiner: “That an offense is impeachable does not mean it warrants impeachment.” Potential impeachers must consider “the general political context of the times,” including “the potential public reaction.” Democrats should face two lamentable but undeniable facts: Trump was elected because many millions of Americans enjoy his boorishness. And he essentially promised to govern as a lout. Promise-keeping would be an unusual ground for impeachment.

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard,” wrote H.L. Mencken. The people knew what they wanted, and they’re getting it good and hard.

Three: It won’t succeed. Removal by the Senate is enormously difficult, as it should be, because it requires the support of two-thirds of the chamber. That all but guarantees that no president can be removed without a sizable minority of his own party joining the effort. Asking Republicans in 2019 to help remove Trump, Will argues, is like asking members of the Communist Party circa 1950 to remove Stalin:

[Republicans] were for free trade until Trump informed them that they were not. They were defenders of the U.S. intelligence community until Trump announced in Helsinki that he believed Vladimir Putin rather than this community regarding Russian support for his election. They excoriated wishful thinking regarding North Korea until Trump spent a few hours with Kim Jong Un and, smitten, tweeted, “There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.” Republicans have moved from stressing presidential dignity to cowed silence when, to take only the most recent example, Trump endorsed a North Korean state media outlet’s ridicule of “low IQ” Joe Biden (a taunt Trump falsely ascribed to Kim). Republicans railed against President Barack Obama’s executive overreaching but are eloquently mute when Obama’s successor promiscuously declares “emergencies” in order to “repurpose” funds Congress appropriated for other purposes, and to truncate the process of congressional approval of weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and its allies.

CPUSA members in the 1930s, blinkered by ideology, had a servile faith in a Soviet regime that they identified with historic (and therefore progressive) inevitabilities. Today’s congressional Republicans, blinded by their puppy-like devotion (and leavened by terror of the capricious master to whom they are devoted), would make a Senate impeachment trial a partisan debacle ending in acquittal.

The triumph of international socialism required serving Stalin in whatever way necessary; preventing the triumph of international socialism (and protecting oneself from a primary challenge) requires serving Trump in whatever way necessary. Forced to choose between no impeachment and a farce in the Senate in which the outcome is foreordained by partisanship, Will prefers the option that won’t set an embarrassing precedent.

Oh well. There’s always the chance that Trump will be primaried instead. Or is there? (Maybe.)

The post Anti-Trumper George Will to Democrats: Just say no to impeachment appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group dt-1-300x153 Anti-Trumper George Will to Democrats: Just say no to impeachment Trump The Blog republican impeachment impeach George Will democrats aesthetic  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Can’t Stop, Won’t Stop: Jerry Nadler Claims There ‘Certainly is’ Sufficient Evidence to Impeach Trump. But Will the Public Approve?

Westlake Legal Group jerrold-nadler-mueller-statement-response-SCREENSHOT-620x331 Can’t Stop, Won’t Stop: Jerry Nadler Claims There ‘Certainly is’ Sufficient Evidence to Impeach Trump. But Will the Public Approve? white house washington D.C. Uncategorized New York Mueller Investigation Jerrold Nadler impeachment House Judiciary Committee Front Page Stories Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Congress Campaigns bill barr attorney general Allow Media Exception Alan Dershowitz

[Screenshot from CBS News, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyqFhQPQnrM]

 

On Friday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler claimed “there certainly is” sufficient justification to impeach Donald J. Trump.

Oh boy…here we go.

The New York representative made the assertion in an interview with WNYC, during which he also explained that the maneuver must be done with the blessing of the public.

Good luck with that:

“Impeachment is a political act, and you cannot impeach a president if the American people will not support it. The American people, right now, do not support it because they do not know the story. They don’t know the facts.”

The facts? Good luck with THAT.

But he’s determined:

“We have to get the facts out. We have to hold a series of hearings, we have to hold the investigations.”

They’re never, ever, ever going to let the Mueller investigation go. The obsession is a tribute to time-wasting at the highest level. Think you’re good at it? You’re an amateur. Get elected to Congress and go pro.

“It’s very important that [Special Counsel Robert Mueller], to a television audience and to the American people, state [his findings] and answer questions about it, even if there is no new information.”

Mueller really stunk up the joint Wednesday, telling the country — essentially — that he couldn’t prove Trump didn’t do anything wrong:

“If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.”

Why say that? That’s not how proof is supposed to work when someone’s accused.

Alan Dershowitz was unimpressed. Likewise, Tucker Carlson.

Presumably, Jerrold wasn’t opposed.

Despite the congressman’s statements, Mueller made clear he has no plans to testify before congressional committees:

“I hope and expect this to be the only time I will speak to you on this matter. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter. There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.”

Speaking to CBS News Friday, Attorney General Bill Barr backed up Robert:

“It’s up to Bob, but I think the line he’s drawing, which is he’s going to stick to what’s in the report, is the proper line for any department official.”

Mueller also made reference to the longstanding DOJ policy of not charging a sitting president:

“Charging the president was not an option we could consider.”

Additionally, he recognized that “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse the president of wrongdoing.”

Now, it seems, Jerrold’s going full-on Al Green (here):

“No one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law.”

He declared Congress’ll “respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoing of President Trump.”

On Thursday, Trump shot back against notions of the “I” word:

“I don’t see how they can. It’s a dirty, filthy, disgusting word, impeach. It’s high crimes –there was no high crime. So how do you impeach?”

For a brief moment in time, I thought perhaps we could let go of the black balloon that is the ever lingering Mueller probe (here).

Now it appears I was right to begin with: It’ll outlast both cockroaches and the Rolling Stones. The investigation is forevermore a permanent component of existence. It will float above us like a cosmic fart, long after humanity’s bones have bleached in the sun.

I believe the American people are sick of it. Give up, already. For Pete’s sake. Trump won. Let it go.

Do you think the public want to see impeachment? Let us all know in the Comments section.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here, here, and here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

He Has The Power: CNN Talking Heads Forced To Admit The Mueller Report Vindicates Donald Trump

John Cleese Fights Back After Twitter Attacks His Unwoke, Traditionalist Comments: ‘London Isn’t Really English Anymore’

A Celebrity Couple Can’t Let Their Parents Meet For The Stupidest Of Reasons, & It’s A Pathetic Commentary On What We’ve Become

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

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

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

The post Can’t Stop, Won’t Stop: Jerry Nadler Claims There ‘Certainly is’ Sufficient Evidence to Impeach Trump. But Will the Public Approve? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group jerrold-nadler-mueller-statement-response-SCREENSHOT-300x160 Can’t Stop, Won’t Stop: Jerry Nadler Claims There ‘Certainly is’ Sufficient Evidence to Impeach Trump. But Will the Public Approve? white house washington D.C. Uncategorized New York Mueller Investigation Jerrold Nadler impeachment House Judiciary Committee Front Page Stories Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Congress Campaigns bill barr attorney general Allow Media Exception Alan Dershowitz  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Awkward: Charlemagne Tha God Tells Elizabeth Warren ‘You’re Kind Of Like The Original Rachel Dolezal’

Westlake Legal Group Fauxcahontas-620x413 Awkward: Charlemagne Tha God Tells Elizabeth Warren ‘You’re Kind Of Like The Original Rachel Dolezal’ racism Rachel Dolezal President Trump Front Page Stories Featured Story Elizabeth Warren donald trump democrats Charlemagne tha God Allow Media Exception 2020

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., winks as she jokes with other senators on the Senate Banking Committee ahead of a hearing on the nomination of Marvin Goodfriend to be a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2018, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

 

President Trump’s nickname of “Pocahontas” has inflicted what looks like fatal damage to Sen. Elizabeth Warren. No matter how hard she tries, she just can’t seem to shake it. I can even imagine the flap being mentioned in her obituary one day. “Warren ran in the Democratic presidential primary, but was unable to gain traction in the race due to a running feud with President Trump over her claims of Native American heritage…”

The 2020 Democratic presidential candidate appeared on the popular radio show, “The Breakfast Club,” this morning. During the interview, host “Charlemagne tha God” (CTG) doesn’t look like he’s buyin’ what Sen. Warren is sellin’. Warren turned on her best down-home accent, dropped her g’s, but CTG looked unconvinced.

She told her hosts, “I grew up in Oklahoma. I learned about my family the way that most people learn about their families. From my mama, my daddy, my aunts, my uncles. And, it’s what I believe…But I’m not a person of color. I’m not a citizen of a tribe. And I shouldn’t have done it.”

She acts like she has to convince us she’s not a person of color. We’ve known that all along Senator.

CTG asked, “If you had to do it over, would you?”

Warren dismisses that and says, “I can’t go back, but I should. But, what I can do is…” (She rattles off a list of campaign promises, housing, student loans, health)

Uninterested in her promises, CTG asks, “How long did you hold onto that? Because there’s some report that shows you were Native American on your Texas bar license and you were Native American on some documents when you were a professor at Harvard. So, like, why’d you do that?”

She tells him, “It’s what I believed. You know. It’s what I said. It’s what I learned from my family.”

Yeah, you already told us that.

CTG asks, “When did you find out you weren’t?”

Warren doesn’t want to answer that, because she’s always known she wasn’t a Native American. She tries to dodge the question. “You know. It’s. I’m not a person of color. I’m not a citizen of a tribe. And tribal citizenship is an important distinction. And not somethin’ I am. So…

Mother of God.

CTG wants to know, “Were there any benefits to that?”

Warren answers, “No. Boston Globe did a full investigation. Nothin’ about my family ever affected any job I ever got.”

Hmmm.

Finally, CTG says, “You’re kind of like the original Rachel Dolezal, a little bit. Rachel Dolezal was a white woman pretending to be black.”

Warren blames it on her family again. “Well, this is what I learned from my family.”

Good grief.

 

Plus: A little something extra via Jim Treacher, PJ Media

Westlake Legal Group Pajama-Media-620x538 Awkward: Charlemagne Tha God Tells Elizabeth Warren ‘You’re Kind Of Like The Original Rachel Dolezal’ racism Rachel Dolezal President Trump Front Page Stories Featured Story Elizabeth Warren donald trump democrats Charlemagne tha God Allow Media Exception 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The post Awkward: Charlemagne Tha God Tells Elizabeth Warren ‘You’re Kind Of Like The Original Rachel Dolezal’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Fauxcahontas-300x200 Awkward: Charlemagne Tha God Tells Elizabeth Warren ‘You’re Kind Of Like The Original Rachel Dolezal’ racism Rachel Dolezal President Trump Front Page Stories Featured Story Elizabeth Warren donald trump democrats Charlemagne tha God Allow Media Exception 2020  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Terror: ISIS Supporter Admits He Beheaded Scandinavian Hiker in College Student Killings

Westlake Legal Group louisa-jespersen-and-maren-ueland-the-movie-SCREENSHOT-620x329 Terror: ISIS Supporter Admits He Beheaded Scandinavian Hiker in College Student Killings Uncategorized Terrorism Syria republicans Norway mount toubkal Morocco maren ueland louisa jespersen jihad Islamic terrorism Islam ISIS International Affairs Front Page Stories Denmark democrats Culture crime Congress bo university Allow Media Exception abdessamad ejjou

[Screenshot from V prod, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQqF6So1RTA]

 

24-year-old Dane Louisa Jespersen and 28-year-old Norwegian Maren Ueland were on a Christmas camping trip in Morocco last year. The two girls were roommates at Norway’s Bo University.

But on December 17th, they were murdered. The girls were found by authorities in their tent, in a remote area near Morocco’s highest peak, Mount Toubkal.

24 people were brought to trial in connection with their deaths. One — 33-year-old Abdessamad Ejjoud — has admitted his guilt in court.

Abdessamad is a supporter of ISIS and suspected of heading up a jihadist cell.

According to Sky News, in lieu of enlisting in ISIS, he wanted to go to holy war in the ways he could:

“After failing to join the Islamic State, we decided to do jihad at home.”

As reported by the BBC, he confessed to a gruesome act:

“I beheaded one of them…I regret it.”

A video of the decapitation was posted to social media by ISIS proponents. In it, one of the men references “the enemies of Allah” and says the killings are revenge for the deaths of jihadists in Syria.

In Denmark, 14 people have been charged with sharing the video.

Morocco’s anti-terror chief insists none involved were members of ISIS — only ISIS-inspired.

Abdessamad told the court:

“We loved Islamic State and prayed to God for it.”

Evil comes in many forms; this is only one. But it’s a serious threat, not only abroad but here where we live. For evidence of that, one need only look here and here.

If a terrorist training camp is operating in Alabama, the problem is beyond widespread. Our culture is being invaded with ugliness, in the big and small (here) ways. We should be able to depend on our legislators, but I’m not sure they’re doing enough to protect us. Until that’s achieved — whatever it may entail — I suspect these kinds of stories are going to continue if not increase. And our world is going to become an ever more dangerous place.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: herehere, and here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Horror: A Mother & Daughter Murdered A Teen And Cut Out Her Baby. But They’re Not The Only Ones

Pregnant Female Identifying As Male Goes To ER With Urgent Symptoms, Is Listed As ‘Obese Man.’ She Receives No Urgent Care, Gives Birth To A Dead Baby

Jon Voight Drops A Bomb On Hollywood: Donald Trump Is ‘ The Greatest President Since Abraham Lincoln’

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. For iPhone instructions, see the bottom of this page.



 

 

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

The post Terror: ISIS Supporter Admits He Beheaded Scandinavian Hiker in College Student Killings appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group louisa-jespersen-and-maren-ueland-the-movie-SCREENSHOT-300x159 Terror: ISIS Supporter Admits He Beheaded Scandinavian Hiker in College Student Killings Uncategorized Terrorism Syria republicans Norway mount toubkal Morocco maren ueland louisa jespersen jihad Islamic terrorism Islam ISIS International Affairs Front Page Stories Denmark democrats Culture crime Congress bo university Allow Media Exception abdessamad ejjou  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Remember the Time That Jim Comey Sent Peter Strzok To Brief Donald Trump On the Danger From Russia

Westlake Legal Group strzok-hearing-620x413 Remember the Time That Jim Comey Sent Peter Strzok To Brief Donald Trump On the Danger From Russia Politics Peter Strzok Paul Manafort Lisa Page james comey Government george papadopoulos Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Carter Page Allow Media Exception

FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, testifies before a House Judiciary Committee joint hearing on “oversight of FBI and Department of Justice actions surrounding the 2016 election” on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, July 12, 2018. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

One of the overarching mysteries of the whole Russia collusion hoax is why the FBI, despite it’s legitimate concerns about the activities of a few people in and associated with the Trump campaign, never warned the candidate about those concerns. This lack of warning was a stark break in departure from historical practice. It has, for instance, been reported the FBI did deliver such defensive briefing to Senator John McCain during the 2008 campaign and he removed a staffer who may have been a counterintelligence risk.

As it turned out, the FBI did deliver such a briefing to then-candidate Trump. The briefing was conducted by none other than Peter “Insurance Policy” Strzok at the direction of James Comey, himself.

A mid-August 2016 counterintelligence briefing for the Trump campaign did not specifically warn officials about Russian outreach to the Trump team, nor did it warn that two campaign aides, Mike Flynn and George Papadopoulos, were already under FBI investigation, Fox News has learned.

The new details about the so-called “defensive briefing” have emerged from congressional letters, text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page, and sources familiar with the matter. Such briefings are designed to warn the candidate and his team about national security threats.

“There was a defensive briefing of candidate Trump on Aug. 17 of 2016,” Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said Thursday on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom.” “And I can tell you what he wasn’t told: He wasn’t warned about a Russia investigation that Peter Strzok had opened 18 days earlier.”

A source familiar with sensitive records documenting the August briefing told Fox News that Strzok was in a unique — and apparently conflicted — position. Strzok opened the FBI investigation into Russian outreach to Trump campaign aides, while at the same time he was supposed to be warning the Trump campaign about Russian activities.

Critics of the Russia and special counsel probes question whether the lengthy investigation could have been shorter, or whether it could have been avoided altogether, had Strzok and others provided adequate warning.

Of course he was conflicted. Strzok appears to have been, like the rest of FBI and Justice leadership, Hillary Clinton partisans. He could see the value of hammering the Trump campaign at some later time with allegations of “Russians in the Mist.” In fact, is was shortly before this that Strzok sent his mistress the text message that referred to the “insurance policy” and promising that Trump would never become president because they would “stop it.”

By the time that this briefing took place, the FBI already knew that George Papadopoulos didn’t know squat…he was spoonfed a rumor by another Western intelligence, if not FBI, asset. The sole person on the campaign with any major role still under suspicion was Manafort. Apparently, Mike Flynn had tickled the FBI’s sensors by making a hugely public appearance at an RT gala in Moscow. But, as far as we know, Flynn was not under any suspicion in August 2016 and he still retained his security clearances.

Watch the latest video at foxnews.com

Ratcliffe on Thursday questioned Strzok’s role.

“Why would Peter Strzok, who would participate at [former FBI director] Jim Comey’s direction in a defensive briefing designed to protect and warn a candidate, be the same person who is in fact at that time already investigating the candidate’s campaign? That shouldn’t happen. There should be answers to those questions,” he said.

We hope that John Durham’s investigation finds the answers because it would be interesting to hear the explanation of why the FBI refused to tell the man who would become the President of the United States that there were possible foreign agents in his inner circle so he could remedy the problem and, instead, elected to husband those allegations and use them to launch the Mueller investigation.

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

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

The post Remember the Time That Jim Comey Sent Peter Strzok To Brief Donald Trump On the Danger From Russia appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group strzok-hearing-300x200 Remember the Time That Jim Comey Sent Peter Strzok To Brief Donald Trump On the Danger From Russia Politics Peter Strzok Paul Manafort Lisa Page james comey Government george papadopoulos Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Carter Page Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Masculinity Is Not A Dirty Word

Westlake Legal Group Houston-hero-300x169 Masculinity Is Not A Dirty Word Uncategorized republicans Politics Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception

Masculinity is not a dirty word.

As I alluded to in a previous piece, there appears to be a growing tendency to associate masculinity with something evil or as some put it, “toxic.”

In a great rebuttal to this grossly dishonest meme, Devon Foley published an article aptly entitled ”Why we need Alpha Males.”

Although published back in 2016 and coincidence certainly is not causality, I find it interesting that this piece was published just as the antithesis of the Beta Male-Pajama Boy had burst on the political scene. Donald J. Trump bulldozed aside the field of Republican candidates who vied with each other as to whom could appear more “presidential.” Trump continued this, not once being afraid of being seen as “being mean to a girl,” telling Hillary Clinton, “Because you’d be in jail,” when responding to her purported fear of his becoming President and our nation’s de facto Chief Law Enforcement Officer. Right then and there, he guaranteed the Republican base would show up at the polls.

Foley addresses this in a more fundamental manner.

While it may be clichéd, there’s a lot of truth in the opening monologue of the father in American Sniper. There is evil, there are wolves, and a society needs strong, virtuous men – masculine men – to keep order and protect the weak. And it, too, seems to be an affront to today’s culture. 

Foley goes on to state that these virtues are still needed, even on modern times, perhaps more-so. Here’s the money quote

If the good are not stronger than the wolves, what will stop them?

Democracy on its own certainly won’t. If we’re honest, democracy – like all societies – requires alpha males to keep order and to enforce the values of the society against those who would act on their own “wills to power”. Vote all you want, but if no one follows up the laws with force, they are meaningless.

Spot. On. Judges and Politicians may rule and legislate. Nations may sign treaties. But in the end, it takes alpha males to enforce those rulings, laws and treaties. A line somewhat inaccurately attributed to George Orwell, nonetheless expresses a simple truth.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Such a man, as I pointed out here, was Kendrick Castillo. When it came down to it. He saw his duty as a man, to protect the weak. His doing so cost him his life, but it inspired other young men to follow him and in so doing, saved others.

Mike Ford is a retired Infantry Officer who 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 Masculinity Is Not A Dirty Word appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Houston-hero-300x169 Masculinity Is Not A Dirty Word Uncategorized republicans Politics Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

More Warren: Elect me and we’ll change the law to let the DOJ indict sitting presidents

Westlake Legal Group ew-1 More Warren: Elect me and we’ll change the law to let the DOJ indict sitting presidents Trump The Blog sitting President olc Justice Department indict Elizabeth Warren doj democrats

Given how Democratic attempts to upend judicial norms tend to boomerang on them, this can only mean President Warren will be indicted by her own DOJ circa 2022.

This is good politics for her but bad policy, and likely to be deemed unconstitutional by a conservative Supreme Court.

Here’s my plan:

* Pass a law clarifying Congress’s intent that the Department of Justice can indict the President of the United States.

Congress should make it clear that it wants the President to be held accountable for violating the law, just like everyone else.

Title 18 of the United States Code, which contains most provisions of federal criminal law, applies to “[w]hoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission[.]” Congress should clarify that it intends for this provision to apply to all persons — including the President of the United States.

If Congress does so, one of the strongest arguments against indictment disappears: that the Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to decide when to interfere with the President’s duties, and that a criminal indictment would forcibly take that power away from Congress. It’ll also remove any statutory ambiguity that remains.

Would Congress’s belief that the executive can/should be prosecutable by his own subordinates influence the judiciary’s thinking on whether that’s constitutional under Article II? The rationale behind the DOJ’s current policy, that the president can’t be indicted, isn’t so much that Congress alone can “interfere” with the president but that the Constitution grants the prosecution power to him and no one else. He can delegate it to his deputies at the Justice Department but he has final say on who’s charged and who isn’t. If that’s so, that constitutionally the president can’t be prosecuted unless he himself agrees to it, then Warren’s proposal to have Congress say otherwise is a nonstarter. To uphold her new law, SCOTUS would essentially have to declare that the Justice Department — or at least the special counsel — is a de facto unaccountable fourth branch of government, exactly the problem Scalia warned about in his famous opinion in Morrison v. Olson.

Right, Scalia’s opinion was a dissent, not a majority opinion. But his view has become so orthodox among righties over the last few decades that I’d guess the Roberts Court would adopt it as their own if forced to rule on Warren’s plan.

Also, does Warren mean to imply that because Congress has the power to “interfere with the President’s duties” via impeachment it’s entitled to share some of that power with the Justice Department by making the president indictable? One doesn’t follow logically from the other. The fact that the legislature is empowered to strip the president of his office doesn’t mean it’s entitled to empower other agencies to strip him of his liberty while he holds that office.

If Congress wants the DOJ to indict the president, it doesn’t need to pass any new statutes. Just impeach and remove him and then prosecutors can deal with him like any other citizen. Doing it Warren’s way, with a sitting president trying to govern the country under the shadow of a criminal proceeding, would produce some of the absurdity described in this post last night. In theory, he might be indicted but *not* impeached, raising the prospect of the chief executive being put on trial and convicted of a felony while still in office. What would Warren have the government do in that scenario? Before Trump it would have been easy to say “Surely the president would resign in disgrace if convicted” or “Surely even a Congress controlled by his own party would remove him after a conviction,” but ehhhhhhhhh. No one thinks either of those things are true anymore. In which case, what would happen? Bill Barr sends U.S. Marshals to the Oval Office to apprehend him?

Warren’s offering a pat solution here to a deep political problem. Impeachment is difficult in any age, but in an age when partisanship resembles religion, it’s impossible. You’ll never get enough buy-in from the president’s party to reach 67 votes in the Senate, no matter the crime or the evidence to support it. It’d be high-order apostasy, punishable by banishment from the faith. Her answer to that democratic dilemma is to dispense with it by dumping the decision on whether to remove the president on an agency that’s unaccountable to voters, the Justice Department. It reminds me a bit of the long drift in warmaking authority from Congress to the president: That’s another case where members of Congress are faced with an unusually difficult high-stakes decision with enormous political downside if they choose incorrectly. Their solution: Don’t decide. Punt it to the executive branch. Let them worry about it.

Still, I think this proposal serves her ends in the primary. Warren has become chief advocate in the Democratic field for impeaching Trump and it’s paying off. A new YouGov poll finds that she’s now second, behind only Joe Biden, when Dem voters are asked whom they’re considering voting for. Among self-described liberals she’s in first place, six points ahead of Bernie Sanders and the only candidate in the race north of 50 percent. The left wants to see Trump brought down and Warren knows just what to say to them. Today’s plan can only help her.

The post More Warren: Elect me and we’ll change the law to let the DOJ indict sitting presidents appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group ew-1-300x153 More Warren: Elect me and we’ll change the law to let the DOJ indict sitting presidents Trump The Blog sitting President olc Justice Department indict Elizabeth Warren doj democrats  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

UNCW Speaker Makes a Joke About Diamond Rings and Women, Humorless Feminist Professors Label Him a Sexist Pig

Westlake Legal Group EngagedCouplePexels1-620x340 UNCW Speaker Makes a Joke About Diamond Rings and Women, Humorless Feminist Professors Label Him a Sexist Pig SNowflakes progressives Politics North Carolina Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post Education democrats Culture Allow Media Exception Academia

A University of North Carolina Board of Governors member is in hot water after a speech he gave during a commencement ceremony earlier this month a UNC Wilmington that offended some students and faculty members.

Wilmington’s WECT reports:

Thomas Fetzer, a member of the UNC Board of Governors, was expected to deliver greetings to the Class of 2019 on behalf of the board.

In emails obtained from the university, WECT learned Fetzer went off script.

[…]

…. Fetzer spoke for more than six minutes on topics including continuing education, personal advice on finances, and technology.

Here’s what Fetzer said that caused the uproar (bolded emphasis added by me):

“Let me just cut to the chase young ladies, there are only two things in this world you should borrow money for. Your continuing education and a house. Pay cash for everything else because it’s a depreciating asset and you will end up owing more than it is worth. And that is the road to ruin. Those are the parents clapping. Young men, I will add one thing to the list for which you may borrow money. A diamond ring. Because it will appreciate, and so will she.

That’s it. Yep. He made a diamond ring joke. For that, Fetzer has been branded as a sexist pig.

Here were some of the email complaints from professors about Fetzer’s comments:

“I have heard from several students and parents who were both disappointed and offended by the Board of Governor’s representative, Mr. Fetzer’s long and sexist speech at graduation. Traditionally this speech has just been a “greeting” of a few sentences. Mr. Fetzer took the position of keynote speaker, much of his content was unnecessary, some of it entirely inappropriate. To advise students “Gentleman… you must invest in a diamond for your lady” was something right out of 1965…to say it was insulting to women who have just received their degree is an understatement.”

[…]

Two other professors also echoed concerns in response to the professor’s initial email.

“I would like to echo [her] concerns about the speech given by Mr. Fetzer on Saturday. It was, to say the least, disappointing, at the worst, belittling and denigrating to swaths of our population and counter to UNCW’s purported commitment to honoring inclusion and all peoples,” wrote a professor from a separate department.

A third professor responded to the email writing, “Thank you… for articulating a reaction that I am sure was widely shared. I disagree with only one part of your comments: I’d say the speech was right out of 1865. Whatever its vintage, it was completely inappropriate.”

You know, it’s one thing if the main issue was that the speech wasn’t vetted. It’s understandable for a university to want to approve of what a speaker is going to say before they say it. But even saying that, if Fetzer had “gone off script” and blasted Republicans in the North Carolina General Assembly over the “bathroom bill” and other issues liberals have with them, he would have been applauded and celebrated by these same professors.

But he didn’t. He made a timeless joke about the cost of a diamond ring and how a woman would appreciate over time just like the ring did. And for that, he’s the scum of the earth?

I was searching for the right comments to use to respond to this absurd nonsense and came across those of UNCW Sociology and Criminology Professor Mike Adams, who has had (and won) some major free speech battles with the university in the past. Here’s what he tweeted about the Fetzer controversy:

‘Nuff said.

(Hat tip: Campus Reform)

————
—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 UNCW Speaker Makes a Joke About Diamond Rings and Women, Humorless Feminist Professors Label Him a Sexist Pig appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group EngagedCouplePexels1-300x164 UNCW Speaker Makes a Joke About Diamond Rings and Women, Humorless Feminist Professors Label Him a Sexist Pig SNowflakes progressives Politics North Carolina Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post Education democrats Culture Allow Media Exception Academia  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com