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 49)

Soledad O’Brien Calls a Noted War Hero a Coward Because Of Course She Does

Westlake Legal Group ap-james-mattis-steely-gaze-620x411 Soledad O’Brien Calls a Noted War Hero a Coward Because Of Course She Does Soledad O'Brien Politics nbc MSNBC media bias journalist James Mattis Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story disrespectful Disgusting democrats coward courage clown Barack Obama

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis listens to a question about Russia from the media at the Pentagon, Thursday, Sept. 21, 2017, in Washington. Senior American and Russian military leaders met for an unprecedented, face-to-face session somewhere in the Middle East this week to discuss the growing tensions in the competing battles to retake one of the remaining Islamic State strongholds in Syria. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

There are few “journalists” who have become more partisan and insufferable in the Trump era than Soledad O’Brien.

You may remember her from various programs on NBC and MSNBC. After 2013, her career started to fall off and she now hosts some show I’ve never heard of. I’m sure it’s super important though. One of O’Brien’s shticks now is to go on Twitter and make snarky, outrageous comments toward anyone she sees as an enemy of the left.

Enter James Mattis, who was cancelled earlier this month because he refused to break his personal rule of verbally bashing presidents still in power. Instead of trashing Trump, his memoir spent a sizable amount of times pointing out what a dumpster fire Barack Obama’s foreign policy was, complete with his experience-free pajama boys running around bossing generals around.

Naturally, that made the media and left really mad.

Apparently, some still aren’t over it though, including The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin (who a rabidly delusional leftist labeled as a “conservative).

Yes, I’m sure the guy who’s been in multiple wars and has served his country for decades with valor is a coward. Good take there. If only he were a journalist mouthing off on Twitter, then he could really claim true bravery.

Honestly, this kind of disrespect is just disgusting. You don’t have to like Mattis, but you should dang sure respect what he’s done. He doesn’t criticize sitting presidents because he places the country above his personal gain (i.e. cashing in on a tell all book). That’s not cowardice. It’s courage in the face of a media complex that constantly demands blood.

O’Brien is nothing but a clown.

————————————————

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 Soledad O’Brien Calls a Noted War Hero a Coward Because Of Course She Does appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group clown-arrested-300x202 Soledad O’Brien Calls a Noted War Hero a Coward Because Of Course She Does Soledad O'Brien Politics nbc MSNBC media bias journalist James Mattis Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story disrespectful Disgusting democrats coward courage clown Barack Obama   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Anti-Trumper Chris Wallace Tells on Giuliani; Mark Levin Wonders (Loudly) Why Biden is Above the Law

Westlake Legal Group mark-levin-620x349 Anti-Trumper Chris Wallace Tells on Giuliani; Mark Levin Wonders (Loudly) Why Biden is Above the Law Victoria Toensing Ukraine Rudy Giuliani President Trump Joe diGenova Front Page Stories Featured Story Ed Henry democrats corruption Congress collusion Chris Wallace biden Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020

 

Fox News‘ Chris Wallace’s anti-Trump bias was on full display on Sunday as he reported that former U.S. attorney Joe DiGenova and his wife, Victoria Toensing, have been working with Giuliani to dig up opposition research on Joe Biden. Wallace’s contempt for President Trump, Giuliani, DiGenova and Toensing was unmistakable as he spoke. One can easily imagine Wallace as the schoolyard snitch in his younger days. Anyway, he said:

We have new information to report. Fox News has learned that President Trump’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was not acting alone in trying to get dirt from Ukrainian officials on 2020 rival Joe Biden. Two high profile Washington lawyers, Joe DiGenova, who’s been a fierce critic of the Democratic investigation, and his wife, Victoria Toensing, were working with Giuliani to get oppo research on Biden. According to a top U.S. official, all three were working off the books apart from the administration. The only person who knows what they were doing is President Trump. Fox News has also learned the Pentagon, the State Department, and the National Security Counsel were unanimous in supporting military aid to Ukraine. President Trump decided to withhold that aid this summer on his own.

 

That’s quite a story Chris. Why is it wrong for Trump’s lawyers to investigate “Quid Pro” Joe Biden and his son Hunter? Why does Chris Wallace and the rest of the establishment media continue protect them? Do they find it appropriate for a U.S. Vice President to leverage U.S. aid for personal reasons? Do they believe it was advisable for Hunter to profit off of his father’s position? The Bidens aren’t the victims in this story.

My favorite commentator, the fabulous Mark Levin, weighed in on Wallace’s report. Here’s what he had to say:

You haven’t once asked for the identity of the whistleblower. Why is that?…If this CIA operative is going to be the one who brings down my President, I want to know all about him. I want to know what kind of dogs they have, how many marriages they’ve had, if they have a DUI, I want to know if they’re a partisan. I want to know everything, like they do with everybody else, the media. This guy should be cross-examined. What kind of a situation is this, we’re going to bring down a President of the United States and the Democrats are telling us we can’t identify this guy because his life might be in danger?

Everybody swings around this memo, like it’s the Bible. I have a lot of questions about this memo. I don’t need press people interpreting it for me. I can read it myself. I want to question this person about his memo.

Why is it that the CIA changed its whistleblower policy in August, when this letter is dated August 12th? Under the former policy before August, he’s not a whistleblower. This isn’t a whistleblower complaint and nothing sent to the United States Congress. How does it happen like this?

Ed Henry asks, “What happened in the Oval Office on that call? Was it illegal or not?

Levin responds:

Well, we know it’s not illegal. What crime was violated? Can you name one?…It’s not illegal. The President didn’t do anything illegal. The question is whether Biden did something illegal.

The President didn’t do anything illegal. You know how I know? Because Nancy Pelosi’s been on every talk show and she can’t site one section in the United States code where it’s illegal.

My question is: Why is Joe Biden above the law?

Why indeed?

Watch the video below.

The post Anti-Trumper Chris Wallace Tells on Giuliani; Mark Levin Wonders (Loudly) Why Biden is Above the Law appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group mark-levin-300x169 Anti-Trumper Chris Wallace Tells on Giuliani; Mark Levin Wonders (Loudly) Why Biden is Above the Law Victoria Toensing Ukraine Rudy Giuliani President Trump Joe diGenova Front Page Stories Featured Story Ed Henry democrats corruption Congress collusion Chris Wallace biden Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Adam Schiff Lies His Head Off To George Stephanopolous About Trump Ukraine Phone Call

Westlake Legal Group Adam-Schiff-3 Adam Schiff Lies His Head Off To George Stephanopolous About Trump Ukraine Phone Call Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post fake news donald trump democrats Congress biden

At a hearing looking into the phone call that President Donald Trump had with the Ukrainian president, Rep. Adam Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, completely fabricated what was said on the call.

Today, George Stephanopolous called Schiff out on ‘This Week’ for making up quotes about the call. But instead of apologizing for doing something completely improper, Schiff used the television appearance on ABC as another opportunity to spread more lies.

Trump, for example, didn’t ask the Ukrainian president “seven times” for anything.

Ryan Saavedra of The Daily Wire called Schiff out on his untruths.

How ridiculous that is what Democrats want to impeach Trump over.

So therefore it couldn’t have acted as pressure on Ukraine or as a quid pro quo. And it’s particularly ironic that Schiff tries to push that point when that’s exactly what Joe Biden did on video by his own admission, withhold aid in order to get Ukraine to do what he wanted.

Stephanopolous makes a great point, if the phone call is as damning as Schiff claims, why would he need to make things up?

There’s another problem with what Schiff said. Schiff says in the first video above that when he found out about the whistleblower complaint being withheld from Congress, he went public and scheduled a meeting with the Director of National Intelligence to force the complaint to be released.

But we already know that he was aware of the complaint since at least August 12 and may have had it since then. Here’s part of the letter showing he was apprised and there was an attachment (the complaint?).

So why did he sit on it since then and then try to claim now that as soon as he found out he went public?

This whole spiel he just gave Stephanopolous was untrue.

The post Adam Schiff Lies His Head Off To George Stephanopolous About Trump Ukraine Phone Call appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Adam-Schiff-3-300x153 Adam Schiff Lies His Head Off To George Stephanopolous About Trump Ukraine Phone Call Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post fake news donald trump democrats Congress biden   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Former Ukrainian PM Calls For Investigation Into Hunter Biden

Westlake Legal Group joe-biden-e1567704712668 Former Ukrainian PM Calls For Investigation Into Hunter Biden Uncategorized Ukraine Joe Biden hunter biden Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats collusion biden

While Democrats have been all over the Ukrainian question in the effort to claim President Donald Trump did something wrong by inquiring about the investigation into Hunter Biden, Democrats have been less eager to talk about any investigation of the younger Biden.

Questions have been raised by many about the position which Hunter held on the board of Burisma and for which he was reportedly paid $50,000/month while his father was the point man for the Obama administration on Ukraine.

From NY Post:

By coincidence, Hunter had landed this cushy gig in a foreign country only a few months after the Obama ­administration began dispatching his father, Joe, to the very same foreign country on a regular basis.

There was, of course, absolutely nothing in Hunter’s résumé to indicate that he would be a valuable addition to foreign energy interest. He didn’t speak the language, and he had no particular expertise in the energy industry. Oh, he did have one thing, though: his last name.

Those questions were heightened by a video of Joe Biden in 2018 admitting that he pressured Ukraine when he was Vice President, saying he would have the Obama administration withhold aid unless they fired the prosecutor. The prosecutor was reportedly investigating Burisma. He was in fact fired.

The fired prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, gave a recent affidavit to an Austrian court that was released by John Solomon of The Hill. In that affidavit, Shokin claims, “I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings.” He claims that the then-President, Petro Poroshenko forced him to resign because Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid for Ukraine until he was removed from office.

Democrats argue there was no evidence that Hunter Biden did anything wrong. The subsequent prosecutor installed after that pressure, Yuri Lutsenko, said that he didn’t find anything on Hunter.

But now the investigation may be re-opened, according to new reports.

The former PM of Ukraine is saying that Hunter Biden must be investigated to make sure that he complied with the law. “It’s a fact (his directorship and fees) and not made up. It should be investigated so that the ‘i’s can be dotted and the ‘t’s crossed,” Mykola Azarov told Reuters.

And that’s not all. A present official within the government has also said he expects the case involving Burisma to be re-opened.

From The Daily Beast:

Valentin Nalyvaichenko, a former head of Ukraine’s domestic intelligence agency and a member of Ukraine’s parliament, says he expects the corruption case of the Burisma gas company—two cases were opened and dropped by various prosecutors over the years—to be revisited. Hunter Biden, the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, was a board member.

Ukrainians get that at the very least it appears unseemly.

But for Democrats, it’s always and only about getting Trump.

The post Former Ukrainian PM Calls For Investigation Into Hunter Biden appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group joe-biden-300x169 Former Ukrainian PM Calls For Investigation Into Hunter Biden Uncategorized Ukraine Joe Biden hunter biden Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats collusion biden   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Journalist Gets His A** Handed to Him After Tweeting That Clinton’s Impeachment Was Based on “Second-Hand Info”

Westlake Legal Group Bill-Clinton-Scared-Face-620x325 Journalist Gets His A** Handed to Him After Tweeting That Clinton’s Impeachment Was Based on “Second-Hand Info” Social Media Politics North Carolina Media journalism Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post fake news donald trump democrats Culture Congress Bill Clinton Allow Media Exception

If Adam Schiff’s outrageous “parody” stunt last week on the July call between Trump and Zelensky wasn’t proof enough that Democrats are simply not interested in conducting an honest and fair impeachment inquiry, we now have so-called “journalists” tweeting out erroneous information about President Clinton’s impeachment in order to justify one against Trump.

It all started after Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) complained on Twitter Saturday about the fact that the whistleblower’s complaint was based on second and thirdhand information. Here’s what Graham tweeted:

Liberal journalist Garrett Graff, a former editor for Politico Magazine, responded by (falsely) claiming that “Graham and the GOP had little trouble impeaching Clinton on Linda Tripp’s second-hand info”:

Say what??

His assertion is so far off from the truth that it isn’t even funny. Unfortunately, the tweet was so popular over the weekend that Linda Tripp’s name trended on Twitter for several hours Saturday as others piggy-backed on the tweet to make the same (false) point. Graff’s tweet has nearly 8,400 retweets and 28,000 likes as of this writing.

Yours truly was one of many people who pushed back on Graff’s shameless attempt at revising Clinton’s impeachment history:

Facts first.

——
— 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 Journalist Gets His A** Handed to Him After Tweeting That Clinton’s Impeachment Was Based on “Second-Hand Info” appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Bill-Clinton-Scared-Face-300x157 Journalist Gets His A** Handed to Him After Tweeting That Clinton’s Impeachment Was Based on “Second-Hand Info” Social Media Politics North Carolina Media journalism Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post fake news donald trump democrats Culture Congress Bill Clinton Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The New York Times Stealth Edits Major Story and There are Few Complaints to be Heard

Westlake Legal Group new-york-times-builiding-620x413 The New York Times Stealth Edits Major Story and There are Few Complaints to be Heard Social Media Politics nra New York Times Never Trumpers media bias Media Mainstream Media journalism Jake Tapper Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post fake news donald trump democrats CNN Brian Stelter Allow Media Exception

New York Times building by wsifrancis, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original

The paper of record repeats its false narratives like a broken record.

It was precisely the kind of red meat the voracious anti-Trump warriors and #Resistance fighters devour. The New York Times delivered a scathing report on Friday that was a perfect example of everything wrong with a Trump presidency. The paper detailed that Trump had brokered a quid pro quo deal with the NRA during a meeting with Wayne LaPierre, whereby he established if the organization lends its support to his campaign for reelection he would stop the games being played with gun control legislation.

Turns out the story was a little too perfect. It sure had all the proper outrage elements; an allegedly corrupt president, a despised organization, and a possibly illegal deal between the nefarious forces. This was the kind of scandal that would cement the expulsion of the president. With the supposedly grievous Ukrainian phone call outrage taking place already this additional legal behavior would make it required that he be driven from office.

Were any of it true. Turns out that the New York Times has fallen into a pattern with these groundbreaking stories. Release the report, frame it in such a way that generates the most outrage, and then much later quietly make a significant alteration that changes the entire interpretation. In the original release the paper described this arrangement as being done “in return for the support”.

Then in the early evening The Times altered this language, replacing this accusation with the completely neutral language of “During the meeting…”. The only indication of this shift in tone is a note at the end indicating only that the piece had been “updated”, with no specifics given behind the update, and no explanation what led to the change.

When your change of content is so blatant that Josh Marshal takes notice you know this was some journalistic malpractice. This is the same methodology used just weeks back when The Times supplied an “explosive” announcement of a new alleged victim of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and then later revealing that this supposed victim had no memory of the alleged events, whatsoever. The Times had that detail all along. It rested inside the very same book that the paper was promoting with its claimed “exclusive”.

What is most revealing about this technique is how it is warmly accepted by those who feel perfectly at ease screeching about every supposed factual error in the Fox News and right-of-center media. Brian Stelter is the self-anointed media arbiter at CNN, and his mission statement is to comment on press activities. Yet, after helping push the Kavanaugh lie, he has been uncritical of the vagaries in the Ukrainian story and misrepresentations in the press. Brian has been quite content pushing the narrative and perpetuating the inaccuracies

This weekend’s edition of Reliable Sources saw him incapable to find any time to mention the New York Times alteration. You would think a major paper with a major factual problem would warrant coverage by a media critic, but no such content was delivered. Instead, Brian dedicated a lengthy block of his air time to interview a Ukrainian whistleblower “expert” — actor Robert DeNiro. The telling part in all of this is Stelter’s co-worker at CNN, Jake Tapper, had a direct involvement with the alteration from The Times.

Tapper had sent out a tweet on Friday following the initial revelation by the paper. But once the alteration of the entire narrative was exposed Tapper at least did the proper thing and alerted his followers to the change in the story and pulled down his original post — something not even The Times could manage to do with its own change.

This is the state of contemporary journalism. Their actions have made it necessary that the audience has to work harder than media members in order to get the complete story.

The post The New York Times Stealth Edits Major Story and There are Few Complaints to be Heard appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group new-york-times-builiding-300x200 The New York Times Stealth Edits Major Story and There are Few Complaints to be Heard Social Media Politics nra New York Times Never Trumpers media bias Media Mainstream Media journalism Jake Tapper Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post fake news donald trump democrats CNN Brian Stelter Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

As Many as 130 Democrat State Department Employees May Lose Security Clearances Because of Hillary Clinton’s Bathroom Server

You thought it was dead, but it was just lying dormant waiting for the right moment to rise and to the maximum possible damage.

The Trump administration is investigating the email records of dozens of current and former senior State Department officials who sent messages to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email, reviving a politically toxic matter that overshadowed the 2016 election, current and former officials said.

As many as 130 officials have been contacted in recent weeks by State Department investigators — a list that includes senior officials who reported directly to Clinton as well as others in lower-level jobs whose emails were at some point relayed to her inbox, said current and former State Department officials. Those targeted were notified that emails they sent years ago have been retroactively classified and now constitute potential security violations, according to letters reviewed by The Washington Post.

State Department investigators began contacting the former officials about 18 months ago, after President Trump’s election, and then seemed to drop the effort before picking it up in August, officials said.

The list of State officials being questioned includes prominent ambassadors and assistant secretaries of state responsible for U.S. policy in the Middle East, Europe and Central Asia. But it also includes dozens of current and former career bureaucrats who served as conduits for outside officials trying to get important messages to Clinton.

What is interesting is that the Democrats understand exactly what the stakes are here. They don’t care about Hillary’s gravy infused ass bouncing off the curb. They con’t care about has beens like Susan Rice or Samantha Power. The stakes here are nothing less that the next generation of Democrat foreign policy apparatchiks.

To many of those under scrutiny, including some of the Democratic Party’s top foreign policy experts, the recent flurry of activity surrounding the Clinton email case represents a new front on which the Trump administration could be accused of employing the powers of the executive branch against perceived political adversaries.

A former senior U.S. official familiar with the email investigation described it as a way for Republicans “to keep the Clinton email issue alive.” The former official said the probe was “a way to tarnish a whole bunch of Democratic foreign policy people” and discourage if not prevent them from returning to government service.

If people like Phillipe Reines, just for instance, because I know he’d never do anything totally skeevy, broke some security policy or regulation, of if Jake Sullivan was found to have, say, stripped classification markers from emails so he could send them to Hillary’s private email, then their ability to obtain a future security clearance would be zero without White House direction…and that would cause a reopening of this scandal which on president would want.

In short, every Democrat in State Department who communicated with Hillary Clinton about government matters, particularly classified matters, will have their clearance in placed in jeopardy.

But there is more. Several of the document located on Hillary Clinton’s bathroom server originated inside the highly secure SIPRNet and could only be seen in a SCIF. Either someone violated the law and downloaded those documents/images or someone violated the law by bringing into the SCIF a smartphone and using the camera to take a picture of the document/image. These people’s careers are over.

What is hilarious is the way the Washington Post shills on this, Greg Miller, Greg Jaffe and Karoun Demirjian, blatantly engage in the use of Democrat talking points to defend the Democrats who are now under investigation.

Former Obama administration officials, however, described the probe as a remarkably aggressive crackdown by an administration with its own troubled record of handling classified material. Trump has improperly disclosed classified information to foreign officials and used phones that national security officials warned were vulnerable to foreign surveillance, according to current and former officials.

What you’re reading there is not an argument it is a very lame excuse. Trump can’t “improperly disclose” classified material because he is the at the top of the nation’s classification system. He can literally declassify whatever he wishes. The major breaches of security under Trump have all originated with leakers trying to damage his presidency.

Imagine, though, a world in which 130 Democrats who worked for Hillary Clinton are unable to ever again hold a security clearance or work in the Federal government. Imagine the baristas regaling customers about the wars they started for no particular reason or the nations they turned over to Islamic extremists simply to show they weren’t Bush. What a wonderful place it would be, right?

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

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

The post As Many as 130 Democrat State Department Employees May Lose Security Clearances Because of Hillary Clinton’s Bathroom Server appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group hillary-clinton-email-flickr-cc-300x169 As Many as 130 Democrat State Department Employees May Lose Security Clearances Because of Hillary Clinton’s Bathroom Server Washington Post State Department Politics Media Karoun Demirjian hillary cllinton email scandal Hillary Clinton Greg Miller Greg Jaffe Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Why Do We Defer to the Political Class?

Westlake Legal Group chinese-kowtow Why Do We Defer to the Political Class? washington D.C. Uncategorized Ukraine Politics political corruption New House investigations of Trump Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism Government Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats lie democrats Culture corruption Corrupt Democrats Congress Complicit Media career politicians Abuse of Power

Public Domain. Official session in a Chinese Yamen, Guangzhou, pre-1889. Photo: Creative Commons.

Theory: Deference is a tactic that has been fully exploited by the political class for over 100 years to our collective detriment. Let’s examine that postulation in detail. What does deference mean? Here’s the dictionary definition:

deference [def-er-uh ns]

noun: respectful submission or yielding to the judgment, opinion, will, etc., of another.

Deference is typically shown to older – and/or believed to be more experienced – people in various matters. As examples, we defer to the clergy in matters of religion, doctors in matters of medicine, and judges in matters of the law (the honest ones, anyway). Deference is also shown to people with credentials, too. What do I mean by that? There is a societal belief that people with the “right” credentials should be deferred to in matters associated with those credentials. The more credentials one “earns,” the more deference shown. There are all kinds of credentials: those earned by learned/demonstrated skills, those awarded by authoritative boards and committees, those achieved by passing tests, etc. Credentials are frequently used to preclude laymen from filling positions – a form of gatekeeper control.

But do credentials actually mean anything? Should we defer to people simply because they’ve got a piece of paper? Trust but verify works in the realm of validating credentials in everyday life, too. We look at the track records and recommendations/ratings first, don’t we? Who would willingly go to a known pedophile priest, a quack doctor, or a corrupt judge and blindly adhere to their advice without first checking them out? Let’s go one step further and look at the political class.

The political class has developed a sort of credentialism that accrues to politicians at different levels of government to the point that people elected to federal or certain state offices are considered “experts” in government operations and, seemingly, in virtually every topic and issue brought forth for consideration, regardless of whether there is any direct past expertise in those matters or not. Politicians blithely tell us to “trust them” because they are “experts” in how government operates – and a whole host of other myths intended to convince us to essentially let them run wild and free. I would argue they as a class have been pretty successful in that regard, as the national debt now exceeds $22 trillion! The bottom line is that they want us to look upon them as royalty and to treat them accordingly. They willfully forget that they serve us, not the other way around.

But let’s look at the facts: how many of the members of Congress have ANY expertise in any of the important matters under consideration these days? Who among them know anything about medical care (except for a very few who were formerly practicing physicians)? Or national security affairs, foreign policy, military requirements, “infrastructure,” the financial services industry, physical science as applied to environmental policy, existing immigration laws, border security, international trade, or even the US Constitution and Bill of Rights? Why on earth should we continually defer to lunatics like San Fran Nan, Shifty Schiff, Toad Nadler, Dick Blumenthal, Ho Harris, Spartacus Booker, Mad Maxine Waters, and others on ANY policy or piece of legislation that significantly impacts Americans? It’s frickin’ absurd.

Possibly even worse than the politicians are the Hollywood actors and actresses who are frequently trotted out by Democrats to convey their “vast knowledge” on left-wing subjects before Democrat-run committees in Congress. Hmmm. The only thing these people are “expert” at is in pretending to be other people (and some of them aren’t so good at doing that, either). And we’re supposed to be swayed by what they say on, say, nationalized medicine? Their opinions are as useful as those of street people!

What really stimulated my thoughts on the subject of deference – especially to members of Congress – was watching Corey Lewandowski’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. This was great political theater for a change.

Here we had Democrat representatives feigning outrage at Lewandowski, preening before TV cameras, and launching into ridiculous diatribes for political effect. And Lewandowski gave then just the right amount of respect – but no deference whatsoever!

His responses were the kind of responses for which I have been wishing and praying from ostensible Republicans to the likes of Nadler, Jackson-Lee and the rest for years! Well prepared, confident, not willing to give an inch, and not rolling over to Democrat presumptions. He bore their insults and verbal attacks without getting flustered and practically laughed in their faces at times. Made me laugh more than once, too! And the Democrats got NOTHING out of him to further their “impeachment inquiry.” Nothing! In fact, even the legacy media afterward castigated the Democrats for failing to properly interview Lewandowski and “wasting an opportunity to push the impeachment ball forward.” Lewandowski gave better than he got.

It’s amazing how some Republicans finally seem to have gotten a little spine in the Age of Trump, isn’t it? Even Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell have discovered their gonads over the past few months.

Back to the subject of deference. For years, I have had this print of a picture by the great American painter Norman Rockwell on my office wall as a daily reminder. It is entitled, “Freedom of Speech,” and a picture of a working man speaking truth to power and making his views known in a public meeting of some kind. It’s a direct example of what we as Americans should be doing on a regular basis, especially these days when so much corruption and criminality has been exposed! If anything, it properly reflects the deference of public servants toward average citizens, not the other way around! The political class and we need to be constantly reminded that they are to listen to and then serve us, not themselves!

Pompous windbags like Sheila Jackson-Lee berating private citizen Corey Lewandowski for crass political reasons are the antithesis of proper decorum and public service. Her performance was a direct result of the deference shown to the political class for decades. As an aside, I’d love to see her assets audited from top to bottom and her sources of income since election to Congress made widely known for her constituents to see. I’m sure that would be very illuminating. And the same goes for the rest of the contemptible fools.

How about liar Adam Schiff in his innumerable legacy media appearances over the past 2+ years in which he claimed to have the evidence necessary to “impeach the president” – which he couldn’t produce after the Mueller report was released? And then there’s his “parody” in an opening statement of the House Intelligence Committee about the President’s supposed extortion of Ukraine. It was a complete lie, as the telephone transcript summary of the two presidents’ phone call proved. Do we defer to him?

Should we show deference to Hillary Clinton who just called the president a “corrupt human tornado” while calling for his impeachment? The legacy media have been deferring to her for years, never challenging her about any of her egregious lies.

Then there is Fauxcahontas. Should we defer to her various pontifications about what policies she’d implement if elected president? The woman lied about her heritage to secure positions throughout her career. The legacy media have let her slide out of “deference,” too.

The list goes on and on. How many liars, knaves and thieves do you defer to in your private lives? I would wager not very many. Me neither.

The political class think that can say and do literally ANYTHING and get away with it and not be held accountable! They would do well to remember that there is no “royalty” in America, and the Founders and others fought a revolution to get out from under a tyrannical government. The political class demand deference from us yet fail miserably in their service obligations while taking advantages of perks that they give to themselves. I don’t think so! We should treat them just as we do credentialed people with whom we come in contact in our daily lives. Trust but verify. Confront them directly when they lie. Be courteous, but don’t be afraid to express your own opinion, particularly if it’s factual and contrary to what they bleat. Treat them with disdain when warranted. Inform others about their bad behavior, as appropriate. Follow the example of Corey Lewandowski and press other Republicans to do the same.

The political class need to earn our deference and respect – and that’s an EXTREMELY hard sell these days, especially with what we’ve seen lately. There are a lot of them who have demonstrated that they deserve no respect and certainly no deference. Let’s all deal with them accordingly – in the same manner as you would deal with others who violate trust in your daily lives. That is all that they deserve.

The end.

The post Why Do We Defer to the Political Class? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group chinese-kowtow-300x223 Why Do We Defer to the Political Class? washington D.C. Uncategorized Ukraine Politics political corruption New House investigations of Trump Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism Government Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats lie democrats Culture corruption Corrupt Democrats Congress Complicit Media career politicians Abuse of Power   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

#BelieveWomen: Juanita Broaddrick Has Questions for Omar and Warren After They Tweet Support for Blasey Ford

Westlake Legal Group Juanita-Broaddrick-bill-620x324 #BelieveWomen: Juanita Broaddrick Has Questions for Omar and Warren After They Tweet Support for Blasey Ford Social Media Sexual Assault Politics North Carolina Minnesota Media Massachusetts juanita broaddrick Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Ilhan Omar Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post Elizabeth Warren donald trump democrats Culture crime Congress Campaigns Brett Kavanaugh Bill Clinton Allow Media Exception #BelieveAllWomen

Because it’s been a year since Christine Blasey Ford testified in the show trial witch hunt Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Brett Kavanaugh, a number of elected Democrats are taking to the Twitter machine to note they “still believe her.”

Among them is Sen. Kamala Harris (CA), who stated Ford “courageously forced our nation to reckon with an issue that has too often been kept in the dark.” And because she’s desperately trying to become relevant again in the 2020 presidential race, Harris has called for an impeachment inquiry into Justice Kavanaugh.

Two other high-profile Democrats women who tweeted out their support for Blasey Ford were fellow presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA) and Squad member Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN).

Here’s what Omar had to say about Blasey Ford:

Like Harris, Warren feels Kavanaugh and President Trump both should be impeached. Warren tweeted her support Friday night for Blasey Ford:

Juanita Broaddrick, who has said for decades that former President Bill Clinton raped her in the late 70s when he was the Arkansas attorney general, had some questions for the both of them:

When Omar didn’t respond, Broaddrick also asked the same question of Warren:

As of this writing, neither of them have responded to Broaddrick’s question. And they won’t.

Because for Democrats, especially Democratic women, “Believe All Women” – which ironically is a slogan that gained popularity after tweets from Hillary Clinton with similar messaging went viral a few years ago – “Believe All Women” only applies to women who have accused Republican/conservative men of sexual misconduct or assault.

In other words, “Believe All Women” is a weaponized accusatory tool for Democratic women which they shamefully use only in instances where they feel it will benefit them politically. It’s shameful, but it’s who they are.

Kudos to Broaddrick for continuing to point out their double standards.

Related –>> Hillary Clinton Tries To Bask In Impeachment Glow, But Juanita Broaddrick Is Simply Not Having It

—–
— 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 #BelieveWomen: Juanita Broaddrick Has Questions for Omar and Warren After They Tweet Support for Blasey Ford appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Juanita-Broaddrick-bill-300x157 #BelieveWomen: Juanita Broaddrick Has Questions for Omar and Warren After They Tweet Support for Blasey Ford Social Media Sexual Assault Politics North Carolina Minnesota Media Massachusetts juanita broaddrick Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Ilhan Omar Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post Elizabeth Warren donald trump democrats Culture crime Congress Campaigns Brett Kavanaugh Bill Clinton Allow Media Exception #BelieveAllWomen   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Polling Indicates That the Democrat Focus On Impeachment Isn’t a Great Evolutionary Strategy

Westlake Legal Group bigfoot-542546_1280-620x413 Polling Indicates That the Democrat Focus On Impeachment Isn’t a Great Evolutionary Strategy youGovUS/HuffPo polls Politics Morning Consult/Politico Marist/NPR impeachment Harris/Rasmussen Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception

 

The Democrats seem committed to impeaching President Trump. At some level they’ve decided that impeachment will help them in 2020. I suspect part of this dynamic is driven by the fact that the Democrats only control the House and most of the federal bureaucracy and so they know that their chance of passing any significant legislation to mobilize their base approaches zero and one way of diverting attention from the lunacy of about a third of Democrat House members is by peddling the narrative that “we were obstructed by an illegitimate president and we impeached him.”

Let’s take a look at some of the polling:

Because we don’t do this kind of thing very often, it is more than a little uncertain what all this means. National Review, frames it this way: Plurality of Americans Support Impeaching Trump. You can nearly imagine David French and a couple of others forming an impromptu conga line replete with fruity drinks in coconut shells with festive paper umbrellas.

To me there are several interesting points.

Trump retains about 90% support from Republicans. That indicates that the bullsh** Jeff Flake was slinging was just that, bullsh**.

If 90% of GOP voters oppose impeachment there is no possible universe win which over half the GOP Senate caucus would vote to convict President Trump.

Independents are evenly divided on the subject.

We really don’t know the intensity of the independents but there are some factoids in the NRO article that bear considering:

A Marist/NPR/PBS NewsHour survey, meanwhile, taken on Wednesday, found that nearly half of Americans support impeachment. Forty-nine percent of respondents said they favor impeaching Trump, while 46 percent said they oppose it. Half of respondents said they think the inquiry is a “serious matter,” while 48 percent said it’s “just politics.”The survey also found that half of independents disapprove of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, and 52 percent said it isn’t worth the time if the Senate ultimately fails to convict Trump.

This does not sound intense at all.

This from the Morning Consult/Politico poll:

Fifty-nine percent of voters who support impeachment said they believe the president committed an impeachable offense, a high since the survey began asking the question in May 2017. Thirty-seven percent of impeachment supporters, meanwhile, said they believe Trump should be removed from office.

Conversely, 41% of people who support impeachment DON’T believe Trump committed any offenses and 63% don’t want Trump removed from office.

This sounds like the see impeachment as a shot across the bow but really don’t want Trump convicted by the Senate

My assessment would be that the polling for impeachment has peaked. The more the nation hears about how Schiff (and I think a number of people within the IC) engineered this scandal the less they will like it. Unlike the situation during the Russia Hoax, most of the levers of power a firmly in Trump’s hands and that is going to have an impact going forward. If the Democrats do push ahead with impeachment, that is what the 2020 election will be fought on nationally and in House and Senate elections. If your highwater mark is around 45%, that isn’t a great strategy.

On the other hand, the Democrats can’t really afford to bail on impeachment. They need the motivated loonies to turn out and if they don’t impeach OrangeMan, many of those loonies are going to be torqued and stay home. Conservatives, you know how that works. Look what happens every time we primary some GOPe type and win…they stay home.

One thing we know for sure from the past three years is that you can never predict what President Trump will do. But I think the takeaways from this polling is clear. Absent some new and substantial scandal, the desire for impeachment has peaked and will begin to recede. And it is the Democrats who have to decide if impeachment works for them as a reelection platform in that tranche of red/purple districts that flipped in 2018…or if they even care.

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

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

The post Polling Indicates That the Democrat Focus On Impeachment Isn’t a Great Evolutionary Strategy appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group bigfoot-542546_1280-300x200 Polling Indicates That the Democrat Focus On Impeachment Isn’t a Great Evolutionary Strategy youGovUS/HuffPo polls Politics Morning Consult/Politico Marist/NPR impeachment Harris/Rasmussen Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com