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 81)

Report: DNC Is Feverishly, Confidently Stockpiling Op Research Against Trump; But These Two Words Might Just Blow Up Their World

Westlake Legal Group 2020-DEBATE_NIGHT2-300x154 Report: DNC Is Feverishly, Confidently Stockpiling Op Research Against Trump; But These Two Words Might Just Blow Up Their World Tom Perez President Trump Liberal Elitism Front Page Stories Featured Story Election 2020 donald trump dnc democrats Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020

 

Axios reports that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has been hard at work building up their war chest with ammunition to spring against President Trump once the 2020 race heats up. For starters, their research team has “mined thousands of lawsuits from nearly 50 states” which they plan to “weaponize through politicians and reporters in key battlegrounds. ”

One document consists of a “detailed” list of each occasion Trump said that Mexico would pay for the wall. A source familiar with this research told Axios that this list “will likely find its way to local reporters, groups and Democrats in battleground states as Trump diverts funds from the military to pay for his border wall.”

The DNC has accumulated statements from farmers and truckers making derogatory comments about how Trump’s tariffs have affected their businesses.

According to Axios, the DNC has “combed through local news articles and monitored local cable interviews with residents in states like Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Texas to find these folks who are being hurt by Trump’s policies…And they’ve already filed “thousands” of Freedom of Information Act requests to get even more info on the president.”

DNC chairman Tom Perez spoke to organization officials and strategists recently and told them to, “make it about [Trump’s] performance as president, not his bigotry or awfulness. Prosecute the case that he is bad at his job and it is hurting people in real ways.”

Another source said the plan is to “define” Trump because there are

So many ways his actual policies have really hurt people or how he’s been ineffective in fulfilling his promises. Let’s say he goes to Youngstown, Ohio. We have everything he said, what he promised in 2016 to that community — maybe it’s ‘that bridge will be fixed’ — then we’ll show what’s actually happened since.

The DNC plan is to target the states Trump won in 2016 that they believe they have a reasonable chance to take back in 2020.

All of this seems like weak tea to me.

Trump repeatedly told supporters that Mexico would pay for the wall. My guess is that his base will forgive him for his inability to deliver on this promise because of his tireless efforts to try. Against all odds, his widely criticized threat to place tariffs on imported Mexican goods succeeded in gaining Mexico’s cooperation in reducing the number of illegals trying to enter the U.S. In the months since Mexico caved, the number of illegals apprehended at the border has declined by significant margins. And there is a direct economic benefit, in terms of money saved, to fewer migrants flowing into the country. He may point to the money U.S. taxpayers did not have to spend as a result of Mexico’s strengthened efforts as their contribution to the wall.

He has tried endlessly to construct a border wall, but has faced nearly insurmountable Democratic opposition. Recall Pelosi and Schumer’s refusal to compromise during the government shutdown in January, Trump’s invocation of a national emergency to obtain federal funding in May, the countless liberal judges who have continually ruled against his efforts and Democrats’ refusal for months to even acknowledge there was a crisis at the border. In fact, all of these tactics might very well be used against them in 2020.

The Democrats must remember that each of the nominees also have a past record which can be weaponized against them. Each time Joe Biden appears in public, his diminished mental capacity is evident to voters. Elizabeth Warren will forever be known as Pocahontas. She’ll have to explain why she claimed Native American heritage to get a jump on her competitors at Harvard and elsewhere. And Bernie Sanders is just a bridge too far to win a general election, especially after his call for U.S. taxpayers to pay for abortions in third world country to control population.

Like it or not, most voters aren’t ready for open borders, late-term abortion or a socialist America.

Also, Trump has succeeded in making the anti-Semitic, power-hungry group of four known as the Squad, the face of the Democratic Party.

And we can’t forget the power of incumbency.

But the strongest headwind of all is yet to come. It can be summed up in two words.

John Durham.

The post Report: DNC Is Feverishly, Confidently Stockpiling Op Research Against Trump; But These Two Words Might Just Blow Up Their World appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 2020-DEBATE_NIGHT1-300x154 Report: DNC Is Feverishly, Confidently Stockpiling Op Research Against Trump; But These Two Words Might Just Blow Up Their World Tom Perez President Trump Liberal Elitism Front Page Stories Featured Story Election 2020 donald trump dnc democrats Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

#Journalism: WaPo Digs Hole, Sends Reporter to Alabama to Prove Dorian Didn’t Hit the State

Westlake Legal Group DonaldTrumpFEMAapImage-620x317 #Journalism: WaPo Digs Hole, Sends Reporter to Alabama to Prove Dorian Didn’t Hit the State white house Washington Post washington D.C. Social Media republicans Politics North Carolina Media journalism Hurricane Dorian Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture Allow Media Exception Alabama

President Donald Trump speaks at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Sunday, Sept. 1, 2019, in Washington. Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan is left. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

On Saturday I wrote about a humorous video President Trump tweeted Friday afternoon that showed CNN, which has obsessively covered the idiotic “Sharpiegate” controversy, had themselves said the state of Alabama was at one point under threat from Hurricane Dorian.

Here’s the video for those who missed it. Some news outlets reported that it was “doctored” but it was only done so to the extent that it showed weather anchor Derek Van Dam say Alabama 10 times in a row. It also included clips of Trump inserted at the beginning and towards the end of the video:

The Trump War Room Twitter account also tweeted out the video minus the so-called “doctoring”:

As I noted in my post, there’s a reason Trump hasn’t given up on this as easily as CNN and other media outlets would like him to. Because the evidence – including evidence that came directly from CNN – backs him up on his initial claims. For example, see this screen grab taken from Sharyl Attkisson, which you can watch play out at this NOAA link:

Unfortunately the mainstream media are still fixated on this issue. So much so that the Washington Post actually sent a reporter to visit Alabama over the weekend in order to prove Dorian did not actually hit the state.

In a piece originally titled “Here in Alabama, no sign of President Trump’s hurricane”, features writer Avi Selk reported:

MOBILE, Ala. — The city stands.

The grocery stores are fully stocked, the Home Depot has no lack of generators, tarps and plywood, and it’s business as usual at the Waffle Houses.

Boaters on the Mobile River have been urged to caution — only because a group of manatees were spotted frolicking nearby. The highway south runs past unsunk boats and unbroken masts all the way to the mouth of the Gulf of Mexico, where resort-town general stores report no panicked runs on supplies — not now and not a week ago, when Trump first claimed Alabama would likely be slammed by Hurricane Dorian.

But it’s always calmest in the center of a storm, sometimes even political ones. The rest of the United States is basically the eyewall: an ever-widening vortex of outrage and bureaucratic retaliations whirling around Trump’s false weather reports.

Selk went on to write about interviews he’d had with area residents to gauge how they felt about Trump’s “false weather reports”, but Selk must have left Alabama sorely disappointed because the piece only quoted three people who were in various stages of upset (from mild to really) over Trump’s initial claims about the possibility of Dorian hitting Alabama.

Selk’s report, I should note, did not include any mention of this tweet from the Alabama National Guard, which was posted just a day before Trump’s first remarks about Dorian and Alabama. Clearly the state believed the lower southeastern section was going to be impacted by the storm:

——-
— 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 #Journalism: WaPo Digs Hole, Sends Reporter to Alabama to Prove Dorian Didn’t Hit the State appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group DonaldTrumpFEMAapImage-300x153 #Journalism: WaPo Digs Hole, Sends Reporter to Alabama to Prove Dorian Didn’t Hit the State white house Washington Post washington D.C. Social Media republicans Politics North Carolina Media journalism Hurricane Dorian Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture Allow Media Exception Alabama  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Democrats Can Make Tulsi Gabbard Its Saving Grace or Its Worst Nightmare

In the sea of 2020 Democratic candidates opposing Trump, only Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard finds that she has both Democrats and Republicans nodding along with her from time to time. Gabbard is in no way a candidate that conservative would vote into office, but they do have a sweet spot for her and it comes from the simple fact that, unlike the rest of her leftist colleagues, Gabbard has principles.

Gabbard has a habit of defying Democratic orthodoxy and has had this penchant of ruffling the feathers of the Democratic establishment for some time. She defied the DNC during the 2016 elections by resigning from her post as vice-chair when it was discovered that the DNC had rigged 2016 for Hillary Clinton, and endorsed Bernie Sanders as a result. She’s also wasn’t a big fan of Obama’s foreign policy and made it clear that the U.S. engaging in foreign regime changes has to stop.

She even committed a taboo on the left by accusing her fellow lawmakers of “religious bigotry” when they questioned Brian Buescher, President Trump’s nominee for the U.S. District Court in Nebraska, about his connections to the Knights of Columbus.

To be clear, Gabbard holds many positions that a Democrat would. She’s an environmentalist that opposes nuclear plants, she wants gun control, is pro-abortion, and likes the idea of Medicare for all. Again, she’s not being considered as a candidate by any conservative, but when it comes to a Democrat that could be worked with, Conservatives feel comfortable with Gabbard. They can, at least, work with her.

It’s not her stances that Republicans and Libertarians love, it’s her character.

This should be solid news for Democrats, especially those moderates looking for someone they feel wouldn’t cave to the radicalism that has infected the party and are actually considering voting for Trump.

But it’s that radicalism that has infected the party that will see to it that Gabbard’s candidacy never sees the light of day. In fact, the new unofficial powers-that-be in the Democratic party have turned on Gabbard and are doing everything in their power to scare Democrats away from her.

The Daily Beast, Jacobin, and even major networks like CNN have been casting shade toward Gabbard in one form or another. The Daily Beast attempted to cast Gabbard as a friend of the “far-right.” CNN and MSNBC attempted to nail Gabbard to the wall on her meeting with Middle-East dictator Bashar As-Assad. Gabbard was forced to defend herself by saying that this was peace effort to prevent more senseless war with the goal of protecting more of her brothers and sisters in uniform from dying.

Interestingly enough, the mainstream hit on Gabbard came after she swept the legs out from California’s Kamala Harris, which was the mainstream media’s favorite candidate at the time.

Between her resistance to the idea of open borders, her wish to audit the fed, her hardline stances on fighting back terrorism, and more, she has found herself to be something of a hated step-child by the hard-left Democrats that currently rule the party. This is bad news for Democrats. If the lumbering machine would shrug off radicalism and put its weight behind Gabbard, it would attract moderates back to their tent and give the left some credibility back.

It wouldn’t be a complete turnaround for it, but it would be a good start.

Still, in this way, Gabbard is a dark mark on the Democrats. As the question of coming back to the middle is asked around the party, Gabbard is the answer staring them in the face, and they’re refusing to look at her in any serious capacity, even as she’s consistently the most searched for candidate after debates. From the perspective of those in the middle and those on the right, this isn’t a good look. It’s a sign that the Democrat party has fallen to infection and that the options in 2020 are between Trump and idealistic insanity.

No matter how you slice it, Gabbard is having an effect, and the left has to choose whether or not that effect will benefit them or hurt them.

The post The Democrats Can Make Tulsi Gabbard Its Saving Grace or Its Worst Nightmare appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group f1c61773-57dd-4e5a-96c7-3045358f05e5-300x153 The Democrats Can Make Tulsi Gabbard Its Saving Grace or Its Worst Nightmare tulsi gabbard Trump radicalism Politics Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats Allow Media Exception 2020  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

That Study On Trump Causing Hate Crimes that CNN Keeps Touting Has Been Debunked, But It Gets Even Better

Westlake Legal Group snopes-fake-news-sites-620x344 That Study On Trump Causing Hate Crimes that CNN Keeps Touting Has Been Debunked, But It Gets Even Better study Politics Hillary Clinton Hate Crimes Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story fake news donald trump democrats Debunked CNN ADL

Whenever something plays into your narrative perfectly, it’s always best to be skeptical. CNN has never learned that lesson and it has led to dozens of published stories over the years on Donald Trump that turned out to be wrong or misleading.

Enter a study released by the Anti-Defamation League and relentlessly pushed by the media. CNN recently re-upped the claim in an on air segment claiming that Trump’s rhetoric “resonates” with white supremacists while citing the aforementioned study.

Well, now that same study has been debunked, and keep reading because it gets even better than that.

A study purporting to show that hate crimes increased 226% in counties that hosted rallies for then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016 has been officially debunked. Not only did the study’s authors fail to account for the fact that political campaigns prefer to host rallies in populous areas, which already experience more hate crimes, but the authors didn’t check to see if the same increase could be applied to Hillary Clinton’s rallies.

The study’s authors purposely left out major context, seemingly not even applying a control, while coming to the conclusion that there was a major spike in hate crimes caused by Trump’s rallies being present in cities. Other problems include them not even adjusting for population. In other words, they simply took totalities of reported hate crimes (many of which weren’t even hate crimes) in major populous areas and compared them to counties with only a fraction of the people, thereby manufacturing an increase.

Then things got really awkward. The original study’s methodology was applied to Hillary Clinton rallies and the results are hilarious.

Simply applying the same formula as the original academics, two Ph.D. students from Harvard University found that “Clinton rallies contribute to an even greater increase in hate crimes incidents than Trump rallies.”

Yes, when using the flawed methods of the much ballyhooed study, Clinton rallies actually showed a greater increase in hate crimes. Now, does this mean that Clinton’s rallies were the cause of such an increase? No, because the increase isn’t even real. This is from the Harvard team that debunked all this.

Both of these results rely on comparing counties with rallies to other counties without them. This produces a glaring problem. Politicians tend to hold political rallies near where large numbers of people live. And in places with more people, the raw number of crimes is generally mechanically higher. Simply put, no one should be surprised that Orange County, California (population 3.19 million) was home to both more reported hate incidents (5) and Trump rallies (2) than Orange County, Indiana (population 19,840, which had zero of each).

They would go on to mince no words about the original study’s veracity, saying this in conclusion.

The Harvard students went a step further. Unlike the original study, they added “a simple statistical control for county population to the original analysis causes the estimated effect of Trump rallies on reported hate incidents to become statistically indistinguishable from zero.”

Once again CNN and the mainstream media at large have been caught with their pants down. Will we get an on air correction? Nah, of course not. They’ll just move on to the next faux outrage and the cycle will repeat as it always does. It’s all partisan and it’s all about the narrative.

————————————————

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 That Study On Trump Causing Hate Crimes that CNN Keeps Touting Has Been Debunked, But It Gets Even Better appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 585856461c00000a070ec769-300x217 That Study On Trump Causing Hate Crimes that CNN Keeps Touting Has Been Debunked, But It Gets Even Better study Politics Hillary Clinton Hate Crimes Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story fake news donald trump democrats Debunked CNN ADL  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

John Ratcliffe Predicts An Indictment For CNN’s Newest Contributor, Andrew McCabe

Westlake Legal Group andrew-mccabe-300x182 John Ratcliffe Predicts An Indictment For CNN’s Newest Contributor, Andrew McCabe Special Counsel Mueller Investigation Michael Horowitz Michael Flynn John Ratcliffe Jeff Sessions george papadopoulos Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption donald trump democrats crime Andrew McCabe Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power

 

In an appearance on Fox News‘ “Sunday Morning Futures,” Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) told host Maria Bartiromo he sees an indictment for fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe on charges of lying to the government.

McCabe was fired on March 16, 2018, hours before his retirement was scheduled to take effect. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions made his decision based on recommendations from both the DOJ’s Inspector General and the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility. The IG report indicated that McCabe “had made unauthorized releases of information to the media and had misled agents who questioned him about it” and had “displayed a lack of candor.” Simply put, he lied to investigators.

The IG report stated:

We found that, in a conversation with then-Director Comey shortly after the WSJ article was published, McCabe lacked candor when he told Comey, or made statements that led Comey to believe, that McCabe had not authorized the disclosure and did not know who did.  This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.5 (Lack of Candor – No Oath).

We also found that on May 9, 2017, when questioned under oath by FBI agents from INSD, McCabe lacked candor when he told the agents that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ and did not know who did.  This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor –  Under Oath).

We further found that on July 28, 2017, when questioned under oath by the OIG in a recorded interview, McCabe lacked candor when he stated: (a) that he was not aware of Special Counsel having been authorized to speak to reporters around October 30 and (b) that,  because he was not in Washington, D.C., on October 27 and 28, 2016, he was unable to say where Special Counsel was or what she was doing at that time.  This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).

We additionally found that on November 29, 2017, when questioned under oath by the OIG in a recorded interview during which he contradicted his prior statements by acknowledging that he had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ, McCabe lacked candor when he: (a) stated that he told Comey on October 31, 2016, that he had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ; (b) denied telling INSD agents on May 9 that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ about the PADAG call; and (c) asserted that INSD’s questioning of him on May 9 about the October 30 WSJ article occurred at the end of an unrelated meeting when one of the INSD agents pulled him aside and asked him one or two questions about the article. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor –   Under Oath).

McCabe denied any wrongdoing, claiming the charges were politically motivated.

Actually, although IANAL, it looks like perjury to me.

Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, said, “Here, you have the inspector general stating that Andrew McCabe did that multiple times, and the magic words, did so intentionally and knowingly. I think the Department of Justice is going to have to indict Andy McCabe, simply because to do otherwise would be to admit that there are separate standards for people doing the same thing for the same conduct. You can’t really tell the public we’re going to treat people differently for the same conduct.”

He added that the Mueller team “made a cottage industry out of charging people like General Flynn and George Papadopoulos for lying to investigators.”

The Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross notes that, given McCabe’s rank at the FBI, he was “authorized to release information about ongoing investigations to the media as long as it was done in the public interest.” But, in his report, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz writes that “McCabe authorized the leak in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership.”

An August 26th report from the New York Times said that McCabe’s attorneys had met with Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen. When a suspect’s attorneys meet with the Deputy AG, it is often a clue that an indictment is on the way. It can be construed as a last ditch effort for the attorneys to make the case that their client is innocent.

The New York Times report said:

Federal prosecutors in Washington appear to be in the final stages of deciding whether to seek an indictment of Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy F.B.I. director and a frequent target of President Trump, on charges of lying to federal agents, according to interviews with people familiar with recent developments in the investigation.

In two meetings last week, Mr. McCabe’s lawyers met with the deputy attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, who is expected to be involved in the decision about whether to prosecute, and for more than an hour with the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, Jessie K. Liu, according to a person familiar with the meetings. The person would not detail the discussions, but defense lawyers typically meet with top law enforcement officials to try to persuade them not to indict their client if they failed to get line prosecutors to drop the case.

Ratcliffe told Bartiromo that “there is a difference of opinion” over whether or not McCabe will be indicted. He said, “I don’t know how you can’t indict him when he is engaged in the same conduct that other people have recently been charged for at the Department of Justice, particularly when your own watchdog says that those lies were done intentionally and knowingly and done repeatedly.”

In an incredibly audacious move, McCabe sued the DOJ and the FBI last month. He blames Trump for his firing. His lawsuit (which can be viewed here) states that Trump had “constitutionally improper motives for removing him.”

Watch the video.

The post John Ratcliffe Predicts An Indictment For CNN’s Newest Contributor, Andrew McCabe appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group andrew-mccabe-300x182 John Ratcliffe Predicts An Indictment For CNN’s Newest Contributor, Andrew McCabe Special Counsel Mueller Investigation Michael Horowitz Michael Flynn John Ratcliffe Jeff Sessions george papadopoulos Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption donald trump democrats crime Andrew McCabe Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Don Lemon and Guest: Obama was Great for Them, but Trump Spits in Black People’s Faces

Westlake Legal Group tree-water-nature-forest-grass-horizon-664146-pxhere.com_-620x413 Don Lemon and Guest: Obama was Great for Them, but Trump Spits in Black People’s Faces Unemployment Uncategorized racism Race keith boykin Front Page Stories Featured Story Economy donald trump Don Lemon democrats baltimore 2020

 

 

Don Lemon has a message for black voters: Sure, your unemployment rate may be at a record low, but don’t vote for Trump.

As reported by Newsbusters, on Friday, Don and his CNN guest downplayed August’s headline-grabbing 5.5% black unemployment in favor of highlighting the President’s “racist behavior.”

Besides, the black prosperity was all ‘causa Obama.

Panelist Keith Boykin BOOYAHed for Barack:

“It started going down though in the Obama administration. It was 16.8 percent in March of 2010. And it dropped to 7.8 percent; a 54 percent reduction under President Obama. And Trump…while this was happening, denied that it was even happening. He called the numbers ‘fake news;’ until he came into office, and suddenly all the numbers he said were fake were magically real. And so, he took credit for the momentum that…has occurred since that time.

“So we have 8.9 percent in the Obama presidency, and down by 2.5 percent in this presidency. As you said, it is good news. It is a good trend. But it didn’t start under this president, and the numbers actually declined much stronger under the former president.”

Well there ya go.

Plus, racism.

Here’s what Keith believes black people think:

“I think the message is something that does not resonate with black communities and brown communities simply because of the rhetoric that has come out of the White House.”


To what rhetoric was he referring?

Apparently, some Klannish stuff from that guy who spits in the face of non-whites:

“And so, I think I said almost two years ago to the day on this program, that if someone spits in your face and then hands you a napkin, you don’t get to say ‘Thank you.’”

Don seemed to really like that.

Go sour, Lemon:

“As you say, if someone spits in your face and hands you a napkin, how…what is that supposed to…I don’t understand that argument. Does that mean that the only part of your brain, or the only part of our being that matters is money? Rather than how someone treats you and what someone says about you?”

What has Donald Trump said about the black race?

Oh, here it is; Don posed the following question:

“How do black voters in 2020 weight these unemployment numbers against the President’s racist behavior [indecipherable]– Charlottesville, slamming Baltimore, ‘rodent infested,’ and, you know, go on and on?”

Has Baltimore become the black race? Is it racist to criticize that particular city or refer to a rodent infestation? If so, watch Democrats — including the city’s black mayor — do racist things here, here, and here.

Strange new definition, though; here’ s the old one: the judging of an individual solely by his or her race.

Regardless, the President — it sounds like — has done nothin’ good.

Keith pressed harder, in case you missed it the first time:

“Donald Trump had little to nothing to do with the drop in unemployment for African-Americans. No one can…no one who talks about this in the Republican Party can cite a single policy contributed by Donald Trump that is responsible for the drop in black unemployment. It’s all because of policies that … that started long ago. It wasn’t the tax cut or anything like that. Policies started long ago in the Obama administration when we started to see the drop. And the other thing is that Obama had the good sense not to go out and brag about it every time that there was a drop in unemployment because he knew that it’s still too high compared to the white unemployment rate.”

And that’s the news.

-ALEX

 

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 Don Lemon and Guest: Obama was Great for Them, but Trump Spits in Black People’s Faces appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group tree-water-nature-forest-grass-horizon-664146-pxhere.com_-300x200 Don Lemon and Guest: Obama was Great for Them, but Trump Spits in Black People’s Faces Unemployment Uncategorized racism Race keith boykin Front Page Stories Featured Story Economy donald trump Don Lemon democrats baltimore 2020 Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Republican Smart Set Attack Conservatives for Fighting Back Against Cancel Culture, Offer No Solutions of Their Own

The propensity for a certain sect of blue check mark Republicans to constantly attack their own side continues. They are virtuous, moral, and our betters in every way and they want you to know it all times. The latest example of this involves “cancel culture,” which is the act of using someone’s past statements against them in order to get them fired, punished in some way, or ostracized from polite society.

The left have pioneered its use for years with no mercy. For the most part, Republicans have sat on the sidelines sneering. It hasn’t worked at all. Instead, the left have only build up their offensive inventory more, with outfits like Media Matters and CNN’s KFile constantly looking for anyone on the right to destroy.

That has led many conservatives to decide that holding the left to their own standards is not only the best way to push back, but the most just way to handle the situation.

Of course, then you get stuff like this.

This is absolute nonsense and it’s typical of the kind of snark and venom directed at fellow Republicans by some of the conservative “smart set.” They rarely muster such energy when going after the left though, as you’re more likely to find them exchanging sarcastic, cutesy quips with liberals on Twitter in order to appear “above the fray.” They’ll savage you if you cross their line on an issue but are always respectful to whatever Vox reporter or CNN personality they are interacting with.

Logically, there is nothing immature about holding your opponent to the same standards they apply to you, especially when those standards themselves are not objectively immoral. You may not like it when the right exposes the bad behavior of someone on the left, but that’s not immoral. It was not immoral when Breitbart exposed a college professor for racist views, including saying white people couldn’t have opinions. Why should a school be expected to keep someone like that when he has to interact with students of all races?

Yet, some Republicans rushed to his aid. That’s the entire catalyst for the above tweet and the story written by Robby Soave at Reason. They simply don’t want you fighting back, instead preferring to sit on the sidelines and keep signaling their virtue. That’d be fine if what they were signaling was actually virtuous but politics is not religion and shouldn’t be treated as such. Morality is one thing. Disagreements on tactics are another and it’s perfectly legitimate to use the left’s own attacks against them.

The bigger problem though is that these same conservatives who scold their own side constantly about cancel culture continue to offer no solutions of their own to the issue. Why are Republicans bound to let the left continue to beat their brains in with this? What “principle” dictates that exactly?

John Ekdahl wrote a great response to all this.

What these certain conservatives are demanding is for their own side to simply allow cancel culture to overtake them. The left are not going to stop just because enough Republicans get on Twitter and scold them. Things are only accelerating now and they are only going to stop when destruction is mutually assured. By Griswold’s logic, Reagan should have gotten rid of all nuclear weapons to show the Soviets we are better than them. After all, it was really immature of him to build our weapons stockpiles, fighting fire with fire, when we could have just laid down our weapons and told the communists how bad they are. That would have been the mature, virtuous action, right? It also would have led to our destruction.

If Griswold, Soave, etc. want to keep slamming their political allies, perhaps it’s time they offer some viable solutions other than losing gracefully. There’s a serious rift on the right and I’m not sure Trump leaving the national stage sometime in the future is going to fix it. Too much has been said, too many bridges have been burned. The vast majority do not want to go back to getting beat with the Mitt Romneys of the world. That doesn’t mean everyone now has to be like Trump, as he’s certainly got flaws, but they will have to be willing to go after the left with vigor.

That’s a base requirement at this point and a select group of conservatives seem to be repulsed by even the most basic push back toward the progressive movement. They can either start figuring out ways to win within whatever behavioral worldview they hold or they can continue to go extinct as a political force. What they can’t continue to do is bash fellow conservatives for reacting reasonably while giving no alternatives of their own. That’s a quick path to irrelevancy outside of the bubble they currently inhabit.

————————————————

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 Republican Smart Set Attack Conservatives for Fighting Back Against Cancel Culture, Offer No Solutions of Their Own appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group woke-300x170 Republican Smart Set Attack Conservatives for Fighting Back Against Cancel Culture, Offer No Solutions of Their Own woke vox republicans reason Politics media bias John Ekdahl Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats Conservatives cancel culture Alex Griswold  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

It is Time To Leave Afghanistan and the People Wetting Themselves Over Trump Meeting With the Taliban Need To Grow Up

Westlake Legal Group trump-pence-pompeo-bolton-620x401 It is Time To Leave Afghanistan and the People Wetting Themselves Over Trump Meeting With the Taliban Need To Grow Up vichy republicans Taliban republicans Politics Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception Afghanistan

As my colleague Bonchie noted just a little earlier today, we’ve reached a point in our national discourse where it is impossible for President Trump to do virtually anything without a) the left and the media going utterly batsh** crazy and b) the NeverTrumpers and Vichy Republicans engaging in a freakout. The Pavlovian stimulus, in this case, was an announcement by President Trump that he had suspended negotiations with the Taliban because of a terror attack in Kabul:

This is what the Vichy wing of the NeverTrumper coalition had to say:

Putting aside French’s incredibly stupid assertion that the entire Trump administration doesn’t know what the Taliban are, the objection seems to be that the Taliban negotiators were coming to Camp David to seal the deal. First off, bringing odious characters to Camp David to achieve a diplomatic goal. Jimmy Carter brought the terrorist Yasser Arafat to Camp David as did Bill Clinton. Khrushchev, Gorbachev and Putin all visited visited Camp David. The only difference between any of those and the Taliban was a better haberdasher and marginally better person hygiene. We’ve been in direct negotiations with the Taliban since early 2018, so having them come to the US to try to nail down a deal makes good sense.

Any armed conflict has a fairly finite number of outcomes. You can win, and impose your will upon the enemy (think World War II). You can fight to a stalemate and negotiate an end to hostilities (think Korean). Or you can preemptively withdraw and leave the area to your enemies. If you are an empire or totalitarian regime, you may be able to sustain a multi-generational war, but that is a process, not an outcome.

Winning in Afghanistan, as most Americans would understand it, has never really been on the table. Mostly for the reason that no one could ever describe what a “win” looked like in a sh**hole backwater like Afghanistan. Even after nearly two decades of substantial Western contact, it remains a country whose society has deep ethnic fault lines, limited natural resources (if you rule out opium poppies), landlocked, and it is enslaved by a particularly brutal form of a religion that is firmly locked in the 8th century.

This is a war that started out as a punitive expedition, an exercise in killing as many people and breaking as many things as necessary in order to root out al Qaeda training camps and to teach whatever potentate or collection of potentates that took over the smoking ruins a lesson in behavior. Had we done that, we could have been out of Afghanistan in 2002 and declared, with total honesty, that our objectives had been achieved. The Bill Kristols of the world would have been unhappy because they’ve never really found a military adventure they could resist. The left would have been unhappy because the successor regime to the Taliban wouldn’t have had a significantly different worldview. But there would have been no al Qaeda camps there and a message would have been sent loud and clear.

Somewhere along the line, the mission changed from a punitive expedition to some kind of crusade to spread democracy and to transform Pashtun society. You didn’t have to be particularly bright to see that neither was going to happen without the active involvement of several hundred thousand US and NATO troops over three or four generations. And you had to be profoundly stupid to thing that level of political and military commitment was possible.

With a win being unachievable and some 18 years sunk investment, we had two remaining options: Negotiating a face saving withdrawal and leaving the Afghans to their own devices, or pulling the plug on this misadventure and leaving. In the end, the difference between these will be little more than semantic because when we ultimately leave there seems to be no indigenous coalition that can resist a Taliban supported by Pakistan and Iran.

If we accept that a negotiated settlement is necessary, then a visit to Camp David or Mar-A-Lago (the latter would probably not have been a great idea) would be an indispensable part of that. The Taliban are Pashtun and governed by the code of Pashtunwali and key components of that are hospitality and personal honor. The act of a US President receiving the Taliban delegation at a private retreat would have placed enormous pressure on the delegation to reach an accord simply to return the honor that was shown them. Literally an president interested in ending this war would be required to do the same and I’ve no doubt that he received this advice from both State and Defense.

Not to say this is a shame. We had the choice of leaving Afghanistan with honor and prestige, we elected to not do so. We had the choice of demonstrating the irresistible might of the US Armed Forces and I fear we have not only upped the Taliban’s game but we’ve taught more terrorists that if you simply hang in there America will lose interest. Were the investment of another 10 or 20 years likely to produce a different outcome, I’d be on the front ranks demanding that we hang in there. But it won’t because it can’t. We simply are not willing to undertake the kind of effort it would take to win and so we need to cut our losses and protect the inept and corrupt Afghan government as best we can as a new equilibrium is reached. If any good has come out of this experience, I hope it is in impressing upon our political establishment the folly of attempting a strategy the involves the transformation of a society without acknowledging the time and effort that will be required…or maybe just decide not to do it at all.

The people throwing feces in rage over this have nothing better to offer. They are simply opposed to a negotiated settlement because Trump is negotiating it. They really need to grow up.

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

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

The post It is Time To Leave Afghanistan and the People Wetting Themselves Over Trump Meeting With the Taliban Need To Grow Up appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group trump-pence-pompeo-bolton-300x194 It is Time To Leave Afghanistan and the People Wetting Themselves Over Trump Meeting With the Taliban Need To Grow Up vichy republicans Taliban republicans Politics Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception Afghanistan  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

It is Time To Leave Afghanistan and the People Wetting Themselves Over Trump Meeting With the Taliban Need To Grow Up

Westlake Legal Group trump-pence-pompeo-bolton-620x401 It is Time To Leave Afghanistan and the People Wetting Themselves Over Trump Meeting With the Taliban Need To Grow Up vichy republicans Taliban republicans Politics Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception Afghanistan

As my colleague Bonchie noted just a little earlier today, we’ve reached a point in our national discourse where it is impossible for President Trump to do virtually anything without a) the left and the media going utterly batsh** crazy and b) the NeverTrumpers and Vichy Republicans engaging in a freakout. The Pavlovian stimulus, in this case, was an announcement by President Trump that he had suspended negotiations with the Taliban because of a terror attack in Kabul:

This is what the Vichy wing of the NeverTrumper coalition had to say:

Putting aside French’s incredibly stupid assertion that the entire Trump administration doesn’t know what the Taliban are, the objection seems to be that the Taliban negotiators were coming to Camp David to seal the deal. First off, bringing odious characters to Camp David to achieve a diplomatic goal. Jimmy Carter brought the terrorist Yasser Arafat to Camp David as did Bill Clinton. Khrushchev, Gorbachev and Putin all visited visited Camp David. The only difference between any of those and the Taliban was a better haberdasher and marginally better person hygiene. We’ve been in direct negotiations with the Taliban since early 2018, so having them come to the US to try to nail down a deal makes good sense.

Any armed conflict has a fairly finite number of outcomes. You can win, and impose your will upon the enemy (think World War II). You can fight to a stalemate and negotiate an end to hostilities (think Korean). Or you can preemptively withdraw and leave the area to your enemies. If you are an empire or totalitarian regime, you may be able to sustain a multi-generational war, but that is a process, not an outcome.

Winning in Afghanistan, as most Americans would understand it, has never really been on the table. Mostly for the reason that no one could ever describe what a “win” looked like in a sh**hole backwater like Afghanistan. Even after nearly two decades of substantial Western contact, it remains a country whose society has deep ethnic fault lines, limited natural resources (if you rule out opium poppies), landlocked, and it is enslaved by a particularly brutal form of a religion that is firmly locked in the 8th century.

This is a war that started out as a punitive expedition, an exercise in killing as many people and breaking as many things as necessary in order to root out al Qaeda training camps and to teach whatever potentate or collection of potentates that took over the smoking ruins a lesson in behavior. Had we done that, we could have been out of Afghanistan in 2002 and declared, with total honesty, that our objectives had been achieved. The Bill Kristols of the world would have been unhappy because they’ve never really found a military adventure they could resist. The left would have been unhappy because the successor regime to the Taliban wouldn’t have had a significantly different worldview. But there would have been no al Qaeda camps there and a message would have been sent loud and clear.

Somewhere along the line, the mission changed from a punitive expedition to some kind of crusade to spread democracy and to transform Pashtun society. You didn’t have to be particularly bright to see that neither was going to happen without the active involvement of several hundred thousand US and NATO troops over three or four generations. And you had to be profoundly stupid to thing that level of political and military commitment was possible.

With a win being unachievable and some 18 years sunk investment, we had two remaining options: Negotiating a face saving withdrawal and leaving the Afghans to their own devices, or pulling the plug on this misadventure and leaving. In the end, the difference between these will be little more than semantic because when we ultimately leave there seems to be no indigenous coalition that can resist a Taliban supported by Pakistan and Iran.

If we accept that a negotiated settlement is necessary, then a visit to Camp David or Mar-A-Lago (the latter would probably not have been a great idea) would be an indispensable part of that. The Taliban are Pashtun and governed by the code of Pashtunwali and key components of that are hospitality and personal honor. The act of a US President receiving the Taliban delegation at a private retreat would have placed enormous pressure on the delegation to reach an accord simply to return the honor that was shown them. Literally an president interested in ending this war would be required to do the same and I’ve no doubt that he received this advice from both State and Defense.

Not to say this is a shame. We had the choice of leaving Afghanistan with honor and prestige, we elected to not do so. We had the choice of demonstrating the irresistible might of the US Armed Forces and I fear we have not only upped the Taliban’s game but we’ve taught more terrorists that if you simply hang in there America will lose interest. Were the investment of another 10 or 20 years likely to produce a different outcome, I’d be on the front ranks demanding that we hang in there. But it won’t because it can’t. We simply are not willing to undertake the kind of effort it would take to win and so we need to cut our losses and protect the inept and corrupt Afghan government as best we can as a new equilibrium is reached. If any good has come out of this experience, I hope it is in impressing upon our political establishment the folly of attempting a strategy the involves the transformation of a society without acknowledging the time and effort that will be required…or maybe just decide not to do it at all.

The people throwing feces in rage over this have nothing better to offer. They are simply opposed to a negotiated settlement because Trump is negotiating it. They really need to grow up.

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

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

The post It is Time To Leave Afghanistan and the People Wetting Themselves Over Trump Meeting With the Taliban Need To Grow Up appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group trump-pence-pompeo-bolton-300x194 It is Time To Leave Afghanistan and the People Wetting Themselves Over Trump Meeting With the Taliban Need To Grow Up vichy republicans Taliban republicans Politics Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception Afghanistan  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

A Hollywood Icon Makes an Astonishing Claim, and it Raises an Important Question: How Can We Return to One Nation Under God?

Westlake Legal Group american-839775_1280-620x377 A Hollywood Icon Makes an Astonishing Claim, and it Raises an Important Question: How Can We Return to One Nation Under God? Uncategorized rob reiner Politics Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Hysteria Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats democracy Culture Armageddon Allow Media Exception adam rifkin

 

 

Hating the president is a great American pastime.

But I’m talking about the more pedestrian kind of hate — like you hate when your shoe comes untied or you hate the The Backstreet Boys ’cause ‘N Sync sings your jam.

Maybe you voted for the other guy, so you hate this guy.

But the inauguration of Donald J. Trump brought a whole new kind of vicious enmity to politics.

And despite his critics’ constant assertion that he and his followers are dripping from the fangs, it seems to be the people who most ardently oppose him who’ve upped the game.

Good grief, there’s some hate for Trump out there.

And that emotional drive is often partnered with stunning claims, which — perhaps not merely coincidentally — seem rarely outfitted with explanation.

Donald Trump is an evil man who’s destroyed every tenet of the Constitution and brought on Armageddon, and that’s just the way it is.

To me, the hysteria doesn’t help anything. There’s no American conversation; there’s only memes.

The Commander-in-Chief, among his most fiercest adversaries, has become a cartoon.

Apropos, on Saturday, director Rob Reiner made an announcement: Donald Trump is the most lawless president in history. Or, more accurately — as lawless as any in history.

Powerful claim.

Rob also believes Trump has abused his position in order to “line his pockets”:

Such is the state in which we’re living.

So is this, speaking of cartoons:

Is that really how history will remember things?

The above tweets are mild examples; there are much, much, much more extreme ones that I don’t care to entertain at present time.

America appears to be currently separated into at least two countries: one which is in utter chaos, where the sky has fallen and the rivers have dried, where liberty has been abolished and Earth will never recover; and the other one, in which everything’s fine and people look at the alternate nation and say, “What the _____ is wrong with you??”

How did we get here? We’re co-existing in a fractured reality.

We may need to answer that question before we can address a more pertinent one:

How do we get back?

How do we return to that old school version of hating the president, as we all more or less live in the same United States?

We’re supposed to be “One Nation Under God.” As for God, that’s a whole debate in itself.

But how do we even make it to the “one nation” part?

I’d like to hear from you.

I’d like to know.

At this moment, I surely don’t.

-ALEX

 

See 3 more pieces from me:

America Needs A Christian Revival

September 11th: Remembering Not Only Tragedy, But Something Greater

Pat Sajak Crushes Conservative Blacklisting, Outrage Culture, And The Absurdity Of The ‘Look At Me’ Generation

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 A Hollywood Icon Makes an Astonishing Claim, and it Raises an Important Question: How Can We Return to One Nation Under God? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group american-839775_1280-300x183 A Hollywood Icon Makes an Astonishing Claim, and it Raises an Important Question: How Can We Return to One Nation Under God? Uncategorized rob reiner Politics Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Hysteria Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats democracy Culture Armageddon Allow Media Exception adam rifkin  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com