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 98)

Comedy Gold: Brian Stelter Upset Over Fox News Hiring Sarah Sanders, Gets Destroyed in the Comments

Westlake Legal Group AP_17236707099947-620x323 Comedy Gold: Brian Stelter Upset Over Fox News Hiring Sarah Sanders, Gets Destroyed in the Comments Social Media Sarah Sanders republicans Politics North Carolina Media journalism Front Page Stories Front Page fox news Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture CNN Brian Stelter Allow Media Exception

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders turns to leave at the conclusion of the daily news briefing at the White House, in Washington, Thursday, Aug. 24, 2017. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

It was a good day for Fox News and a bad day for CNN’s media firefighter Brian Stelter after the announcement Fox made that they were bringing former White House Press Sec. Sarah Sanders on as a political contributor in September.

From the press release:

FOX News has signed former White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders as a contributor, the network announced today. Sanders will provide political commentary and analysis across all of FOX News Media, including FOX News Channel (FNC), FOX Business Network (FBN), FOX News Digital, FOX Nation and the radio/podcast division. She will make her debut on FOX & Friends during its next live audience show on September 6th.

In commenting on the announcement, Sanders said, “FOX News has been the number one news organization in the country for 17 years running and I am beyond proud to join their incredible stable of on-air contributors in providing political insights and analysis.”

From July 2017 through June 2019, Sanders served as the White House Press Secretary for President Donald Trump. As the third woman and first mom to ever hold the position, Sanders was the administration’s chief spokesperson. She joined the administration as Deputy Press Secretary in January 2017 after previously working as a senior advisor for the president’s election campaign.

Sanders posted a tweet noting her excitement:

As did her dad, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee:

Others, however, were not so pleased – Stelter chief among them. Here’s what he wrote:

Dana Loesch was one of many who took him to the woodshed:

His response back, of course, was weak sauce:

His next answer, however, was hilarious. After a Twitter user pointed out just some of the many, many lies told by the Obama administration, Stelter laughably claimed they were “called out forcefully by the press” (LMAO!):

He really believes that. Seriously. He really does.

Needless to say, he was destroyed by other commenters who noted his and his network’s hypocrisy on the matter (as well as other news networks that have done similarly):

CNN “journalist” Oliver Darcy got in on the act, too, and got roasted:

Bonus take:

Meanwhile, in other news:

And let’s not forget CNN political contributor April Ryan instructing her bodyguard to throw a journalist out of the room during a speech she gave earlier this month. The journalist was assaulted as he was forced out of the hotel lobby and Ryan’s bodyguard is now facing assault charges. Legal action may be coming against Ryan soon, too.

Still no comment from Stelter (or Darcy) on any of it. Surprise.

——-
— 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 Comedy Gold: Brian Stelter Upset Over Fox News Hiring Sarah Sanders, Gets Destroyed in the Comments appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_17236707099947-300x157 Comedy Gold: Brian Stelter Upset Over Fox News Hiring Sarah Sanders, Gets Destroyed in the Comments Social Media Sarah Sanders republicans Politics North Carolina Media journalism Front Page Stories Front Page fox news Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture CNN Brian Stelter Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Secretary Of State Mike Pompeo Once Again Says No To Running For Senate

Westlake Legal Group AP_18044684427760-300x200 Secretary Of State Mike Pompeo Once Again Says No To Running For Senate white house Washington Examiner washington D.C. War Social Media putin progressives President Trump Policy Morning Briefing Mitch McConnell Middle East Media Interview Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Congress cia China Trade Talks China Border Wall Funding Bipartisanship Allow Media Exception 2019

(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Even though Mitch McConnell really wants him to run, Mike Pompeo is happy right where he is now as Secretay of State.

In an interview that covered a number of topics, Pompeo was once again pressed on whether or not he would be interested in leaving the administration early and run for Senate in his home state of Kansas. He once again shot the idea down. Cold.

From the Washington Examiner…

Washington Examiner : You want people from Youngstown, Pittsburgh?

Pompeo: And Wichita. Yes, and small towns in Texas, and Alabama, and Mississippi, and Appalachia, and in Idaho and Montana. I want people to come from all around because we need those voices heard here at the State Department as well.

Washington Examiner : … and running for Senate?

Pompeo: I am going to stay here. I’ve talked about this. I’m focused on what I’m doing right now. You can go read about it. There’s lots of people talking about it. The only one who’s not talking about it—

Washington Examiner : Is you?

Pompeo: Is me. Precisely.

This is incredibly good news for the country and the Trump administration. Pompeo has been a steady hand at both C.I.A. and now at State. With the amount of overturn in this administrations cabinet, having the person at State Department being a valued asset to the President with North Korea, China, Hong Kong and Iran going on should be reassuring to most Americans.

Kansas is a usually reliable state for the Republicans. I fully understand why Senator Mitch McConell would want a candidate to run with the qualifications of Mr. Pompeo. However, if they can’t find another overly qualified person in Kansas to run on the GOP ticket than that should be worrisome to the overall chances for the GOP to retain control of that chamber in 2020.

For now, we have a steady hand at State during a critical time in U.S. Foreign policy and should be thankful for that.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Secretary Of State Mike Pompeo Once Again Says No To Running For Senate appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_18044684427760-300x200 Secretary Of State Mike Pompeo Once Again Says No To Running For Senate white house Washington Examiner washington D.C. War Social Media putin progressives President Trump Policy Morning Briefing Mitch McConnell Middle East Media Interview Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Congress cia China Trade Talks China Border Wall Funding Bipartisanship Allow Media Exception 2019  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

We did it! America nearing trillion-dollar deficit this year, should run trillion-dollar deficit next year too

Westlake Legal Group tp-1 We did it! America nearing trillion-dollar deficit this year, should run trillion-dollar deficit next year too Trump trillion The Blog pelosi dollar democrats Deficit America

They say America can’t achieve big things anymore, particularly big things that require bipartisan cooperation.

But I’d call this “big.” And it really is an achievement: Imagine how terrible at basic responsible governance both of our national parties needed to be to produce trillion-dollar deficits at a moment of gangbusters economic growth.

Any schmuck can run a deficit when the economy’s shrinking. But when it’s growing steadily and adding six figures in new jobs month after month?

That’s a bona fide accomplishment. The degree of difficulty is off the charts.

The federal budget deficit is growing faster than expected as President Trump’s spending and tax cut policies force the United States to borrow increasing sums of money.

The deficit — the gap between what the government takes in through taxes and other sources of revenue and what it spends — will reach $960 billion for the 2019 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. That gap will widen to $1 trillion for the 2020 fiscal year, the Congressional Budget Office said in updated forecasts released on Wednesday.

That damage would be even higher if not for lower-than-expected interest rates, which are reducing the amount of money the government has to pay to its lenders. Still, the 2019 deficit is projected to be 25 percent larger than it was in 2018, and the budget office predicts it will continue to rise every year through 2023.

The current record for consecutive years with a deficit increase is five, notes the Times — and that during World War II, when the country was marshaling every available resource towards war.

Choose your culprit here — or rather, don’t choose since they’re not mutually exclusive. It starts with Trump, who’s showed zero interest in spending cuts at the same time that he’s pursued massive revenue reduction in the form of tax cuts. Twitter pal Jeff Dobbs reminded me yesterday of this exchange, immortalized by the Daily Beast in an article from December:

Since the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump’s aides and advisers have tried to convince him of the importance of tackling the national debt…

The friction came to a head in early 2017 when senior officials offered Trump charts and graphics laying out the numbers and showing a “hockey stick” spike in the national debt in the not-too-distant future. In response, Trump noted that the data suggested the debt would reach a critical mass only after his possible second term in office.

“Yeah, but I won’t be here,” the president bluntly said, according to a source who was in the room when Trump made this comment during discussions on the debt.

Trump was chattering about new tax cuts as recently as two days ago, consumed with economic stimulus to improve his electoral chances despite what that would mean for future deficits, particularly entitlements. And that’s on top of the tax revenue lost to the slower pace of economic growth due to his trade war. But it can’t all be laid off on Trump: The many Republican frauds in Congress who pounded the table for smaller government when Obama was in charge are also complicit, of course, starting with Trump’s own chief of staff. If the essential fraudulence of the tea-party era had to be reduced to a single quote, it would be this one from former fiscal superhawk Mick Mulvaney:

The post-Trump era for the Republican Party will be a parade of people whimpering that they privately disagreed with a lot of the things he did and said, but none of that pandering will be as disgusting as the Mulvaneys on the Hill suddenly rediscovering that they’re against deficits once Democrats are back in charge. As it is, the best the Times can do to find Republicans in a position of influence willing to criticize Trump’s spending is John Thune sheepishly saying, “I hope in a second term, he is interested” in entitlement reform, as if he and McConnell couldn’t roadblock any legislation they wanted to right now in order to focus Trump on spending.

And then there are the Democrats, for whom any cut to discretionary spending apart from defense spending is a new Holocaust, stealing bread from the mouths of children by reverting to the archaic spending levels the federal government maintained just one or two years ago. Even defense cuts are uncomfortable for them since it leaves them open to the Republican charge that they’re weak on national security. This year’s presidential primary has been a sustained exercise in who can promise more by way of new spending, with Bernie Sanders rolling out a $16 trillion environmental plan literally yesterday. Invariably lip service is paid to how these programs will “pay for themselves” but no one, progressives included, believes that; the federal track record of blowing through budgets is too long for even semi-plausible deniability. “It’ll pay for itself” is just a way of dismissing the inevitable rejoinder that massive new entitlements like Medicare for All and total student-loan forgiveness aren’t within our means. The “best” argument for preferring Democrats to the modern GOP on deficits is that they at least understand that tax revenue is a component of deficit reduction. The worst is that they’d have to soak the middle class 10 times over to make their agenda deficit-neutral.

Exit question: With both parties trending left on spending, what’s the way out of this? Is there one apart from a massive fiscal crisis that forces a bipartisan reckoning?

The post We did it! America nearing trillion-dollar deficit this year, should run trillion-dollar deficit next year too appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group tp-1-300x153 We did it! America nearing trillion-dollar deficit this year, should run trillion-dollar deficit next year too Trump trillion The Blog pelosi dollar democrats Deficit America  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

President Trump Doesn’t Need Legislation Or A Constitutional Amendment To Limit “Birthright” Citizenship

Westlake Legal Group constitution-620x326 President Trump Doesn’t Need Legislation Or A Constitutional Amendment To Limit “Birthright” Citizenship Uncategorized republicans Politics immigration Human Rights Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Citizenship Clause of 14th Amendment Birthright Citizenshp Allow Media Exception
As reported by my good friend and colleague Elizabeth Vaughn, President Trump is taking steps to eliminate the illegal abuse of what is known as “birthright citizenship.” As always, Ms. Vaughn has penned an excellent article. However, I do disagree with her in one regard, her incorrect analysis of the 14th Amendment and its applicability to children born on US soil to illegal aliens. She writes, emphasis mine

Again, he reignited debate on the policy last fall saying he would sign an executive order to do so. He faced serious backlash from Democratic lawmakers and even some Republicans. They argued, correctly, that birthright citizenship is a right guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment (adopted in 1868) and any changes would require the approval of Congress.

The Citizenship Clause states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. It was meant to override the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that denied African Americans citizenship.”

With great respect, my colleague Ms. Vaughn is incorrect, as are the folks who “argued correctly.” Here is why. It’s all about the phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” “Subject to the jurisdiction,” means complete, political and sovereign jurisdiction as opposed to what’s known as simple “territorial jurisdiction.”

Complete jurisdiction includes not only legal jurisdiction, but also political. It includes allegiance to a sovereign authority. Territorial jurisdiction is the the authority exerted over a given geographic area. Countries have territorial jurisdiction over just about anyone who is physically inside their borders. However, they have complete, political and sovereign jurisdiction of all of their citizens/subjects, wherever they may be.

An example of this would be if a visiting tourist from Canada, dissatisfied with the whiskey produced in his home country, got caught shoplifting a bottle of a bottle of Clyde May’s, Alabama’s finest small batch bourbon. The State of Alabama would exert territorial jurisdiction and arrest him. He would still however, retain his Canadian citizenship and remain a subject of The British Crown.

Westlake Legal Group 0D64AC42-EE48-47DD-9DB1-28206BB9FCC1-620x465 President Trump Doesn’t Need Legislation Or A Constitutional Amendment To Limit “Birthright” Citizenship Uncategorized republicans Politics immigration Human Rights Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Citizenship Clause of 14th Amendment Birthright Citizenshp Allow Media Exception

Alabama’s Finest

This same concept applies to illegal aliens who cross our border and end up giving birth. A couple from Guatemala might illegally enter the United States and while there, the expectant mother could give birth. Although we might detain the family and possibly prosecute the mother and father for a violation of U.S. Law, the entire family would still be subject to the complete/sovereign jurisdiction of Guatemala and most importantly, the child would remain a Guatemalan citizen.

This is a good move for the President to make. There is no statute preventing him from adhering to the 14th Amendment as he interprets it in questions of citizenship. He would not be changing the Constitution or existing law. He would merely be enforcing it as see sees it. Of course this will have two salutary effects. First, it will provide yet another avenue for the President to demonstrate just how the Democrat Party prioritizes the interests of foreigners over U.S. citizens. Second, if he times this correctly and ideally, with yet another Supreme Court pick, this could settle this issue once and for all.

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

Follow him on Twitter: @MikeFor10394583

You can find his other Red State work here.

The post President Trump Doesn’t Need Legislation Or A Constitutional Amendment To Limit “Birthright” Citizenship appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group constitution-300x158 President Trump Doesn’t Need Legislation Or A Constitutional Amendment To Limit “Birthright” Citizenship Uncategorized republicans Politics immigration Human Rights Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Citizenship Clause of 14th Amendment Birthright Citizenshp Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

There’s a Major Electoral Crisis Brewing for 2020

Westlake Legal Group AP_17174023673327 There’s a Major Electoral Crisis Brewing for 2020 State Elections Politics judge Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Faithless Ballot Electors Electoral Crisis Election donald trump democrats constitutional 2020

FILE – This Jan. 25, 2012, file photo, shows the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington. The Supreme Court enters its final week of work before a long summer hiatus with action expected on the Trump administration’s travel ban and a decision due in a separation of church and state case that arises from a Missouri church playground. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

The 2020 election may be a distant thought for most Americans, but there’s a major electoral crisis brewing.

This involves a case that was just decided in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. It deals with a state elector from Colorado named Michael Baca. In 2016, he refused to cast his ballot for Hillary Clinton after she won the state, instead trying to give it to John Kasich as part of what was a fruitless national call to block Trump’s presidency.

My colleague streiff covered this ruling earlier from the angle of how this torpedos the “national popular vote movement,” in which some states have passed laws binding electors to whatever the national popular vote outcome is. There are more ramifications here though.

Here’s a brief recap of the details via the Colorado Sun.

Colorado’s presidential electors do not have to vote for the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote, the powerful 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled Tuesday evening, a decision that could have major ramifications for future elections.

A three-judge panel on the federal appellate court ruled 2-1 against the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office in a case dating back to the 2016 presidential election, when three of the state’s nine presidential electors — the state’s Electoral College voice — tried to vote for candidates other than Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won handily in the state.

Baca was eventually replaced with another elector who would cast their vote for Clinton. It was assumed to be within the authority of the Secretary of State to replace electors who refused to honor the outcome of the state vote in the presidential election.

Then the 10th Circuit ruled.

But the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Williams actions trying to enforce Colorado’s law binding presidential electors to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote violated the Constitution.

“Secretary Williams impermissibly interfered with Mr. Baca’s exercise of his right to vote as a presidential elector,” the court said in a 125-page opinion written by U.S. Circuit Court Judge Carolyn Baldwin McHugh. “Specifically, Secretary Williams acted unconstitutionally by removing Mr. Baca and nullifying his vote for failing to comply with the vote-binding provision.”

In other words, according to the 10th Circuit, every elector in every single state has a constitutional right to cast their electoral vote as they see fit, regardless of how the state actually voted. To be clear, we’ve had faithless electors before. What this latest ruling does though is seemingly invalidate all state laws that seek to curtail the rights of electors to vote for whoever they want. Many states currently have statutes giving them the ability to replace or invalidate the votes of “rogue” electors.

So what’s this mean for 2020? It’s hard to imagine a scenario where Trump wins and some significant number of electors don’t use their new found freedom, especially given how tenuous his relationship is with most political establishments (and that’s who picks these electors in most states). Think of a situation where there’s only a small gap between the two candidates and 10-15 electors are able to flip the entire election.

Lest you think I’m arguing the 10th Circuit got this wrong, I actually don’t think so. I think they got this right. There is a very strong case that electors are given the constitutional discretion to vote as they please. In the dissent in this case, the only argument the one no vote could come up with is that the case had no standing because no damages could be awarded.

Regardless, even though I think this was the proper legal decision, this is still setting up to be a wild ride in 2020. We could be staring at a real electoral crisis without an immediate remedy and it’s crazy to think of where that might lead us.

————————————————-

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 There’s a Major Electoral Crisis Brewing for 2020 appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-08-21-at-10.25.40-AM-300x161 There’s a Major Electoral Crisis Brewing for 2020 State Elections Politics judge Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Faithless Ballot Electors Electoral Crisis Election donald trump democrats constitutional 2020  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Federal Appeals Court Torpedoes the National Popular Vote Movement Thanks to a Hillary Clinton Elector

Westlake Legal Group electoral-college-j-620x317 Federal Appeals Court Torpedoes the National Popular Vote Movement Thanks to a Hillary Clinton Elector wayne williams tenth circuit Secretary of State Politics national popular vote Micheal Baca jena griswold Front Page Stories Featured Story electoral college elections democrats Courts Colorado Allow Media Exception

Quill ballpoint pens sit ready for Elector College electors, Monday, Dec. 19, 2016, in Olympia, Wash. Members of Washington state’s Electoral College met at noon Monday in the Capitol to complete the constitutional formality. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

The genius of our Founding Fathers was in realizing that in order for a collection of sovereign states to agree to delegate some of the sovereignty to a federal government, even the smallest of states had to be guaranteed that their rights would not be trammeled and that the resulting nation would be a true republic and not merely perpetual rule by the largest states. The creation of a Senate elected by the state legislatures was one such check. The requirement of a super-majority of both Congress and of the States to amend the constitution was another. The masterpiece was the decision to have the president elected by an Electoral College ensuring that the president had widespread support throughout the country rather than being a regional candidate put in office by running up a large margin of victory in a small number of large states.

After George Bush defeated Al Gore while narrowly losing the popular vote, the progressive forces who would like nothing more than to destroy the republican character of the United States, came up with the idea of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). The idea being that if a large number of states made an agreement among themselves to cast their electoral votes for the candidate who won the popular vote, regardless of how many votes that candidate received in state elections, that the Electoral College could essentially be corrupted from its true purpose and made to serve the ends of a purely democratic election process, something, by the way, that the Founders abhorred.

Since its inception in 2007, 16 states controlling 196 electoral votes have signed on.

There are a lot of reasons to doubt that this is legal. The Constitution expressly forbids interstate compacts. Some law professors have argued that this is really THAT kind of compact but a TOTALLY DIFFERENT kind of compact which would pass constitutional muster. (If you can find an idea so bizarre that you can’t get an Ivy League law professor to argue in favor of it, please let me know. Its sort of like the old joke about why scientists have started using lawyers rather than rats in lab experiments.) And, of course, when you cast a vote for president you are actually casting a vote for an elector who is generally understood to be able to vote how they wish. Hence the hunt for “faithless electors” in 2000 and 2016, that is, electors who would vote for the Democrat rather than the person they were pledged to support.

What is so offensive about this is that it is a typically dishonest move by the left to find and end run around part of the Constitution they don’t like. There is a mechanism for getting rid of the Electoral College. It’s called a “constitutional amendment.” But to get there they would actually have to convince a large majority of Congress and of Americans that this makes sense when it really doesn’t. So they’ve come up with this cute little idea knowing that they only have to be clever enough to convince a handful of like-minded federal judges to go along with the lies and with the fiction and they have effectively changed the Constitution without anyone being able to object.

Regardless of the legality, the practicality suffered a significant blow yesterday when an appeals court ruled that an elector cannot be bound by a state to vote any particular way.

This is the set up.

The ballot was pre-filled with Hillary Clinton’s name, but Micheal Baca didn’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton.

The 24-year-old presidential elector in Colorado had a different plan. Weeks earlier, following Donald Trump’s victory in the general election, Baca and a fellow elector began a movement they called “Hamilton Electors,” a long-shot bid to stop Trump from winning the presidency. The idea was to convince enough members of the electoral college — the body of 538 members who vote for president — to instead cast ballots for Republicans such as former Ohio Gov. John Kasich, depriving Trump of just enough electoral votes required to become president.

Everyone told Baca it was a long shot — but he didn’t think so. All they needed was 37 out of 306 Republican electors to vote for a candidate other than Trump, and they also sought out Democrats to vote for moderate Republicans. Baca found two takers in Colorado: Polly Baca (no relation) and Robert Nemanich.

Just an observation. What did he hope to accomplish? The best he could do would be to have had the election thrown into the House of Representatives which had a Republican majority, but virtue signaling is nothing if not a spectator sport.

The Colorado Secretary of State wasn’t amused.

Then-Secretary of State Wayne Williams refused to count the vote and removed Baca as an elector. He replaced him with another elector who voted for Clinton.

Just think about how little an actual election made if the Secretary of State can summarily remove an elected official for not doing his bidding and replace him with a compliant, stump-broke susbstitute, because there is nothing really different about an elector and any other elected official.

Baca, not being a total twit, sued. Today the Tenth Circuit ruled.

Now, for apparently the first time, a federal appeals court has upheld the right of “faithless electors” to vote with their conscience — a ruling that “throws into question” states’ winner-take-all election systems that bind electors to vote for the state’s popular vote winner, attorneys on Baca’s case said. In a 125-page split opinion Tuesday, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that Colorado’s decision to nullify Baca’s vote and remove him as an elector was unconstitutional.

“The text of the Constitution makes clear that states do not have the constitutional authority to interfere with presidential electors who exercise their constitutional right to vote for the President and Vice President candidates of their choice,” U.S. Circuit Judge Carolyn B. McHugh, an Obama appointee, wrote in the majority opinion, joined by Jerome A. Holmes, a George W. Bush appointee. Mary Beck Briscoe, a Clinton appointee, dissented, arguing the case was moot because no damages could be awarded.

Read the whole opinion.

The impact on the NPVIC nonsense is pretty clear. State parties choose the slate of electors to vote for president. The NPVIC is predicated on the (erroneous) notion that state governments can bind these officials in how they vote. Now its pretty obvious that they can’t. Now that this truly bad idea is pretty much dead, the left is flogging the idea that this means the end of our system of government.

“This court decision takes power from Colorado voters and sets a dangerous precedent,” said Jena Griswold, Colorado’s secretary of state. “Our nation stands on the principle of one person, one vote. We are reviewing this decision with our attorneys, and will vigorously protect Colorado voters.”

Actually, it returns to the voters of Colorado to vote for the candidate of their choice for president instead of having the voters of New York and California making that choice for them.

There may be a trip to the Supreme Court in the future. Even if Colorado doesn’t appeal (I don’t think they will because they know they’ll get their clock cleaned and that will finish the NPVIC for good), there is a conflicting decision from the Washington state supreme court ruling that electors are bound to vote in the way directed. The decision seems like lunacy but it is Washington and the Ninth Circuit so lunacy is sort of the way of life there.

This now seems to put the dream of ending the Electoral College back where it belongs, which is requiring a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

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

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

The post Federal Appeals Court Torpedoes the National Popular Vote Movement Thanks to a Hillary Clinton Elector appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group electoral-college-j-300x153 Federal Appeals Court Torpedoes the National Popular Vote Movement Thanks to a Hillary Clinton Elector wayne williams tenth circuit Secretary of State Politics national popular vote Micheal Baca jena griswold Front Page Stories Featured Story electoral college elections democrats Courts Colorado Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Did CNN Put One Of Its Contributors Who Supports Trump On Ice?

Westlake Legal Group cnn-building-300x225 Did CNN Put One Of Its Contributors Who Supports Trump On Ice? white house washington D.C. Social Media racism Race progressives President Trump Prager University Oliver Darcy Morning Briefing Media Mainstream Media Hollywood Front Page Stories Front Page Fredo First Amendment Featured Story Featured Post fake news donald trump democrats corruption Conservatives CNN Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2019

Would CNN ( also known as the Fredo Network) put a paid contributor on ice for defending President Trump in a safe, honest venue like a Prager University video? Damn right they would. The way that Trump jackhammers them on a daily basis you really can’t blame them.

According to various reports around the interwebs, Trump’s 2020 advisory board member and CNN contributor Steve Cortes might have been put on ice from commentary on the network. President Trump has noticed.

From Mediaite…

“Where’s Steve?” Trump has repeatedly asked — according to two unnamed officials who have heard the president make the remark in the White House.

The Trump surrogate recently got in some hot water with his colleagues over his characterization of media reporting on the president’s comments about Charlottesville. In a video for PragerU, Cortes accused the media of committing “journalistic malfeasance” by saying that Trump described Nazis as “very fine people.”

“Calling this a ‘malicious lie’ (which it’s not) and ‘journalistic malfeasance’ (which it’s also not) is a weird thing for someone who is a paid CNN commentator to say, given the network’s accurate reporting on the matter,” said CNN’s Oliver Darcy, in response.

I love how Darcy just says this is not true out of hand. If you actually watch the Prager University video it makes some points that Darcy and his pals would have trouble refuting without a teleprompter. Which means words that someone else wrote and or approved for them. ( Prager university video below for YOU to take a look.)

Now if my understanding is correct on how most contracts work on the news side of things in cable T.V. than Steve is getting paid no matter if they use him or not. Each contract is individualized to a certain degree but generally, that is how they go. Plus he is an at-will employee so if they want to pay him to sit they can do that until his contract runs out and then he can shop his services elsewhere.

I absolutely believe that CNN would “punish” someone this way for putting out an argument that goes against the narrative that is peddled and might deserve a fair debate. The powers at CNN don’t want any part of that. They just wanna cover-up for Fredo and Don and hope they can get a bigger share live than Rachel Maddow gets in re-runs.

Check out the video below and let me know what you think about it or if the Fredo network would do such a thing as freeze out a Trump surrogate that they are paying for his point of view.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Did CNN Put One Of Its Contributors Who Supports Trump On Ice? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group cnn-building-300x225 Did CNN Put One Of Its Contributors Who Supports Trump On Ice? white house washington D.C. Social Media racism Race progressives President Trump Prager University Oliver Darcy Morning Briefing Media Mainstream Media Hollywood Front Page Stories Front Page Fredo First Amendment Featured Story Featured Post fake news donald trump democrats corruption Conservatives CNN Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2019  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Stay Classy: Bette Midler’s Unhealthy Obsession With Melania Trump Takes a Bigoted Turn for the Worse

Westlake Legal Group BetteMidlerAPImage-620x317 Stay Classy: Bette Midler’s Unhealthy Obsession With Melania Trump Takes a Bigoted Turn for the Worse Social Media Politics North Carolina NoH8 New York Melania Trump Hollywood Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post Entertainment donald trump democrats Culture Bette Midler Allow Media Exception

FILE – In this June 11, 2017 file photo, Bette Midler arrives at the Tony Awards in New York. (Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP, File)

When actress Bette Midler isn’t engaging in racism by insinuating that black Republicans are paid tokens, she’s slut-shaming conservative women who’ve stepped forward to give their #MeToo stories.

And when she’s not conveniently forgetting that prominent, powerful minority Republican women exist, she’s proving that she has an unhealthy obsession with First Lady Melania Trump. Specifically, her looks and her sex life.

Here’s her latest attempt at “poetry” directed at the First Lady, chock full of sexism and bigotry (note how she ‘fakes’ Melania Trump’s accent):

A quick analysis of Midler’s Twitter timeline shows she’s taken many swipes at Mrs. Trump since Donald Trump was elected. Most of her tweets have a familiar theme, you’ll notice:

Here’s a bigger version of the tweet she retweeted, so you can see what she was applauding:

Some of her other unhinged tweets about Melania Trump include:

Red State‘s own Brad Slager had probably the best take on Midler’s latest attempt at shaming a Republican woman:

Something else to note: Midler, like most other “feminist” Democrats, will tell you it’s dehumanizing and regressive to put another woman down, but they never seem to apply that rule to Republican women. In fact, in most instances on Midler’s Twitter feed, when she criticizes a woman it’s a Republican or a conservative. And they are usually attacks that are personal in nature. Very nasty.

It’s depraved, but it’s who and how she is – in spite of the “woke” creds she desperately wants the world to believe she possesses.

Related to Brad’s tweet, here’s a reminder of another controversial tweet Midler posted, back in October. It’s one of the few I’ve seen her delete in response to criticism:

Westlake Legal Group BetteMidlerWomenTweet Stay Classy: Bette Midler’s Unhealthy Obsession With Melania Trump Takes a Bigoted Turn for the Worse Social Media Politics North Carolina NoH8 New York Melania Trump Hollywood Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post Entertainment donald trump democrats Culture Bette Midler Allow Media Exception

So interesting how someone who laments on how little respect she believes women around the world gets has no issue whatsoever virulently disrespecting another woman because she’s married to a man she disagrees with politically.

Be best, Bette. Or something.

——-
— 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 Stay Classy: Bette Midler’s Unhealthy Obsession With Melania Trump Takes a Bigoted Turn for the Worse appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group BetteMidlerAPImage-300x153 Stay Classy: Bette Midler’s Unhealthy Obsession With Melania Trump Takes a Bigoted Turn for the Worse Social Media Politics North Carolina NoH8 New York Melania Trump Hollywood Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post Entertainment donald trump democrats Culture Bette Midler Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Democrat Aide Outs Ocasio-Cortez’s Self-Interest: “She Has No Plans to Serve the People”

Westlake Legal Group AlexandriaOcasioCortez-June2019-620x317 Democrat Aide Outs Ocasio-Cortez’s Self-Interest: “She Has No Plans to Serve the People” washington D.C. Politics phones New York Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., listens during questioning at a House Oversight and Reform committee hearing on facial recognition technology in government, Tuesday, June 4, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez likes to pretend she cares about the people she was elected by, but she consistently proves that she’s not the person she presents herself to be.

Between taking thousands of jobs away from her constituents thanks to chasing Amazon out of New York — something she’s maintained pride for — and being involved in corrupt financial practices, AOC can reasonably be viewed as a fraud. This latest story doesn’t help her image either.

According to the New York Post, calling AOC’s D.C. office doesn’t allow you to reach the office at all, and instead, you hear a message directing you to the website before another recorded voice tells you to call again before saying “goodbye.”

The New York Post reported that they called all 13 representatives in New York and got a live representative every time, with the exception of AOC’s office:

The Post called the offices of all 13 lawmakers representing New York City – even those in high-profile positions like Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler – and a real person answered the call on every occasion, in every office location, except for calls dialed to AOC’s two offices.

An anonymous Democrat aide spoke to the New York Post and exposed a hidden tidbit about AOC and her motives:

“She has no plans to serve the people. That’s why she has no constituent services operation,” one Congressional Democratic aide told The Post. “If you’re a grandma in Queens who needs help with her Medicare and you call AOC’s ‘district office’ you get a recording that tells you to visit the website instead.”

“What kind of elitist nonsense is that?” the aide said. “Shameful, it’s all shameful.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s aides said the reason for this boils down to the volume of calls the congresswoman receives, and that they use a special filtering system that prevents calls from out of state from reaching the office to better serve those who actually are in AOC’s district:

Aides to Ocasio-Cortez say the issue is call volume. Their office deployed a special phone filtering system that blocks callers without New York or DC area codes from even making it through. Such callers get a message directing them to the Bronx Democrat’s website. There’s no option to leave a message.

“With the filter on only DC and New York phone numbers can get through,” spokesman Corbin Trent told The Post, acknowledging that his out-of-state cellphone wouldn’t be able to call the main office. “When you are getting the volume of incoming that we get, the most important thing is to try to filter out some of the volume to get the people you are actually supposed to be here to work for.”

However, other lawmakers who have the same high-profile as Ocasio-Cortez don’t have this problem, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the high-profile members of “The Squad,” such as Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, both who have dominated the news cycle over the past month far more than AOC has.

The Post called AOC’s D.C. office on Monday and went through a series of hurdles before hitting the brick wall of a full message box:

On Monday when The Post called the district office, the voice of the congresswoman greeted the caller.

She goes through the options telling callers to press two “if you’re a constituent of New York’s 14th district.”

A number of options direct callers to her website – or tell reporters to email her communications team.

“For all other questions or to speak to the receptionist, please press three.”

Dialing two and dialing three sends callers to the same place. It’s to a recording of a man saying “sorry to have missed your call. We are either on the other line or away from the phone. Please leave a message after the tone.”

A female recording then says: “I’m sorry, but this mailbox is full. Please try again later.”

While there’s no doubt that AOC receives an inordinate amount of phone calls and messages, her problem isn’t the volume of calls, it’s the volume of staff. The young congresswoman has the least amount of staff when it comes to lawmakers, which is odd, given the fact that her offices are rent-free and she could easily afford them.

A lawmaker can have up to 18 full-time employees and four part-time employees at any given time. Ocasio-Cortez reportedly has 13 staff members and two paid interns.

Why she’s not spending the extra cash to employ more staff to handle the cavalcade of communications coming from Americans is an oddity, given her popularity. It’s hard not to arrive at the conclusion that she’s trying to keep as much cash as she can at the inconvenience of Americans.

The post Democrat Aide Outs Ocasio-Cortez’s Self-Interest: “She Has No Plans to Serve the People” appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AlexandriaOcasioCortez-June2019-300x153 Democrat Aide Outs Ocasio-Cortez’s Self-Interest: “She Has No Plans to Serve the People” washington D.C. Politics phones New York Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Journalist Attempts to Buy Guns at Walmart, Ends Up Collapsing the Left’s Anti-Gun Narrative Instead

Westlake Legal Group Walmart_exterior-620x404 Journalist Attempts to Buy Guns at Walmart, Ends Up Collapsing the Left’s Anti-Gun Narrative Instead Walmart Politics journalist Guns gun control Front Page Stories democrats david hogg Corey Booker Bernie Sanders anti-gun Allow Media Exception

After the devastating shooting that took place in an El Paso, Texas, Walmart that left 22 people dead and 24 injured, the left began to do its usual pattern of never letting a crisis go to waste. Instead of taking a moment to mourn the fallen, they immediately launched into the process of making it an agenda item.

This includes a lot of virtue signaling aimed at Walmart. Leftists from lawmakers and activists, to random twitter users, began demanding Walmart cease selling firearms. All of them presented the idea that it’s incredibly easy to purchase a firearm from Walmart. More so, even, than cold medicine as David Hogg proposed.

But is it that easy to get a gun from Walmart? Enter Hayley Peterson of Business Insider.

Peterson wrote that she set out to buy a gun from Walmart to see how easy it would be and found the process to be far more complicated than many have let on:

I went to Walmart with the intention of buying a gun last week as part of an investigation into the placement, selection, marketing, and security of firearms in Walmart’s stores, and to learn more about the retailer’s processes governing gun sales.

My journey to bring a gun home from Walmart turned out to be far more complicated than I expected.

First, she went to Walmart’s website and found out that over 4,000 Walmart locations sell guns, but upon attempting to find out which one sells firearms in-store, she was coming up with vague answers. Furthermore, the only guns being displayed on Walmart’s website were non-lethal airsoft guns.

She then attempted to reach out to Walmart employees directly, but still had no luck:

The only guns advertised on Walmart’s website are air guns, which are nonlethal. After about 30 minutes, I gave up on searching the internet and turned to the phone.

I figured that employees at any one of Walmart’s stores near me would know which locations sold guns.

I was wrong.

Over an hour and a half, I placed more than a dozen calls to multiple stores, waited on hold for a combined 40 minutes, and got through to a human only three times. Three Walmart employees told me they didn’t know which stores sold guns in the area.

Calling customer service gave her no luck as well, as the representative told her they weren’t allowed to discuss item availability of that type for reasons he wouldn’t elaborate on. Finally, she managed to find a store that claimed it did sell them:

Someone answered the phone at a Walmart Supercenter in Chesterfield, Virginia.

She transferred me to the sporting-goods department, where a woman on the line confirmed that I could buy a gun there.

The store was 30 minutes away. I got in my car and plugged the address for the Chesterfield Walmart into my phone.

Peterson says she walked into the store, past the toy and bike aisles and located the gun counter right behind them. Even then, she encountered a sparse inventory with a lack of selection:

A selection of about 20 rifles and shotguns was displayed in a locked glass case behind the sporting-goods counter. The guns ranged in price from $159 to $474.

The counter in front of the guns displayed pocket knives, binoculars, and digital night-vision monoculars inside a locked case.

The selection of guns was limited compared with nearby gun stores, which offered dozens of different kinds of firearms, including handguns.

Peterson noted no advertisements for guns in the store. She was warned by signage that she was on camera in this particular area of the store and that upon request to purchase a gun, the manager was called.

The manager told Peterson that she would have to come back in a couple of days to purchase the firearm, as no licensed firearm seller was scheduled to work that day. She was told later that Walmart employees have to be legally qualified to sell firearms, passing background checks and going through training for it specifically.

She was able to look at the gun, and noted the very careful way in which the guns were locked up and secured, including zip ties that needed to be cut and replaced after every removal. Also, once purchased, the employee has to walk the gun to your car with you.

Upon returning a couple of days later, a woman was able to help sell the gun to Peterson. She walked Peterson through the process, had her pay $2 for her background check fee, and began filling out the paperwork. Peterson was stopped almost immediately, however, as her address didn’t match up the one displayed on her driver’s license:

That was a problem, she said.

To pass the background check, I would need to bring in a government-issued document with my correct address, such as a bill from a state-owned utility or a car registration. (I have never bought a gun, so I wasn’t aware of this.)

She apologized, told me the rules were strict around background checks, and asked me to come back another time to finish the purchase.

At that point, Peterson said she gave up trying to buy a gun from Walmart, and concluded that purchasing a gun from that store is incredibly difficult.

I doubt that many of the politicians and activists currently virtue signaling over Walmart have ever tried to purchase one from them. What’s more, I’m not sure how stopping the sale of firearms from Walmart would have helped anyone in El Paso, or prevented El Paso from happening. They don’t even sell handguns.

It seems to me that the “do something” crowd has picked a target in ignorance.

The post Journalist Attempts to Buy Guns at Walmart, Ends Up Collapsing the Left’s Anti-Gun Narrative Instead appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Walmart_exterior-300x196 Journalist Attempts to Buy Guns at Walmart, Ends Up Collapsing the Left’s Anti-Gun Narrative Instead Walmart Politics journalist Guns gun control Front Page Stories democrats david hogg Corey Booker Bernie Sanders anti-gun Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com