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 "Featured Story" (Page 125)

Sen. Chris Murphy Butchers the 2nd Amendment, Gets Fact-Checked Hard

Westlake Legal Group WeThePeople-Guns Sen. Chris Murphy Butchers the 2nd Amendment, Gets Fact-Checked Hard vapid Ted Cruz rights Politics Personal Defense militias James Madison individual rights ignorant Front Page Stories Front Page freedom Featured Story democrats Constitution Chris Murphy 2nd Amendment

In the wake of another mass shooting last week, we’ve once again seen a push to curtail the right of Americans to own firearms. The most common utterances are calling for the banning of “assault weapons” and for universal background checks. Both are terrible ideas, based mostly on emotional appeals that would do nothing to actually stop gun crime.

Enter Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), who’s become one of the more annoying Democrats in the Senate. He decided to give an “explainer” on the 2nd amendment in a reply to Ted Cruz, who had previously laid out the case for why it exists and what it protects.

This is moronic and we are only two tweets in. The Bill of Rights are individual rights by their very definition. All of them, no exceptions. None of them are posited to only apply to certain groups of people. That’s antithetical to their very purpose for being written.

Secondly, militias are simply normal people who own personal firearms joining together of their own choice. Part of what the 2nd Amendment is protecting is the right for individual gun owners to gather, form militias, and remain well regulated (trained). They feared a federal government that would not allow such congregation, thereby negating the ability of the people to defend themselves from tyranny. The idea that personal defense is not included in that is ludicrous, as it’s the first step to even being able to form a militia. People without guns for self defense can’t then go form militias because they’d have no weapons. This is grade school level stuff and Sen. Murphy doesn’t even see the flaws in his argument.

Westlake Legal Group wtf-is-wrong-with-you-620x350-620x350 Sen. Chris Murphy Butchers the 2nd Amendment, Gets Fact-Checked Hard vapid Ted Cruz rights Politics Personal Defense militias James Madison individual rights ignorant Front Page Stories Front Page freedom Featured Story democrats Constitution Chris Murphy 2nd Amendment

Murphy is apparently not aware that the 2nd Amendment is, and stick with me here, an amendment. That means it did not exist during the Constitutional Convention, therefore of course there were no notes on it taken by Madison.

Murphy finishes his rant by asserting that the Founders had no intention of the 2nd Amendment providing a right to self-defense.

I could sit here and continue to tear this apart, but I’m going to let someone with more expertise do it better. Enter Charles W. Cook, one of the most well read and knowledgeable people on the 2nd Amendment in the modern era.

Why is all this important?

Most notably because it was the states which came together to ratify the Constitution. It was not just supposed, but an absolute given that they supported a right to bear arms for self-defense, so much so that it was included in most of their state constitutions. To now claim that it’s simply a modern interpretation, when that same interpretation was made decades before ratification is incredibly illogical.

They codified that right to bear arms in Article I Section 9, which makes it an individual, not a communal right. Further, after the Union was formed, we can see by the actions of the government that they obviously respected a right to bear arms for self-defense. Forming militias from that right was not the government’s place, thereby they were given no far reaching regulatory power. It was intended to be the people’s choice and right, either in protection of their government or in defiance of its possible tyranny. The common thread is always the individual’s right in the matter.

There is no historical reading of the Founder’s intent, nor the words of the 2nd Amendment, which doesn’t protect a right to bear arms for self-defense. There’s a reason the 2nd Amendment specifically cites it as an individual right and it is placed among all the individual rights in the Constitution itself.

On a broader level, Murphy’s entire argument is still incredibly stupid. The Bill of Rights exists in order to protect individual rights from government interference. Even if Murphy’s silly interpretation about militias was true, the 2nd Amendment would still bar the federal government from enacting regulations against them that infringe on that right. Since individuals make up militias and provide their own weapons, that logically means the individual right is equally protected.

Some now cite regulations on fully automatic weapons as proof heavy regulation is acceptable. If anything, a true reading the 2nd Amendment shows even laws such as those are likely unconstitutional. We have, as a society, chosen to swallow them though. That does not mean that here unto eternity the government can now regulate against the 2nd Amendment as they see fit. The real test is what the citizens of this country are willing to stand up and say no to.

Murphy’s knowledge of this subject isn’t just sorely lacking, it’s ignorant beyond belief. The idea that anyone could gain such a high public office while having such a menial, vapid understanding of the Bill of Rights is mind blowing.

————————————————

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 Sen. Chris Murphy Butchers the 2nd Amendment, Gets Fact-Checked Hard appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group chris-murphy-300x200 Sen. Chris Murphy Butchers the 2nd Amendment, Gets Fact-Checked Hard vapid Ted Cruz rights Politics Personal Defense militias James Madison individual rights ignorant Front Page Stories Front Page freedom Featured Story democrats Constitution Chris Murphy 2nd Amendment   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Walmart Makes Major Announcements on Gun Sales and Takes Away Customers’ Ability to Defend Themselves. Who’s Safer Now?

Westlake Legal Group store-shopping-culture-retail-walmart-gunsammo-284171-pxhere.com_-620x465 Walmart Makes Major Announcements on Gun Sales and Takes Away Customers’ Ability to Defend Themselves. Who’s Safer Now? Uncategorized Front Page Stories Featured Story

 

 

Some Republicans may champion a national move toward the Right, but there’s no doubt about it: The country is changing, and it isn’t going backward.

“Forward” may not be the correct term, either.

Whatever the direction, Walmart hopped on the bus Tuesday with a substantial announcement regarding firearm sales.

As reported by The Associated Press:

Walmart says it will discontinue the sale of handgun and short-barrel rifle ammunition and also publicly request that customers refrain from openly carrying firearms in stores even where state laws allow it.

Request?? I know areas where that request will be met with an emphatic “No.”

Also, if I may, the appeal seems curious:

At a Walmart, a madman comes in and murders innocents with no way of protecting themselves. Walmart responds: Whenever you come into the store, please be innocents with no way of protecting yourselves.

The open-carry person isn’t likely to keep a concealment rig in the truck just for times when they need to “Save Money, Live Better.”

I can’t think of a store less likely to do well asking its customers to leave their guns outside. And that was true before the joint was proven as a ripe gallery for a shootup.

Saleswise, Walmart’s not just banning some bullets; it’s canceling its remaining hawking of handguns. As for all that, if the outlet wants to lessen its role as a ballistics broker, that business will presumably be aptly absorbed by other chains happy to take it.

Here’s the AP again:

The Bentonville, Arkansas-based discounter said Tuesday it will stop handgun ammunition as well as short-barrel rifle ammunition, such as the .223 caliber and 5.56 caliber used in military style weapons, after it runs out of its current inventory.

It will also discontinue handgun sales in Alaska. Walmart stopped selling handguns in the mid-1990s, with the exception of Alaska. The latest move marks its complete exit from that business and allows it to focus on hunting rifles and related ammunition only.

Walmart CEO Doug McMillon released a memo to employees Tuesday indicating — in part — the following:

A month ago, in El Paso, Texas, a gunman with an assault-style rifle launched a hate-filled attack in our store, shooting 48 people resulting in the loss of 22 innocent lives. Just a few days prior, two of our associates were killed by another associate in our store in Southaven, Mississippi. And hours after the shooting in El Paso, our country experienced another mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio. This weekend brought tragedy to Midland and Odessa, Texas.

In Southaven and El Paso, our associates responded to anger and hate with courage and self-sacrifice. Our immediate priorities were supporting our associates and the impacted families and cooperating with law enforcement. In parallel, we have been focused on store safety and security. We’ve also been listening to a lot of people inside and outside our company as we think about the role we can play in helping to make the country safer. It’s clear to us that the status quo is unacceptable.

We’ve been giving a lot of thought to our sale of firearms and ammunition. We’ve previously made decisions to stop selling handguns or military-style rifles such as the AR-15, to raise the age limit to purchase a firearm or ammunition to 21, to require a “green light” on a background check while federal law only requires the absence of a “red light,” to videotape the point of sale for firearms and to only allow certain trained associates to sell firearms.

Today, we’re sharing the decisions we’ve made that go further…

Doug noted a resultant, pending shrinkage of the bohemoth’s marketshare:

We believe these actions will reduce our market share of ammunition from around 20% to a range of approximately 6 to 9%. We believe it will likely drift toward the lower end of that range, over time, given the combination of these changes.

Now onto the issue of carrying in-store. In many states, there is open carry; you can walk into a store like John Wayne. But The Duke’s no longer welcome at the ‘Mart:

As it relates to safety in our stores, there have been multiple incidents since El Paso where individuals attempting to make a statement and test our response have entered our stores carrying weapons in a way that frightened or concerned our associates and customers. We have also had well-intentioned customers acting lawfully that have inadvertently caused a store to be evacuated and local law enforcement to be called to respond. These incidents are concerning and we would like to avoid them, so we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer openly carry firearms into our stores or Sam’s Clubs in states where “open carry” is permitted – unless they are authorized law enforcement officers.

We believe the opportunity for someone to misinterpret a situation, even in open carry states, could lead to tragic results. We hope that everyone will understand the circumstances that led to this new policy and will respect the concerns of their fellow shoppers and our associates. As it relates to concealed carry by customers with permits, there is no change to our policy or approach. This morning, we briefed your leadership team on how to communicate this change in policy to customers when needed, and they will be sharing that with you very soon. We will treat law-abiding customers with respect, and we will have a very non-confrontational approach. Our priority is your safety. We will be providing new signage to help communicate this policy in the coming weeks.

Doug went on to “encourage our nation’s leaders to move forward and strengthen background checks and to remove weapons from those who have been determined to pose an imminent danger” (see more of that here).

Will any of this change crime? Does taking away the location-specific availability of weaponry — for both those with good and evil intent — alter the balance of people intending harm vs people capable of preventing it?

I look forward to your answers in the Comments section.

-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. For iPhone instructions, see the bottom of this page.

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

The post Walmart Makes Major Announcements on Gun Sales and Takes Away Customers’ Ability to Defend Themselves. Who’s Safer Now? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group store-shopping-culture-retail-walmart-gunsammo-284171-pxhere.com_-300x225 Walmart Makes Major Announcements on Gun Sales and Takes Away Customers’ Ability to Defend Themselves. Who’s Safer Now? Uncategorized Front Page Stories Featured Story   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Why Comey Escaped Charges Last Week and Why His Luck Is Likely To Change

Westlake Legal Group ap-comey-eyes-closed-620x413 Why Comey Escaped Charges Last Week and Why His Luck Is Likely To Change william barr Special Counsel President Trump Mueller Investigation Michael Horowitz Kathleen Kavalec john durham Joe diGenova Jed Babbin james comey Front Page Stories FISA Court FISA Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption cia Carter Page Campaigns Andy Biggs Andrew McCarthy Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020

FBI Director James Comey pauses while making a statement at FBI Headquarters in Washington, Tuesday, July 5, 2016. Comey said the FBI will not recommend criminal charges in its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

 

The release of last week’s Inspector General’s report, which focused on James Comey, was a disappointment to conservatives who were hoping to see the former FBI Director held accountable for his actions. DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz found that Comey had flouted FBI rules and ignored protocol in his determination to undermine President-elect Trump. He leaked memos he had written after each meeting with Trump with the intention of triggering the appointment of a special counsel. And he was successful. Horowitz clearly presented Comey’s wrongdoing, but even so, Attorney General William Barr declined to charge him with a crime.

There were several reasons for Barr’s decision. Comey, having attained the top position at the FBI knew the limitations of the law and how to remain within them. First, he made sure his memos were not classified at the time he leaked them. Next, he leaked the documents to his attorney friend who also had a security clearance.

Finally, he employed a legal tool that only an experienced trial lawyer would be familiar with. The National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, who is a former US attorney himself, immediately recognized it and explained how Comey used what prosecutors call a “recollection recorded.

At a certain (prearranged) moment during the intelligence briefing of President-elect Trump on January 6, 2016, the other officials, including CIA director John Brennan, left Comey and Trump alone so that Comey could “spring the trap.”

Comey told Trump of the dossier and specifically discussed the “golden showers” story. McCarthy writes that he was trying to force Trump into making incriminating statements that he could include in his memo of the meeting, and which could later be used as a “recollection recorded.” This is what Comey wrote in his memo following the meeting.

I said, the Russians allegedly had tapes involving him and prostitutes at the Presidential Suite at the Ritz Carlton in Moscow from about 2013. He interjected, “there were no prostitutes; there were never prostitutes.” He then said something about him being the kind of guy who didn’t need to “go there” and laughed (which I understood to be communicating that he didn’t need to pay for sex). He said “2013” to himself, as if trying to remember that period of time, but didn’t add anything. He said he always assumed that hotel rooms he stayed in when he travels are wired in some way.

McCarthy explains what Comey was trying to accomplish:

If you understand what Comey was doing, the memo is not very subtle. The implication is that the “golden showers” incident may well have happened (meaning: Yes, Putin may have Trump over a barrel, just like Chris Steele says!). The president-elect was adamant only that prostitutes were not involved, not that an escapade of this kind was inconceivable.

That is to say: If the FBI’s investigation turned up some corroboration for Steele’s pee-tape story, Comey would now be in a position to provide helpful testimony about Trump’s statements and state of mind. The memo itself might even be admissible in court as evidence for the prosecution.

In June 2017, when the existence of former director Comey’s memos first emerged, he was asked why he’d made them. He [Comey] explained, “I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the president.”

I [McCarthy] observed at the time that, as an old prosecutor, that got my antennae pinging. To non-attorneys, this was just gobbledygook. But as any trial lawyer can tell you, “recollection recorded” is not an idle phrase. It is a term of art in the Federal Rules of Evidence (specifically, Rule 803(5), “Recorded Recollection”).

Most out-of-court statements (e.g., a news story about an event) are inadmissible as hearsay. But under some circumstances, “recollection recorded” is an exception to the hearsay rule. To qualify, the recollection must be recorded (such as in a memo) at the time an incident was fresh in the witness’s memory, so that it accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge. That’s why — if you’re not only an FBI official but a seasoned trial lawyer, such as Jim Comey — you’d want to write it down contemporaneously or immediately after the relevant event. Perhaps in a car speeding to a meeting with fellow investigators to report back to them about the investigation you’ve just done, despite telling your prime suspect, the incoming president, that you are not investigating him.

Barr is not a stupid man and knew that, due to Comey’s careful preparation and deliberate manipulation of the President-elect, it would be difficult to prosecute a case against him.

Barr is also well aware that there are two far more comprehensive reports coming. The first, the IG’s report on the FBI’s abuse of the FISA Court application process is due at the end of this month or in early October. The American Spectator’s Jed Babbin wrote that these reports are expected to show clear violations of the law. “Not in violation of regulations or procedures: in violation of the law.”

And, from what sources such as former DOJ official Joe DiGenova, investigative reporter John Solomon and several GOP members of Congress have said, the findings will be very damaging to James Comey and his colleagues.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) appeared on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” last weekend and predicted that the IG’s FISA abuse report would be “devastating” and will result in indictments. Biggs, who is a member of the House Judiciary Committee said:

I anticipate that we will see some very stark revelations of manipulation of the whole system for political purposes. When you see that happen, that’s when I think you’re going to see references or referrals for indictments, and I think you are going to see some indictments.

I think you are going to see some accountability there.

Biggs estimated that the report “will be released probably mid-September.”

Comey signed off on the original FISA Court application and two of the three renewals for the warrant to spy on low-level Trump campaign advisor Carter Page for the purpose of spying on Trump. The FBI knowingly used Christopher Steele’s unverified dossier as the basis of their FISA applications. Comey, as well as the other major players in the conspiracy to bring down Trump knew the dossier was bogus, but wanted to gain a window into his campaign. FBI officials had been warned by the fourth highest ranking DOJ official, Bruce Ohr, that the dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC and that Steele had been hired by opposition research firm Fusion GPS. They were told that Steele harbored deep resentment against Donald Trump and was “desperate” that he lose the race.

In addition, the FBI had received an email from State Department official Kathleen Kavalec prior to submitting their first application to the FISA Court.

Finally, The Hill’s John Solomon reported that the FBI kept a chart of the allegations made in the dossier. And the finest law enforcement agency in the world with all of the powerful tools of intelligence available to them, had not been able to verify a single one.

Three months after signing off on the first application swearing that the information had been “verified,” Comey sat in Trump’s office and grossly misrepresented the situation for his own purposes.

The case against Comey and his top officials is pretty clear cut in this instance and there is a solid trail of evidence to back it up. This leaves very little opportunity for deception.

The second and most consequential report will come after special prosecutor John Durham completes his investigation into the origins of the Trump/Russia collusion case.

That report will be the “main event.” Babbin writes that, “It will be the one that decides whom to indict and will obtain those indictments from one or more grand juries convened for that purpose.” (I will focus on that report in a later post.)

The post Why Comey Escaped Charges Last Week and Why His Luck Is Likely To Change appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-comey-eyes-closed-300x200 Why Comey Escaped Charges Last Week and Why His Luck Is Likely To Change william barr Special Counsel President Trump Mueller Investigation Michael Horowitz Kathleen Kavalec john durham Joe diGenova Jed Babbin james comey Front Page Stories FISA Court FISA Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption cia Carter Page Campaigns Andy Biggs Andrew McCarthy Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Justin Bieber Pens Emotional Post Detailing Depression, Addiction, and Salvation

Westlake Legal Group 3cf58034-e906-4f3e-a480-7b03b118011f Justin Bieber Pens Emotional Post Detailing Depression, Addiction, and Salvation perversion Justin Bieber Instagram Front Page Stories Featured Story fame Faith Entertainment depression celebrity lifestyle addiction

Justin Bieber has been the subject of adoration and ridicule for nearly a decade. The Canadian pop singer first hit the scene at 13-years-old, when he instantly shot to stardom after being “discovered” by hip-hop artist and producer Usher.

Like many celebrities who become very popular very quickly, Bieber didn’t have to wait long before the public soured on his overexposure. Bieber fatigue led to a lot of late night jokes, ribbings about sending him back to Canada in some kind of trade, and plenty of snarky commentary over his “boy band” looks.

I must fully disclose here that I was one of those people who constantly criticized Bieber, not thinking about what he might be seeing or feeling.

The thing is, child stardom isn’t a privilege. It is a burden. The money is great but the price is high. Bieber has clearly paid the price in recent years, struggling with public meltdowns, addiction and depression. It may have seemed strange to the world when he announced his sudden marriage to Baldwin offspring Hailey Baldwin, but Baldwin comes from a nuclear family that is very active in the Christian faith (father Stephen Baldwin had a very public conversion years ago and now makes his living as a teaching pastor and Trump surrogate). Bieber was clearly looking for some stability, and he may have actually found it.

The young couple have become increasingly involved in their celebrity-friendly church in Los Angeles, with the pop star even stepping in to lead a worship service recently.

In an emotional Instagram post over the weekend, Bieber opened up about his struggles with fame, depression and addiction. He spoke about the emotional weight of having so much attention so young in life, and how it distorts one’s view of their own ego and their place in the world.

You see I have a lot of money, clothes, cars, accolades, achievements, awards and I was still unfulfilled. Have u noticed the statistics of child stars and the outcome of their life? there is an insane pressure and responsibility put on  a child who’s brain, emotions, frontal lobes (decision making) aren’t developed yet. No rationality, defiant, rebellious, things all of us have to go through. But when you add the pressure of stardom it does something to you that is quite unexplainable.

The singer went on to explain how disorienting it was at 13 to go from being a small town kid to being praised and adored all over the world.

I don’t know about you, but humility comes with age. You hear these things enough as a young boy and you actually start believing it. Rationality comes with age and so does your decision making process (one of the reasons you can’t drink until you’re 21)…everyone did everything for me so I never even learned the fundamentals of responsibility. So by this point I was 18 with no skills in the real world, with millions of dollars and access to whatever I wanted. This is a scary concept for anyone.

The singer continued on, discussing how troubling it was as a young boy to go from the most loved and adored person in the world to one of the most hated.

Bieber admitted that he started heavy drug use by the age of 19 and by 20 he’d managed to alienate most of the people who cared about him. He suspects a great deal of his addiction issues stemmed from the false “high” of being on stage.

Being on stage according to studies is a bigger dopamine rush than almost any other activity…so these massive ups and downs on their own are very hard to manage. You notice a lot of touring bands and people end up having a phase of drug abuse, and I believe its due to not being able to manage the huge ups and downs that come with being an entertainer.

He ended his post by expressing gratefulness for the people who stood by him during his worst times, and for his marriage, which Bieber credits as something that is teaching him how to be a “good man”.

In the end, Bieber invited his fans to look to God for help and comfort.

Westlake Legal Group JB-620x793 Justin Bieber Pens Emotional Post Detailing Depression, Addiction, and Salvation perversion Justin Bieber Instagram Front Page Stories Featured Story fame Faith Entertainment depression celebrity lifestyle addiction

It is our instinct as entertainment consumers to look at celebrities as special, perfect and always comfortable in their luxurious lifestyles. Over the years I have reported extensively on child abuse in the entertainment industry and it has truly changed my outlook on kids like Bieber. There was a time when I also ridiculed him. For that, I am sorry. I couldn’t have imagined some of the fright and horrors he was experiencing as a young boy alone in a grown up world where anything goes and everyone keeps their secrets.

So for that, Justin…I apologize. You never deserved my wrath. I would never be okay with someone ridiculing my 12-year-old daughter, even if she was being annoying for whatever reason. It would crush me. I don’t know why I ever thought it was okay to do that to you.

I hope Justin has found some lasting peace, and that he and his wife have found a community that will love them for just being human and will hold them accountable to their marriage and their responsibilities. As Justin has discovered, money can’t buy you peace. Peace is priceless.

The post Justin Bieber Pens Emotional Post Detailing Depression, Addiction, and Salvation appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group media.townhall-1-300x153 Justin Bieber Pens Emotional Post Detailing Depression, Addiction, and Salvation perversion Justin Bieber Instagram Front Page Stories Featured Story fame Faith Entertainment depression celebrity lifestyle addiction   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Justin Bieber Pens Emotional Post Detailing Depression, Addiction, and Salvation

Westlake Legal Group 3cf58034-e906-4f3e-a480-7b03b118011f Justin Bieber Pens Emotional Post Detailing Depression, Addiction, and Salvation perversion Justin Bieber Instagram Front Page Stories Featured Story fame Faith Entertainment depression celebrity lifestyle addiction

Justin Bieber has been the subject of adoration and ridicule for nearly a decade. The Canadian pop singer first hit the scene at 13-years-old, when he instantly shot to stardom after being “discovered” by hip-hop artist and producer Usher.

Like many celebrities who become very popular very quickly, Bieber didn’t have to wait long before the public soured on his overexposure. Bieber fatigue led to a lot of late night jokes, ribbings about sending him back to Canada in some kind of trade, and plenty of snarky commentary over his “boy band” looks.

I must fully disclose here that I was one of those people who constantly criticized Bieber, not thinking about what he might be seeing or feeling.

The thing is, child stardom isn’t a privilege. It is a burden. The money is great but the price is high. Bieber has clearly paid the price in recent years, struggling with public meltdowns, addiction and depression. It may have seemed strange to the world when he announced his sudden marriage to Baldwin offspring Hailey Baldwin, but Baldwin comes from a nuclear family that is very active in the Christian faith (father Stephen Baldwin had a very public conversion years ago and now makes his living as a teaching pastor and Trump surrogate). Bieber was clearly looking for some stability, and he may have actually found it.

The young couple have become increasingly involved in their celebrity-friendly church in Los Angeles, with the pop star even stepping in to lead a worship service recently.

In an emotional Instagram post over the weekend, Bieber opened up about his struggles with fame, depression and addiction. He spoke about the emotional weight of having so much attention so young in life, and how it distorts one’s view of their own ego and their place in the world.

You see I have a lot of money, clothes, cars, accolades, achievements, awards and I was still unfulfilled. Have u noticed the statistics of child stars and the outcome of their life? there is an insane pressure and responsibility put on  a child who’s brain, emotions, frontal lobes (decision making) aren’t developed yet. No rationality, defiant, rebellious, things all of us have to go through. But when you add the pressure of stardom it does something to you that is quite unexplainable.

The singer went on to explain how disorienting it was at 13 to go from being a small town kid to being praised and adored all over the world.

I don’t know about you, but humility comes with age. You hear these things enough as a young boy and you actually start believing it. Rationality comes with age and so does your decision making process (one of the reasons you can’t drink until you’re 21)…everyone did everything for me so I never even learned the fundamentals of responsibility. So by this point I was 18 with no skills in the real world, with millions of dollars and access to whatever I wanted. This is a scary concept for anyone.

The singer continued on, discussing how troubling it was as a young boy to go from the most loved and adored person in the world to one of the most hated.

Bieber admitted that he started heavy drug use by the age of 19 and by 20 he’d managed to alienate most of the people who cared about him. He suspects a great deal of his addiction issues stemmed from the false “high” of being on stage.

Being on stage according to studies is a bigger dopamine rush than almost any other activity…so these massive ups and downs on their own are very hard to manage. You notice a lot of touring bands and people end up having a phase of drug abuse, and I believe its due to not being able to manage the huge ups and downs that come with being an entertainer.

He ended his post by expressing gratefulness for the people who stood by him during his worst times, and for his marriage, which Bieber credits as something that is teaching him how to be a “good man”.

In the end, Bieber invited his fans to look to God for help and comfort.

Westlake Legal Group JB-620x793 Justin Bieber Pens Emotional Post Detailing Depression, Addiction, and Salvation perversion Justin Bieber Instagram Front Page Stories Featured Story fame Faith Entertainment depression celebrity lifestyle addiction

It is our instinct as entertainment consumers to look at celebrities as special, perfect and always comfortable in their luxurious lifestyles. Over the years I have reported extensively on child abuse in the entertainment industry and it has truly changed my outlook on kids like Bieber. There was a time when I also ridiculed him. For that, I am sorry. I couldn’t have imagined some of the fright and horrors he was experiencing as a young boy alone in a grown up world where anything goes and everyone keeps their secrets.

So for that, Justin…I apologize. You never deserved my wrath. I would never be okay with someone ridiculing my 12-year-old daughter, even if she was being annoying for whatever reason. It would crush me. I don’t know why I ever thought it was okay to do that to you.

I hope Justin has found some lasting peace, and that he and his wife have found a community that will love them for just being human and will hold them accountable to their marriage and their responsibilities. As Justin has discovered, money can’t buy you peace. Peace is priceless.

The post Justin Bieber Pens Emotional Post Detailing Depression, Addiction, and Salvation appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group media.townhall-1-300x153 Justin Bieber Pens Emotional Post Detailing Depression, Addiction, and Salvation perversion Justin Bieber Instagram Front Page Stories Featured Story fame Faith Entertainment depression celebrity lifestyle addiction   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Mitch McConnell Points to the Fences: GOP Will “Absolutely” Fill Supreme Court Seat Next Year

Westlake Legal Group mcconnell-smile-620x317 Mitch McConnell Points to the Fences: GOP Will “Absolutely” Fill Supreme Court Seat Next Year Supreme Court republicans Politics Mitch McConnell Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception 2020

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., speaks to reporters following the final vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, at the Capitol in Washington, Saturday, Oct. 6, 2018. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Cocaine Mitch is pretty confident that next year, everything is going to come up Republican, including in the Supreme Court where he said the GOP will be filling vacancies.

According to The Hill, McConnell pushed back against the pushback he got for rejecting Merrick Garland, Obama’s Supreme Court pick, and holding out till after the elections to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. With the election season coming up, the left is wondering if McConnell will give the next vacancy the same treatment.

McConnell is saying no, and when asked by Hugh Hewitt if the GOP will act next year, the Senate Majority Leader answered “absolutely,” according to The Hill. The reason is simple. Obama was a President over a divided government, and Trump is not:

“You have to go back to 1880 to find the last time, back to 1880s to find the last time a Senate of a different party from the president filled a Supreme Court vacancy created in the middle of a presidential election. That was entirely the precedent,” McConnell said on Tuesday about his decision to block Garland.

“There was nothing I did that was, would not have been done had the shoe been on the other foot had there been a … Republican president and a Democratic Senate. So look, they can whine about this all day long. But under the Constitution, there is co-responsibility for appointments,” McConnell added.

He’s not wrong. Had the parties been reversed, the left would have pulled out every dirty trick in the book to make sure a Republican appointee didn’t make it to the bench. We know that because we watched how the left pulled out all the stop in order to prevent Brett Kavanaugh from reaching the Supreme Court and were thankfully unsuccessful.

All the outrage over Garland’s rejection rings hollow in the face of all of that.

The post Mitch McConnell Points to the Fences: GOP Will “Absolutely” Fill Supreme Court Seat Next Year appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group mcconnell-smile-300x153 Mitch McConnell Points to the Fences: GOP Will “Absolutely” Fill Supreme Court Seat Next Year Supreme Court republicans Politics Mitch McConnell Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

CNN’s Jake Tapper Gets Really Upset Over It, But His Denials About James Clapper and the Steele Dossier Don’t Add Up

Westlake Legal Group ap-james-clapper-620x380 CNN’s Jake Tapper Gets Really Upset Over It, But His Denials About James Clapper and the Steele Dossier Don’t Add Up Steele dossier Politics media bias lies leaks James Clapper Jake Tapper House Intel Report Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Epoch Times donald trump Doesn't Add Up democrats Congressional testimony CNN

Director of National Intelligence nominee James Clapper testifies during the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on his nomination on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, July 20, 2010. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

For years now, there’s been a primary suspicion that CNN and Jake Tapper (who led the reporting on it) were tipped off about the Steele Dossier and a briefing to Donald Trump on it by James Clapper, who was still technically part of the Obama Administration at the time.

This all went down in January of 2017, when Tapper suddenly started reporting on details of the dossier and how the newly elected President had been told about it. The CNN newsman would later express his anger that Buzzfeed published this dossier, which showed it to be a farce in short order. Though he claims his objections were based on the unverified nature of the dossier, that doesn’t make sense. Why would CNN not want to the entire dossier published but at the same time be leaking parts of it if they felt it wasn’t proper to publish? The more obvious explanation is that CNN and Tapper really wanted to keep leaking damaging details of the dossier without its ridiculous nature being exposed. It was only after Buzzfeed printed it that it was able to be essentially debunked.

The question of who gave Tapper that information to begin with arose in a recent Epoch Times article, which was tweeted about on Twitter. This led Tapper to jump in with all his partisan glory and call them liars “carrying water” for those in power.

The Epoch Times responded by pointing out that their source was a House Intel Committee report, not just some anonymous claims or supposition.

Tapper then responds back by claiming the House Intel report is wrong, citing an article from The Washington Post.

You can go read the entire article Tapper links. It doesn’t actually debunk anything and perhaps bolsters the assertion that Clapper was the leak to CNN. The author does his level best to muddy the waters, but in noway does he show the House Intel report to be “inaccurate” as Tapper claims. That article’s claim also contradicts the direct testimony of James Clapper.

In fact, to provide even more context, Clapper had originally told Congress he didn’t discuss the dossier with any journalist at all. He’d later change his story when confronted with the discussion with Tapper in Jan. of 2017. This is mirrored by the classified ICA report.

The former DNI later changed his story after he was confronted specifically about his communications with Jake Tapper of CNN.

“Clapper subsequently acknowledged discussing the ‘dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper,’ and admitted that he might have spoken with other journalists about the same topic,” the report continued. “Clapper’s discussion with Tapper took place in early January 2017, around the time IC leaders briefed President Obama and President-elect Trump, on ‘the Christopher Steele information,’ a two-page summary of which was ‘enclosed in’ the highly-classified version of the ICA,” or intelligence community assessment.

Clapper is also on record telling then President-Elect Trump during the infamous briefing on the Steele matter that CNN had the dossier and was looking for a news hook. 24 hours later, Tapper was handed his hook via a leak.

There are two explanations here. Either James Clapper lied to Congress or Jake Tapper is lying. Clapper mentions that he discussed it with Tapper after it “was out in the media.” The dossier was leaked to the media back in late 2016 and Clapper admits that CNN had the dossier in their possession prior to the briefing with Trump. Tapper wouldn’t speak to Clapper officially until an interview in May of 2017. It’s improbable that Clapper was citing that interview over half a year later in his testimony as his discussion with Tapper on the dossier, and if he was, he would have said that.

Secondly, Tapper was reporting on details about the dossier and the briefing to Trump in Jan. of 2017 under the guise of anonymous sources from within the government. CNN, whether Tapper wants to admit it or not, did receive leaks from government officials well before May 2017 and were told of the briefing. Further, it just so happened that after those leaks took place, James Clapper was hired on as a paid analyst by CNN. We are supposed to believe this was all just a coincidence?

Tapper is sniping at The Epoch Times and throwing around personal insults with his typical haughty nature, but it’s his story that makes the least sense in all this. If Clapper wasn’t his source, then who was it? Who was feeding Tapper stories about the dossier in Jan. of 2017 and who told them about the briefing to Trump?

He can clear all that up immediately if he’d like. What he doesn’t get to do is hand wave away a House Intel report and Congressional testimony while demanding we trust his word. CNN simply doesn’t hold that kind of credibility. Not even close.

————————————————

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

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

The post CNN’s Jake Tapper Gets Really Upset Over It, But His Denials About James Clapper and the Steele Dossier Don’t Add Up appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group jake-tapper-300x169 CNN’s Jake Tapper Gets Really Upset Over It, But His Denials About James Clapper and the Steele Dossier Don’t Add Up Steele dossier Politics media bias lies leaks James Clapper Jake Tapper House Intel Report Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Epoch Times donald trump Doesn't Add Up democrats Congressional testimony CNN   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Dave Chappelle Gets the 0% Treatment on Rotten Tomatoes at the Hands of Salty Critics

Westlake Legal Group Capture-9-620x371 Dave Chappelle Gets the 0% Treatment on Rotten Tomatoes at the Hands of Salty Critics Rotten Tomatoes Politics political correctness Media leftists Front Page Stories Featured Story Entertainment democrats Davce Chappelle critics comedy Allow Media Exception

No matter how you slice it, Dave Chappelle’s recent Netflix comedy special “Sticks and Stones” was the stand-up comedy talk of the town. The controversy surrounding it has created two camps, and as everything else does nowadays, these camps tend to be divided by political lines.

Chappelle’s stand-up routine was not politically correct, and while he says things that much of the right would disagree with, the right applauded the special as a celebration of free speech and hard truths. The left, however, hated it with the loathing of a Clinton on election night.

It’s no wonder either. When the crowd thought Chapelle was making fun of Trump, Chappelle was actually making fun of them. He also said some things about guns and abortion that the left truly didn’t appreciate.  If you have the ability to do so, I recommend that you go see it for yourself. As I detail in a previous article, all the bad things you hear about it are things said by a leftist media that is aghast that someone would dare fall outside the approved boundaries they’ve set.

(READ: Why You Should Definitely Watch Dave Chappelle’s New Stand-Up Special, And Ignore The Outrage Brigades)

In fact, the left has attempted to wreck the special’s success in any way possible, and this includes critics who are letting their bias show on Rotten Tomatoes. For some time, Chappelle’s special sported a 0% rating on the critic site, withe every critic’s judgment a bit more ridiculous than the next.

“Like dropping in on a rascally uncle who doesn’t know, or doesn’t care, how much he’s disappointing you,” wrote Inkoo Kang of Slate.

“Sticks and Stones is designed to generate inflammatory coverage… It’s a symbiotic cycle with no end in sight, and it’s become the last thing a beloved provocateur should ever want to be: predictable,” wrote Allison Herman of The Ringer.

“”Sticks & Stones” isn’t necessarily a failure, it just feels like Chappelle presenting half-formed material with few jokes that truly hit hard and stand out,” said Alci Rengifo of Entertainment Voice.

I’m not a professional movie critic, but I do make a living being a cultural critic and I can tell you that a lot of these judgments are off the mark. Only one or two of Chappelle’s jokes don’t necessarily land, and while he was being provocative, it wasn’t being provocative for the sake of it like Amy Schumer tends to do. He was doing so with a point attached, almost like a dare to become angry with him and prove him right. It’s very South Parkian.

But I don’t think Chappelle’s special needs to be defended. I think the critics need to defend their ratings. What’s more, I think it’s time that Rotten Tomatoes release the audience score, which it still hasn’t done, but I digress.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and critics not liking something and explaining why is fine. My problem with a lot of these reviews is that it’s clear that many of these critics are mad because Chappelle’s jokes didn’t pass the partisan smell test for the left. The funny part is that Chappelle’s jokes didn’t necessarily fall on one side or another. He said things both sides can agree on or laugh about.

But centrism can’t be tolerated in any degree, and Chappelle screwed up in their eyes by making things that they consider holy to be laughing matters.

In other words, the left is angry that Chappelle practiced comedy.

It should be noted that, as of this writing, one critic has at least given the special a positive score, boosting Chappelle’s “Sticks and Stones” up to a whopping 17 percent.

The post Dave Chappelle Gets the 0% Treatment on Rotten Tomatoes at the Hands of Salty Critics appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Capture-9-300x180 Dave Chappelle Gets the 0% Treatment on Rotten Tomatoes at the Hands of Salty Critics Rotten Tomatoes Politics political correctness Media leftists Front Page Stories Featured Story Entertainment democrats Davce Chappelle critics comedy Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

#Journalism: Bloomberg Reporter Triumphant After Trump Official He (Falsely) Accused of Anti-Semitism Resigns

Westlake Legal Group Journalism-620x413 #Journalism: Bloomberg Reporter Triumphant After Trump Official He (Falsely) Accused of Anti-Semitism Resigns white house washington D.C. Social Media republicans Politics Not Today Internet North Carolina Media journalism Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture Bloomberg News Allow Media Exception

CREDIT: Brandon Morse, copyright RedState.com.

Bloomberg Law journalist Ben Penn eagerly reported this morning that an adviser to President Trump had resigned “after anti-Semitic Facebook posts” from 2016 “surfaced”:

A recently appointed Trump Labor Department official with a history of advancing controversial conservative and faith-based causes in court has resigned after revelations that he wrote a 2016 Facebook post suggesting the Jewish-controlled media “protects their own.”

Four hours after Bloomberg Law requested comment from the White House and DOL about Leif Olson’s social media post, the department said he has resigned, without elaboration.

Olson, 43, started at the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division Aug. 12 as a senior policy adviser, after being cleared for the job by the White House.

[…]

Olson, an unsuccessful GOP candidate in 2012 for a Texas district court judgeship, fired off a series of late-night posts on his personal Facebook page three years ago that started as a sarcastic quip about former House Speaker Paul Ryan’s blowout primary victory. They then devolved into an exchange referencing two anti-Semitic tropes: that Jews control the media and that they look out for members of their own faith.

Here’s the problem with Penn’s “reporting.” It’s clear by looking at what Olson wrote that he was being sarcastic. Here are the comments Penn labeled as “anti-Semitic”:

Philip Klein at the DC Examiner explains:

In reality, the Facebook post in question was the opposite of anti-Semitic. It was a clearly sarcastic post from 2016 about Paul Ryan crushing alt-right challenger Paul Nehlen. If the over-the-top language isn’t a tip off, it’s a fairly dead giveaway that Olson refers to Ryan having “suffered a massive, historic, emasculating 70-point victory.”

When one of the commenters suggests Ryan must be a “neocon” and a Jew, Olson, clearly joking, responded, “It must be true because I’ve never heard the Lamestream Media report it, and you know they protect their own.”

Penn’s characterization was so over-the-top wrong that even liberal Jonathan Chait called him out over the false report:

Sadly, Penn is 100% unapologetic about the results of his erroneous reporting, and is now pretending that he is the true victim in all of this:

Olson’s friend Ted Frank, who is Jewish, ripped Penn’s reporting and correctly pointed out that he had effectively gotten a man who had just moved to DC with his family fired for no reason other than Orange Man Bad:

Should Olson and the DOL/White House have fought back against this false charge? Absolutely. Especially considering how, under the Stelter Standard, so-called “objective” journalists are feeling more free to unequivocally characterize statements as “racist” or “anti-Semitic” rather than using qualifiers like “some view as anti-Semitic” or “some say are racist”, the latter of which allows readers to decide what to think about any allegedly offensive statements.

For anyone out there who still after all this time doesn’t understand why conservatives and Republicans have such negative views about the mainstream press, you can stop wondering now.

Related –>> DNC-MSM: HOW DARE YOU SEARCH THROUGH OUR OLD TWEETS. ALSO DNC-MSM: Shameful: Trump Labor appointee forced to resign after Bloomberg portrays sarcastic 2016 Facebook post as anti-Semitic.

——-
— 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: Bloomberg Reporter Triumphant After Trump Official He (Falsely) Accused of Anti-Semitism Resigns appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Journalism-300x200 #Journalism: Bloomberg Reporter Triumphant After Trump Official He (Falsely) Accused of Anti-Semitism Resigns white house washington D.C. Social Media republicans Politics Not Today Internet North Carolina Media journalism Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture Bloomberg News Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Rhode Island Congressman Makes Crazy Claim About Guns and Manages to Show Ignorance of His State Laws

Westlake Legal Group Guns-Rhode-Island-620x317 Rhode Island Congressman Makes Crazy Claim About Guns and Manages to Show Ignorance of His State Laws Social Media progressives Politics political correctness Policy Guns gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats david cicilline Congress Allow Media Exception

(AP Photo/Matt York, File)

Here is what happens when politicians claim superiority on an issue about which they are oblivious.

The shooting over the weekend in Odessa Texas has the liberal politicians out in force, going full anti-gun messaging in full throat before any electronic outlet they can find. It is rather telling how they are completely silent about more shootings, victims, and deaths occurring in the heavily gun-regulated Chicagoland area over the exact same time frame, but we are used to their hypocrisy on this matter.

And stumbling into the debate with all of the grace of someone crashing into a Mikasa stemware display with his shoelaces tied together is Congressional Rep. David Cicilline. The honorable Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island decided to make a bold pronouncement on Twitter concerning the gun laws in this nation.

This is a rather impressive accomplishment; one small sentence of just 20 words, and he manages to layer the idiocy despite this dose of brevity. Just to start, to invite people to call you ‘crazy’ as you then proceed to prove your mental/emotional imbalance is not the work of a competent federal legislator. Talk about setting a personal precedent…

Next, Cicilline trots out this tired and provably false canard about it being tougher to purchase cold medicine over the counter. This asinine dose of prevarication has become a knee-jerk narrative for those who prefer to do little to zero thinking about guns. It is the kind of vacant aphorism that gun-nabbers love to volley between themselves to feel better about their lack of comprehensive knowledge.

But there is an additional dose of ignorance to shove into Cicilline’s clear backpack — he is completely showing he is unaware about the gun laws in his own state. Turns out, after conducting the type of cursory research that seems beyond the reach of a federal lawmaker, that Rhode Island actually has some of the very type of gun legislation he is calling for here. From Gunlaws.com here is the purchasing restrictions found in The Ocean State (emphasis added):

The seller must then conduct a background check of the intended buyer through the local law enforcement officials or the State Police superintendent. Various copies are made to be sent to the Attorney General, the law enforcement agency conducting the background check, and one is kept by the seller.
The person or licensed firearms dealer must keep the copy for a period of six years. Furthermore, a seven-day waiting period is also instituted by law, and the physical transaction of the weapon from the seller to the buyer may not occur until the wait-period has lapsed. The purchaser must also be at least 18 years old and compliant to the federal regulations detailing the qualifications of possession of a firearm.

Fair to speculate these are not steps taken by Walgreens if you attempt to buy some assault-Pseudoephedrine. Not only is this doltish position being taken by a politician laughable, but the way he elides his own state’s gun laws is made all the worse by the fact that David Cicilline is also a lawyer. This then takes us in the usual fashion to note that we are being served up one of two disqualifying realities: David is displaying a stark ignorance of his state law, or he is intentionally misleading his constituents with what he knows to be a fabrication.

Either the case, he has effectively dismissed himself from any further discussion on this subject. He has even gone so far as to make this entirely risible comment the pinned tweet on his feed. As divorced from reality as this comment is anyone who believes this to be a realistic representation is completely exposing themselves as an unthinking minion. I’d go so far as to even call them “crazy”.

The post Rhode Island Congressman Makes Crazy Claim About Guns and Manages to Show Ignorance of His State Laws appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Guns-Rhode-Island-300x153 Rhode Island Congressman Makes Crazy Claim About Guns and Manages to Show Ignorance of His State Laws Social Media progressives Politics political correctness Policy Guns gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats david cicilline Congress Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com