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 143)

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 

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 

Anti-Semitic Tweets From NY Times’ Political Editor Exposed Day After Publishing Scathing Editorial About Trump’s ‘Anti-Semitism’

Westlake Legal Group d2bf8fb0-122d-4440-9765-867da6293429.v1-e1557409569915 Anti-Semitic Tweets From NY Times’ Political Editor Exposed Day After Publishing Scathing Editorial About Trump’s ‘Anti-Semitism’ Tom Wright-Piersanti Social Media richard grennell racism President Trump Media Matthew Boyle Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism journalism Front Page Stories Featured Story Dr. Sebastian Gorka dean baquet arthur schwartz anti-semitism Allow Media Exception

 

New York Times political editor Tom Wright-Piersanti was very busy on Thursday morning trying to delete a “years-long history of anti-Semitic and racist comments” from his Twitter page.

Shortly after Breitbart News’ Matthew Boyle published his story on Wright-Piersanti, he began deleting his offensive tweets. It’s a mystery why he left them up for so long.

In one tweet, Wright-Piersanti writes that “I was going to say ‘Crappy Jew Year,’ but one of my resolutions is to be less anti-Semitic. So…. HAPPY Jew Year. You Jews.” (shown in Lynne Patton tweet below)

On the evening of December 15, 2009, he tweeted a photo of a vehicle with a Menorah on top. (shown in the tweet by Andrew Surabian)

Who called the Jew-police?

— Tom Wright-Piersanti (@tomwp) December 16, 2009

Wright-Piersanti apparently doesn’t care for Native-Americans either.

Or farmers.

Horticulture sounds like Whore-tit-culture, those sick f**k farmers are probably whacking off onto their crops right now

— Tom Wright-Piersanti (@tomwp) December 26, 2009

Or Asians either.

A tweet from May 18, 2010 read:

With asian babies, is it racist to say to the parents, ‘Aw, he looks just like you!’? What if you say it before you see any pictures?

It’s especially ironic to find the Times‘ political editor exposed as an anti-Semite and a racist just days after it was revealed that the newspaper has shifted their focus from attacking President Trump for Russian collusion to attacking him as a racist. In fact, on Wednesday, just as the NY Times‘ executive editor Dean Baquet told his staff in the leaked transcript obtained by Slate last week, the newspaper’s editorial board published an editorial which “lectured the president on antisemitism.” Here’s an excerpt:

In the bloody history of modern anti-Semitism, one of the most common justifications for violence is the inflammatory canard that the loyalty of Jewish citizens is suspect. President Trump has repeatedly employed that libel in recent days as part of a verbal assault on the Democratic Party. Such language is traditionally used to incite anger against Jews. Mr. Trump, surreally, is employing it in an effort to win Jewish votes.

U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell told Breitbart:

It is “very troubling” that Wright-Piersanti is making newsroom decisions at the Times particularly in the wake of the Times’ issues with antisemitic cartoons that promoted the newspaper to halt printing of cartoons in its international edition altogether.

Anti-Semitism is on the rise. It is a human problem. We see it in the U.S., in Germany, in Europe – everywhere. But when antisemitic comments like these come from a New York Times newsroom insider, it is very troubling – especially because the NYT just decided to stop running political cartoons because they couldn’t stop the antisemitism coming from their cartoonists.

“This editor needs to be fired immediately and the New York Times leadership needs to explain how and why they overlooked this inflammatory and inappropriate language,” said former White House press secretary Sean Spicer.

Conservative radio host Dr. Sebastian Gorka told Breitbart that he “expects” this from the Times. “Since Walter Duranty’s apologia for the murderous Soviet regime, to the rank anti-Semitic cartoons of 2019, the New York Times has become a cess-pit of hatred and bigotry.”

A former White House official, a person of color, said of the tweets, “Wright-Piersanti’s tweets demonstrate an endemic culture of hatred inside the establishment media organization.” He added:

The vile hatred spewed by this New York Times editor is indicative of how liberal media continues to condone, promote, and celebrate racism. As a person of color, I am all too aware of how media marginalizes minorities and this is another example of that intolerant behavior being given a global platform to fester on the pages of the New York Times.

One GOP strategist, Arthur Schwartz, suggested that “the Times will promote him for his antisemitism rather than hold him accountable.” Schwartz, an adviser to Donald Trump, Jr. added, “This is hardly surprising coming from the newspaper that promotes and protects ‘The Squad’ and countless other bigots and hate mongers. He’ll probably get a promotion.”

Earlier this year, the newspaper came under attack over an anti-Semitic cartoon and announced they would no longer be publishing cartoons.

Last summer, the newspaper hired a young woman named Sarah Jeong to join their editorial board. Shortly after she was hired, numerous racist tweets were discovered on social media. I posted about this here. She was not fired and I doubt Wright-Piersanti will be let go either.

He appears to fit right in as the paper of record.

Update: 4:24 pm

New York Times spokesman responds to Breitbart’s request for a comment by tweet:

 

The post Anti-Semitic Tweets From NY Times’ Political Editor Exposed Day After Publishing Scathing Editorial About Trump’s ‘Anti-Semitism’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group d2bf8fb0-122d-4440-9765-867da6293429.v1-300x204 Anti-Semitic Tweets From NY Times’ Political Editor Exposed Day After Publishing Scathing Editorial About Trump’s ‘Anti-Semitism’ Tom Wright-Piersanti Social Media richard grennell racism President Trump Media Matthew Boyle Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism journalism Front Page Stories Featured Story Dr. Sebastian Gorka dean baquet arthur schwartz anti-semitism Allow Media Exception   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 

The President Believes Birthright Citizenship Should End. Is He Right?

Westlake Legal Group bird-3058712_1280-620x349 The President Believes Birthright Citizenship Should End. Is He Right? Uncategorized Politics Joe Biden immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump Cory Booker Birthright Citizenship axios Allow Media Exception

 

 

On Wednesday, the President announced he’s looking “very seriously” into the law allowing birthright citizenship.

Mr. Trump is considering an executive order.

Presently, any child born in the United States is granted citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment, even if the parents are illegal immigrants.

Trump has previously expressed his disagreement with the practice — speaking to Axios in 2018, he called it “ridiculous.” It “has to end,” he said.

On Wednesday, he explained that the White House is “very seriously” considering a measure against it.



“We’re looking at that very seriously — birthright citizenship, where you have a baby on our land, you walk over the border and have a baby. Congratulations, the baby is now a U.S. citizen. We’re looking at it very, very seriously. … We are looking at birthright citizenship very seriously. It’s, frankly, ridiculous.”

For more on the history of the issue, see Elizabeth’s Vaughn’s piece here.

I live on the West Coast, where birthright citizenship is employed with regularity. Is it a just establishment? The idea, it seems to me, makes sense — you’re a citizen of the place in which you were born. After all, “Native American” really refers to us all — any and all who were born in America. That word — native — has meaning because one’s birthplace, the world has told us, is significant.

But what happens when it’s abused? When people from other countries feel invited to break one law in order to enjoy the benefits of another? Does that make it a law not worth keeping, or is its undoing wholly unAmerican?

As Elizabeth points out, the number of births to illegal immigrants is presently estimated at 6-7.5% of all births in the country.

What do you think of the law? Is it right for anyone born in America to claim it as home? Or should citizenshp be dictated by parental status?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts in the Comments section.

-ALEX

 

See 3 more pieces from me:

Democrats’ Worst Nightmare – Texas Attempts A Rational Response To Mass Shooting: LOOSEN Gun Laws

Viral Video Provides A Lesson In Justice & Heroism – When Bullying Turns To Deep, Deep Regret

In Order To Save The Planet, President Jair Bolsonaro Asks Brazilians To Hold In Every Bowel Movement For Two Days

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

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

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

The post The President Believes Birthright Citizenship Should End. Is He Right? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group bird-3058712_1280-300x169 The President Believes Birthright Citizenship Should End. Is He Right? Uncategorized Politics Joe Biden immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump Cory Booker Birthright Citizenship axios 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 

San Francisco Board ‘Sanitizes’ Language For Criminals; Hopes To Change Views About How ‘Justice-Involved’ People Are Perceived

Westlake Legal Group AP_1602261914548368-620x413 San Francisco Board ‘Sanitizes’ Language For Criminals; Hopes To Change Views About How ‘Justice-Involved’ People Are Perceived San Francisco Board of Supervisors Popular Culture politically correct language political correctness Liberal Elitism Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats crime California Allow Media Exception

A number of syringes are seen in the remains of a tent city being cleared by city workers along Division Street Friday, Feb. 26, 2016, in San Francisco. Homeless people have until the end of Friday to vacate a rambling tent city along a busy San Francisco street declared a health hazard by city officials earlier this week. The mayor’s office says about 40 tents remain, down from a high of 140 tents this winter. The tents have lined both sides of a street under a freeway overpass for months, drawing complaints from residents and businesses. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

 

Once arguably the most beautiful city in the United States, San Francisco has become synonymous with homelessness and filth. But, instead of tackling the city’s soaring crime rate or taking action to address their homeless crisis, its Board of Supervisors has introduced new “sanitized” language for criminals. They believe that by adopting these changes in vocabulary, it will soften the way people feel about criminals.

I think it’s equivalent to remembering to make a mortgage payment when your house is on fire.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, a “convicted felon” released from prison will now be known as a “justice-involved person” or simply as a “returning resident.” There’s a big difference between a “convicted felon” and a “returning resident” folks. Just saying.

Instead of the negative term “juvenile delinquent,” they will use the phrase, a “young person with justice system involvement” or a “young person impacted by the juvenile justice system.” As if this person was just living their life, and this random event happened to them when they weren’t looking.

Parolees and those on probation will be referred to as “a person on parole or a person under supervision” and “drug addicts or substance abusers,” will be called “people with a history of substance use.”

Board Supervisor Matt Haney explained to the newspaper, “We don’t want people to be forever labeled for the worst things that they have done. We want them ultimately to become contributing citizens, and referring to them as felons is like a scarlet letter that they can never get away from.”

The guidelines state:

The previous words used to describe criminals only serve to obstruct and separate people from society and make the institutionalization of racism and supremacy appear normal…Inaccurate information, unfounded assumptions, generalizations and other negative predispositions associated with justice-involved individuals create societal stigmas, attitudinal barriers and continued negative stereotypes.

The Chronicle “noted an individual whose car has been broken into could well be known to police as “a person who has come in contact with a returning resident who was involved with the justice system and who is currently under supervision with a history of substance use.”

This new language has been endorsed by the city’s district attorney, and awaits the endorsement of the Mayor, London Breed.

Stories like this help us to understand how San Francisco’s problems, particularly the city’s homelessness and surging crime rate, have spiraled out of control. The city’s leaders spend their time on these stupid, impotent measures while Rome burns.

The Board officials are only fooling themselves if they believe their decision to soften the language they use when referring to criminals will do anything to alleviate or to reverse the city’s underlying problems.

San Francisco will continue on this dangerous trajectory until the city becomes the next Baltimore.

The post San Francisco Board ‘Sanitizes’ Language For Criminals; Hopes To Change Views About How ‘Justice-Involved’ People Are Perceived appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_1602261914548368-300x200 San Francisco Board ‘Sanitizes’ Language For Criminals; Hopes To Change Views About How ‘Justice-Involved’ People Are Perceived San Francisco Board of Supervisors Popular Culture politically correct language political correctness Liberal Elitism Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats crime California Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com