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 188)

Today’s Supreme Court Ruling Is Bad News For Paul Manafort

Westlake Legal Group paul-manafort-mugshot-SCREENSHOT-620x353 Today’s Supreme Court Ruling Is Bad News For Paul Manafort Supreme Court SCOTUS Paul Manafort law Justice Gorsuch Justice Alito Gamble Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story dual-sovereignty doctrine double jeopardy Courts Allow Media Exception

Paul Manafort: Political Prosecution

In a ruling released today, the Supreme Court upheld the “dual-sovereignty doctrine,” which allows state and federal prosecutions for the same offense.

In the case of Gamble v. United States the Court ruled against the petitioner, whose attorneys argued that the dual-sovereignty doctrine was a violation of the “double jeopardy clause” of the Fifth Amendment.

Gamble pleaded guilty to a firearm charge in the state of Alabama in 2015. He was then indicted by federal prosecutors for the same instance of possession under federal law. Here is the history:

Gamble moved to dismiss, arguing that the federal indictment was for “the same offence” as the one at issue in his state conviction, thus exposing him to double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment. The District Court denied this motion, invoking the dual-sovereignty doctrine, according to which two offenses “are not the ‘same offence’  for double jeopardy purposes if “prosecuted by different sovereigns.” … Gamble pleaded guilty to the federal offense but appealed on double jeopardy grounds. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

In today’s 7-2 ruling, the doctrine was affirmed. Justice Samuel Alito wrote:

Although the dual-sovereignty rule is often dubbed an ‘exception’ to the double jeopardy right, it is not an exception at all. On the contrary, it follows from the text that defines that right in the first place…We have long held that a crime under one sovereign’s laws is not “the same offence” as a crime under the laws of another sovereign. Under this “dual-sovereignty” doctrine, a State may prosecute a defendant under state law even if the Federal Government has prosecuted him for the same conduct under a federal statute.

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.

Justices Ginsburg and Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions.

Justice Gorsuch’s opinion actually makes far more sense to me. He wrote:

A free society does not allow its government to try the same individual for the same crime until it’s happy with the result. Unfortunately, the Court today endorses a colossal exception to this ancient rule against double jeopardy. My colleagues say that the federal government and each State are “separate sovereigns” entitled to try the same person for the same crime. So if all the might of one “sovereign” cannot succeed against the presumptively free individual, another may insist on the chance to try again. And if both manage to succeed, so much the better; they can add one punishment on top of the other.

To say the least, this decision was not good news for President Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who is currently serving a four-year sentence for bank and tax fraud convictions. It gives New York State the green light to prosecute Manafort for these same offenses.

Even if Manafort were to receive a pardon from President Trump, he would still face charges in New York.

Manafort was recently transferred to Rikers Island, a maximum security jail located in The Bronx, NY, “for the duration of the state case” against him. This facility has been home to some of the city’s most violent criminals, including the Son of Sam serial killer, David Berkowitz, and Mark David Chapman, who shot John Lennon.

A source close to Manafort told Fox News that he will be “held in solitary confinement for his own protection and that his defense team is planning an appeal.” The 70-year-old’s health has deteriorated significantly during his time in prison, and the source objected to Manafort being placed in solitary, saying, “He’s not a mob boss.”

Manafort has an unlikely ally in that effort – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

In her tweets, Ocasio-Cortez said she was applying her beliefs to Manafort’s case, adding that “a prison sentence is not a license for (government) torture and human rights violations. That’s what solitary confinement is.” She also made a nod to Rikers’ notorious reputation.
“Sorry, but if people aren’t willing to apply principles evenly, no matter the person, then they aren’t fighting for criminal justice reform. People acting as though this is summer camp. It’s Rikers, widely known for abuse,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, saying also that “of course” she did not want Manafort to be pardoned for his crimes.

But, the highly partisan District Attorney, Cy Vance, Jr., lacks that compassion.

The post Today’s Supreme Court Ruling Is Bad News For Paul Manafort appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group paul-manafort-mugshot-SCREENSHOT-300x171 Today’s Supreme Court Ruling Is Bad News For Paul Manafort Supreme Court SCOTUS Paul Manafort law Justice Gorsuch Justice Alito Gamble Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story dual-sovereignty doctrine double jeopardy Courts Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Kyle Kashuv’s Ousting from Harvard Isn’t About Decency, It’s About Punishing Wrong-Think

Westlake Legal Group e1285c27-52f2-45a1-b211-7efe5ba760b3-620x317 Kyle Kashuv’s Ousting from Harvard Isn’t About Decency, It’s About Punishing Wrong-Think university Politics Parkland Shooting Kyle Kashuv Harvard Front Page Stories Featured Story david hogg Allow Media Exception admissions Activism Academia

Parkland survivor Kyle Kashuv was recently informed by Harvard that despite his being previously accepted, he’ll not be attending after it was discovered that he had sent private text messages that contained horrible things being said such as repeated use of the “n-word” and violent rhetoric about Jewish people, though it should be noted that Kashuv is Jewish himself.

I’ve read the things Kashuv wrote in those text messages, and I can tell you that they are indeed horrible and idiotic. They are also the texts of a child who thinks no one is listening.

Kashuv took to Twitter and acknowledged that the texts were wrong, apologized for them, and swore to be better in the future, though I personally feel that last part is redundant as Kashuv has proven himself to be a positive force in the world without question.

Kashuv goes on in his thread to describe the back and forth he had with Harvard administrators after their decision of revoking his admission. Kashuv described his remorse for those messages and detailed how he has indeed changed over the past two years, in no small part due to surviving a school shooting that left over a dozen of his peers dead.

Still, Harvard wouldn’t bite. Kashuv was apparently too filthy to touch, which is a horrific standard to set given the fact that everyone has said something in their past that they regret and are remorseful for. I can’t put this disgusting move by Harvard better than Ben Shapiro did with his commentary about it on the Daily Wire.

This move by Harvard is the worst move I’ve ever seen in academia — and it represents the establishment of a standard so insane that no one can possibly withstand it. All those who have never written an embarrassing thing privately, please step forward. Not so fast, SJWs.

Demanding perfection is an odd standard to take by Harvard given its penchant for accepting, but rest assured, this isn’t about what Kashuv said in his message. The message was simply the excuse needed for leftist activists to punish Kashuv for his right-leaning stances and pro-gun activism.

His fellow Parkland survivor David Hogg will be attending Harvard despite the fact that Hogg did not have the grades to enter. Hogg had a 1270 as his SAT score. The bottom 25 percent of Harvard students have an average of 1460. For all intents and purposes, Hogg shouldn’t be there. Many people have worked harder and scored higher than Hogg and were still rejected. However, Hogg is a high-profile left-wing activist and therefore is welcomed in.

I’m willing to bet that if we were to see every message that Hogg ever sent we’d also find a few that would be distasteful. He has a habit of making wild claims that AR-15 owners are hunting people and that the NRA is a terrorist organization. These kinds of outlandish tweets are the things he says in public, and lord only knows what he’s throwing around in private.

Either way, I wouldn’t care. Neither Kashuv or Hogg should be denied entry into Harvard based off of jokes the did or didn’t make, but instead they should get in through meritocracy. That’s not the standard Harvard is setting, however.

The messages Harvard just handed down to the public are:

  • They don’t care how hard you worked to get good grades, they’re not looking at your grades
  • Only certain types of activism are acceptable and may be the key to being admitted whether you deserve it or not
  • Off-color jokes and stupid private texts are forbidden
  • The sins of your past are unforgivable
  • Don’t be a high-profile conservative

Message received, Harvard. Nothing short of left-leaning perfection is accepted at your University. Enjoy your bubble.

The post Kyle Kashuv’s Ousting from Harvard Isn’t About Decency, It’s About Punishing Wrong-Think appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group e1285c27-52f2-45a1-b211-7efe5ba760b3-300x153 Kyle Kashuv’s Ousting from Harvard Isn’t About Decency, It’s About Punishing Wrong-Think university Politics Parkland Shooting Kyle Kashuv Harvard Front Page Stories Featured Story david hogg Allow Media Exception admissions Activism Academia   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Science? Researcher Claims the Unwillingness to Date Trans People Is Due to Ignorant Prejudice

Westlake Legal Group 260c0824-7cf2-4300-873d-0b4f8bf402c4-620x317 Science? Researcher Claims the Unwillingness to Date Trans People Is Due to Ignorant Prejudice transgender study Straight Sexuality Sex Science Politics LGBT Front Page Stories Featured Story biology Allow Media Exception

The one thing that seems to escape the social justice-obsessed crowd is that their recent appearance and hostile takeover of culture won’t suddenly lead to the reversal of natural biology which has been established for millions of years. The sudden declaration that Mark can be Mary if “zer” wants to be isn’t going to make Mary any less of a Mark no matter what shade of eyeshadow he applies or what appendage he chops off.

Regardless, mainstream media and activists have put such an emphasis on transgenderism that we start to believe they’re a massive group of people. They’re not. Those affected with the disorder known as “gender dysphoria” are a percentage of a percentage. So glorified, however, is the idea of transgenderism that people who don’t suffer from the disorder have begun labeling themselves as such, and the activist community even pushes it on kids to the point where they force it on them. They’ll even take your kid from you to do so if need be.

The reason they do this is that the public while tolerating transgenderism, isn’t accepting it whole hog. People are still seeing those who claim to be transgender as the sex they were born as. They can nod about how “gender” is a social construct, but when it comes down to it, it’s still a fringe idea that isn’t finding a basis in reality.

According to one researcher, this is evidenced in the dating scene where transgendered individuals are having a hard time finding romantic interests.

Writing in Psychology Today, researcher Karen L. Blaire found that only three percent of straight people would be okay with dating a trans person.

When asked why, Blaire reported that many gave responses with “dehumanizing” tones, and then proceeds to explain that dehumanization is people thinking that a trans person is still the sex they were born as:

These types of responses questioned the legitimacy of transgender and non-binary identities and took a very dehumanizing tone in referring to trans people. Finally, a minority of individuals mentioned a desire to only date people with whom they could have biologically related children, however, often these reasons were still expressed using dehumanizing language, such as saying that a trans man “was not a natural man” or a “real man” and that therefore it would not be possible to have children with him.

It’s interesting that she labels the simple acknowledgment of a person’s true biology as dehumanization, but more on that later. Blaire recommends the best course of action is to “educate” the public on what transgenderism is.

Overall, it would appear that the most important step moving forward in terms of increasing the dating prospects for transgender and non-binary individuals is improving general education about the diversity of gender identities and what each identity means. Furthermore, increasing accurate media representations of trans and non-binary people, as well as finding ways to increase contact may also serve as promising interventions, as other research has found that contact with, and education about, transgender individuals can effectively reduce transprejudice.

In other words, media narratives that push the trans message need to be crafted and spread so that acceptance of transgender people as what they say they are is more widespread.

The problem Blaire is failing to acknowledge here is that, as I noted in the first paragraph, she’s up against nature and reality itself.

A man may consider himself an ally of the transgender activist community, and echo the argument that if a person says they’re a woman when they’re biologically a man, then they’re definitely a woman. However, as Blaire’s own study concludes, more often than not, a line has to be drawn in given situations where even the ally admits realities.

In other words, let’s say a male ally may not wish to date a trans person identifying as female because he knows at his core that this person is actually a male. He’s not willing to enter into a homosexual relationship, and he’s fully aware that dating this trans person would be a homosexual act.

Normally, this would be considered a normal thing, but in the social justice world, this is considered bigotry and prejudice. Even Blaire’s description of people wishing not to date trans people out of the desire to have biological children is painted with that brush.

It’s not true at all. People wanting to have relationships with the opposite sex and conceive children is hardwired into our DNA. Trangsenderism is not. Yet she paints those who understand that on any level as a societal problem that needs to be “educated.”

That is some backward, and frankly, bizarre thinking. Pushing the idea that people putting reality first and desiring biologically driven outcomes are somehow advocating for the dehumanization of people with disorders is, to put it bluntly, pure lunacy. It is, in essence, an attack natural norms in order to promote a fantasy that has a high rate of doing harm to those who engage in it.

In short, this conclusion by Blaire is a direct denial of science.

The post Science? Researcher Claims the Unwillingness to Date Trans People Is Due to Ignorant Prejudice appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group LGBT-Transgender-protest-300x200 Science? Researcher Claims the Unwillingness to Date Trans People Is Due to Ignorant Prejudice transgender study Straight Sexuality Sex Science Politics LGBT Front Page Stories Featured Story biology Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Just What We Need…Another Ineffectual Law

Westlake Legal Group 41c9bd59-b4f8-4c3d-abe7-e81b981015d2 Just What We Need…Another Ineffectual Law Uncategorized Russian Investigation Russian interference republicans Politics mueller Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats collusion Allow Media Exception

The Editorial Board at the San Francisco Chronicle is out of its collective mind. In Sunday’s editorial, the Editorial Board writes:

Americans should not need to rely on the sound judgment and good ethics of a political campaign to determine whether it alerts the FBI of an attempt by foreign nationals to influence an election.

It should be spelled out clearly in law.

Good grief. It’s hard to believe they actually get paid to print such third-grade reasoning in a National Newspaper. These folks just cannot accept that although it was “her turn” to be President, the criminal crone from Chappaqua got soundly thrashed by Donald J. Trump.

First, they tried to blame the Russians for Trump’s election thereby wasting two years and 30-million dollars of taxpayer funds to prove exactly…nothing. Now that the Mueller inquisition, cleverly disguised as a legitimate investigation, is complete and found no evidence of illegal collusion with Russian or any other foreign actors, the left has turned to alternate routes to keep the issue alive.

Now, they insist upon legislation to require a report to the FBI every time somebody talks to a campaign. Using the example of Don Jr’s penthouse meeting, saying

A proper response by the president’s son would have been to alert the FBI about the email overture of incriminating information about Clinton. Instead, Donald Jr. replied within minutes, “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer” — and accepted the meeting.

Hogwash. The Federal Bureau Of Investigation has a lot more to do than investigate and determine whether an innocuous contact or even a blatant offer of information, might be a crime. For the record, derogatory information, in and of itself, doesn’t count as anything of “value,” unless somebody can put a dollar amount on it.

As I noted in a previous article, this is just going to help the Russians to continue sowing discord and disbelief in the security of our electoral system.

I’m talking about the ultimate Russian objective, which wasn’t to elect a preferred candidate in the U.S. Presidential election, but rather to sow chaos and undermine the public’s faith in our system.

With the help of the Democrats, the press and of course their RINO enablers, the Russians were able to keep the first two years of the Trump Presidency focused on a 35 Million Dollar investigation that proved—nothing.

The left is going from stunned disbelief to downright insane. Under the leftists proposed legislation, we’d have to triple the size of the FBI, just to keep up with all the “abundance of caution” reporting it would require. The Russians, you know, the folks the left purports to be so worried about, are laughing their collective keisters off. That Russian FSB Lieutenant Colonel I wrote about? He’s likely been promoted twice by now because of all this. Nice work Democrats.

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 Just What We Need…Another Ineffectual Law appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group media.townhall-1-4-300x153 Just What We Need…Another Ineffectual Law Uncategorized Russian Investigation Russian interference republicans Politics mueller Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats collusion Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Bigly Uses AOC’s Words Against Her After Her Interview on Impeachment and Concerns He’ll Be Reelected

Westlake Legal Group AOCThisWeek-620x363 Trump Bigly Uses AOC’s Words Against Her After Her Interview on Impeachment and Concerns He’ll Be Reelected washington D.C. republicans Politics North Carolina New York Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats Congress Cartoons Campaigns AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 2020 Elections 2020

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14). Screen grab via ABC’s “This Week.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14) was on ABC News‘s “This Week” for an interview over the weekend where a wide-ranging number of topics were discussed. Among them was, of course, the impeachment debate as well as the 2020 election and if she’s ready to endorse any of the presidential candidates (she’s not).

During the interview, the freshman Congreswoman expressed her desire to see the President impeached, and said the issue went beyond polling and elections:

“Well, you know, I think for me this question has — should not be about polls, it should not be about elections. I think that — that impeachment is incredibly serious and this is about the presence and evidence that the president may have committed a crime, in this case more than one. And so I believe that — that our decision on impeachment should be based in our constitutional responsibilities and duties and not in elections or polling.

That being said, with the increase in polls I think the American people are now recognizing, in — in a much broader scale, the depth and the severity of the misconduct coming out of the White House and a demand to protect our institutions and protect the rule of law in the United States and — and at least opening an inquiry into — into possible misconduct.”

On the possibility of Trump being reelected, here’s what she had to say:

KARL: So, do you believe the Democrats will lose to Donald Trump if they don’t nominate somebody who is, in your mind, a true progressive along the lines you just described?

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I think that we have a very real risk of losing the presidency to Donald Trump if we do not have a presidential candidate that is fighting for true transformational change in the lives of working people in the United States. I think that if we elect a president on half-measures that the American people don’t quite understand the agenda of a president, you know, a president that says we’re fighting for higher wages but we don’t want a $15 minimum wage, fighting for education but we don’t to make colleges tuition-free, fighting for women’s rights, et cetera, but we don’t want to go all the way with that, then I think we have a very real risk of losing the presidency.

Watch the segment where Ocasio-Cortez discusses her concerns about a Trump reelection below:

In response, President Trump took to the Twitter machine to rib the Congresswoman:

Naturally, that didn’t go over well with AOC, who apparently believes she’s the only one in America who can’t be “fooled” by someone from Queens:

Though she didn’t tie her concerns of a possible Trump reelection in directly with impeachment, the interview again raises questions about whether or not impeachment-happy Congressional Democrats are pushing so strongly for impeachment because they believe it might be the only way they can keep Trump from being elected to a second term.

Rep. Al Green (D-TX) has been on the impeachment train since shortly after Trump took office in 2017, and said last month he was worried that if Democrats didn’t proceed with impeachment that the President would be reelected.

————-
—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 Trump Bigly Uses AOC’s Words Against Her After Her Interview on Impeachment and Concerns He’ll Be Reelected appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AOCThisWeek-300x176 Trump Bigly Uses AOC’s Words Against Her After Her Interview on Impeachment and Concerns He’ll Be Reelected washington D.C. republicans Politics North Carolina New York Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats Congress Cartoons Campaigns AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Just What We Need…Another Ineffectual Law

Westlake Legal Group 41c9bd59-b4f8-4c3d-abe7-e81b981015d2 Just What We Need…Another Ineffectual Law Uncategorized Russian Investigation Russian interference republicans Politics mueller Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats collusion Allow Media Exception

The Editorial Board at the San Francisco Chronicle is out of its collective mind. In Sunday’s editorial, the Editorial Board writes:

Americans should not need to rely on the sound judgment and good ethics of a political campaign to determine whether it alerts the FBI of an attempt by foreign nationals to influence an election.

It should be spelled out clearly in law.

Good grief. It’s hard to believe they actually get paid to print such third-grade reasoning in a National Newspaper. These folks just cannot accept that although it was “her turn” to be President, the criminal crone from Chappaqua got soundly thrashed by Donald J. Trump.

First, they tried to blame the Russians for Trump’s election thereby wasting two years and 30-million dollars of taxpayer funds to prove exactly…nothing. Now that the Mueller inquisition, cleverly disguised as a legitimate investigation, is complete and found no evidence of illegal collusion with Russian or any other foreign actors, the left has turned to alternate routes to keep the issue alive.

Now, they insist upon legislation to require a report to the FBI every time somebody talks to a campaign. Using the example of Don Jr’s penthouse meeting, saying

A proper response by the president’s son would have been to alert the FBI about the email overture of incriminating information about Clinton. Instead, Donald Jr. replied within minutes, “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer” — and accepted the meeting.

Hogwash. The Federal Bureau Of Investigation has a lot more to do than investigate and determine whether an innocuous contact or even a blatant offer of information, might be a crime. For the record, derogatory information, in and of itself, doesn’t count as anything of “value,” unless somebody can put a dollar amount on it.

As I noted in a previous article, this is just going to help the Russians to continue sowing discord and disbelief in the security of our electoral system.

I’m talking about the ultimate Russian objective, which wasn’t to elect a preferred candidate in the U.S. Presidential election, but rather to sow chaos and undermine the public’s faith in our system.

With the help of the Democrats, the press and of course their RINO enablers, the Russians were able to keep the first two years of the Trump Presidency focused on a 35 Million Dollar investigation that proved—nothing.

The left is going from stunned disbelief to downright insane. Under the leftists proposed legislation, we’d have to triple the size of the FBI, just to keep up with all the “abundance of caution” reporting it would require. The Russians, you know, the folks the left purports to be so worried about, are laughing their collective keisters off. That Russian FSB Lieutenant Colonel I wrote about? He’s likely been promoted twice by now because of all this. Nice work Democrats.

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 Just What We Need…Another Ineffectual Law appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group media.townhall-1-4-300x153 Just What We Need…Another Ineffectual Law Uncategorized Russian Investigation Russian interference republicans Politics mueller Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats collusion Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Pete Buttigieg Comes Out In Support of Israel and Democrats Aren’t Taking It Well

Westlake Legal Group ap-buttigieg-1-620x317 Pete Buttigieg Comes Out In Support of Israel and Democrats Aren’t Taking It Well vox Politics Pete Buttigieg Palestine jerusalem Israel Front Page Stories Featured Story embassy elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg addresses supporters at a campaign event, Thursday, May 9, 2019, in West Hollywood, Calif. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

Indiana mayor and Democratic 2020 candidate Pete Buttigieg may have just ruined any 2020 chances he may have had after Vox put out an article detailing his support for Israel.

The left makes it no secret that they have a very sharp disdain for Israel, even going so far as to elect blatantly antisemitic people to Congress who in turn like to pretend they aren’t blatantly antisemitic after being blatantly antisemitic.

Vox released an article with a headline describing Buttigieg’s appreciation of Israel as a “strong ally” and that he’s behind the idea of keeping the US embassy in Jerusalem where Trump put it after he recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s true capital. To say this set off some hard feelings would be an understatement.

The Vox article leads off by describing Buttigieg’s penchant for supporting Israel and keeping the embassy in Jerusalem:

But Pete Buttigieg, 2020 Democratic hopeful and mayor of South Bend, Indiana, isn’t one of those candidates. While he’s no fan of Netanyahu’s leadership, he has shown a consistent willingness to back Israel.

He did so again on Sunday in an interview with “Axios on HBO,” in which he said he wouldn’t reverse Trump’s embassy-move decision and called the country a “strong ally.”

“I think what’s done is done,” the former Navy intelligence officer said. “I don’t know that we’d gain much by moving it [back] to Tel Aviv.”

They also posted the clip released by Axios where Buttigieg explained his position. He details that he doesn’t necessarily believe that Trump made the right decision by moving the embassy to Jerusalem, but at this point, the damage is done.

Even the Axios interviewer attempts to nail Buttigieg with suggestions that he sides with Trump.

As I wrote about how the media likes to create narratives with minimal messaging in an easily shareable tweet, the social media message Vox spread was that Buttigieg is essentially of the same mind as Donald Trump.

“Pete Buttigieg calls Israel a “strong ally” and says he’d keep the US embassy in Jerusalem,” tweeted Vox.

Democrats were quick to respond by dismissing Buttigieg as a viable candidate for President immediately.

It’s fascinating that they say that antisemitism is a disease on the right, yet Buttigieg made a valid point about the damage it would cause to move the embassy back and the nuance isn’t promoted, just the support for Israel.

The fact that Buttigieg doesn’t have a hard-line stance against Israel immediately cast him into a no-go zone for voters and media. I’m no fan of Buttigieg myself, but I can appreciate that the guy recognizes that Israel as a solid ally and that causing it problems only means more problems for us.

For the left, however, this is unforgivable. It’s so unforgivable that some leftists gave him the highest insult possible, and that’s a Trump comparison.

It’ll be interesting to see if Buttigieg walks back his Israel support during the course of the election or sticks to his guns. It’ll also be interesting to see how attitudes change toward Buttigieg from the Democrats side, and how the media addresses him from here on.

The post Pete Buttigieg Comes Out In Support of Israel and Democrats Aren’t Taking It Well appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-buttigieg-1-300x153 Pete Buttigieg Comes Out In Support of Israel and Democrats Aren’t Taking It Well vox Politics Pete Buttigieg Palestine jerusalem Israel Front Page Stories Featured Story embassy elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Here’s How You Know Vox’s Carlos Maza Isn’t Serious With His Latest Crying Over YouTube and Steven Crowder

Westlake Legal Group Crowder-620x355 Here’s How You Know Vox’s Carlos Maza Isn’t Serious With His Latest Crying Over YouTube and Steven Crowder youtube vox Steven Crowder Politics money LGBT journalism Gaywonk Garbage Outlet Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Exploitation democrats Censorship carlos maza bias Allow Media Exception

When it broke a few weeks back that Vox’s Carlos Maza was trying to de-platform Steven Crowder, we covered it extensively on RedState.

The simple explanation is that Crowder is a conservative comedian who mocked Maza’s continual promotion of his homosexuality while doing a rebuttal video on another topic. This was said to be out of bounds by Maza and others, as certain groups just can’t be made fun of anymore according to them. I personally prefer a world in which comedy can still target just about anyone, but what do I know?

Maza formally worked at Media Matters and is nothing but an activist parading as a journalist. He hosts a show Vox YouTube that routinely misleads and lies about anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders, so it should be no surprise that he drew the attention of someone like Crowder. Maza couldn’t take the joke though and decided he was being “harassed” (spoiler: he wasn’t), contacted YouTube directly, and is still waging a campaign to get Crowder banned from the platform.

Here’s his latest Twitter cry session over the issue.

At least he’s honest I guess?

Now, take this tweet from the same day.

Read those tweets and think about the implications. You’ll start to realize there’s a big problem with what Maza is saying versus what his actions are.

Here’s a serious question that deserves a real answer. If Maza truly felt he were being harassed and that YouTube “exploits LGBT people,” why is he still using the platform? In some scenario where I felt I was being exploited, the first thing I’d do is to stop whatever entity from exploiting me.

You know what Maza could do right now to stop YouTube from making profits off him? De-monetize his videos. YouTube would then no longer make a dime off him and everyone wins, right? If this is really about exploitation and not censoring free speech, as Maza claims, that’s the simplest, most direct solution.

Better yet, leave the platform altogether. YouTube has no obligation to bow to Maza’s demands, but Maza has the power to remove himself from their clutches of his own volition. Why not do so? Shut down the Vox channel and go to another platform. That’d make a real statement instead of the continued whining on Twitter.

But Maza won’t do any of that because he’s not actually a serious person. His crusade is simply about publicity and it’s obvious. YouTube is doing the right thing by letting Crowder remain. Kowtowing to Maza would only ensure thousands of other content creators (some of which the left like) would have to be removed as well.

In short, Maza should stop talking so much and put his money where his mouth is. Stop making cash off platforms you claim to hate and maybe you might be taken a little more seriously.

————————————————-

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 Here’s How You Know Vox’s Carlos Maza Isn’t Serious With His Latest Crying Over YouTube and Steven Crowder appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Crowder-300x172 Here’s How You Know Vox’s Carlos Maza Isn’t Serious With His Latest Crying Over YouTube and Steven Crowder youtube vox Steven Crowder Politics money LGBT journalism Gaywonk Garbage Outlet Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Exploitation democrats Censorship carlos maza bias Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Newly Elected Colorado Politician Calls for a Communist Revolution – ‘By Any Means Necessary’

Westlake Legal Group 1e070f3b-acd4-4395-93c0-c20fdefad04e Newly Elected Colorado Politician Calls for a Communist Revolution – ‘By Any Means Necessary’ Uncategorized socialism Politics Malcolm X Front Page Stories Featured Story Denver democrats Culture communism Colorado Capitalism candi cdeBaca Business & Economy Allow Media Exception

First of all, here are some of the stories you may have missed this weekend:

The UK On A Roll With Idiocy: Britain Bans Ads Containing ‘Harmful Gender Stereotypes’

Idiot Attempts A Home Invasion On An 11-Year-Old. The Kid Hits The Burglar In The Head – With A Machete. Game Over

Snopes ‘Fact-Checks’ My RedState Article, Spends Most Of Its Time Attacking Trump & Suggesting I’m A Jerk

Brazil Makes Homophobia & Transphobia Illegal Under Racism Law, Punishable By Prison Time

Check ’em out!

Moving on:

“By any means necessary.”

Those are words once uttered by the great Malcolm X.

Malcolm was a man with an open mind — who grew and changed with what he found to be true. His autobiography is excellent, his story inspiring.

Over the decades, his words have — like his name — been abused. His legacy has been called upon by people pushing for things which he would have — or did — oppose.

Here’s the latest usage: A newly-elected City Council member in Denver is out to accomplish her mission “by any means necessary.”

And what’s she shooting for? That’d be the implementation of communism.

As a reminder, that’s where government has all the power, and the citizenry has none — the opposite of capitalism in that regard.

When a leader praises communism, they’re shouting their desire to rule. The same goes for socialism.

America doesn’t need a ruling class.

But someone wanted it: Candi CdeBaca won in an upset runoff election in March.

Here’s what she had to say back during a candidate forum for the city’s District 9:

I don’t believe our current economic system actually works. Um, capitalism by design is extractive and in order to generate profit in a capitalist system, something has to be exploited, that’s land, labor or resources.

And I think that we’re in late phase capitalism and we know it doesn’t work and we have to move into something new. And I believe in community ownership of land, labor, resources, and distribution of those resources.

And so, whatever that morphs into I think is what will serve community the best and I’m excited to usher it in by any means necessary.



Allow me to correct her:

Socialism and communism are systems based on big business and monopoly.

The government is the ultimate big business. And the ultimate monopoly.

Communism and socialism are the ultimate class systems: They create two classes, pitting the rulers against the ruled.

Capitalism is about the little people. And lots of ’em. It’s about the small many rather than the large few.

Unfortunately, I believe we are indeed in a late phase in America, as Candi suggested: We are seeing the death throes of awareness. Of knowledge.

These days, people hear references to political concepts bandied about; subsequently, they put markers to posterboard and yell in the terms’ favor or against their tyranny. Yet, some of the biggest mouths fail to discover the meanings of the words (see here and here).

And as one phase ends, we’re looking into the face of an era of unprecedented ignorance.

So we end up with the video above.

Malcolm, before he was enlightened, was open to the necessity of violence. Is Candi? Watch the video, and you tell me.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: 

See 3 more pieces from me:

Gillette Releases Its First Trans Commercial: A Proud Father Helps His Daughter Shave Her Beard

Harrison Ford Sounds Off On Who Should Play Indiana Jones Next (And I Have A Recommendation)

At NYU Graduation, Speaker Promotes BDS, Attacks Israel And ‘Fascist’ Trump

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 Newly Elected Colorado Politician Calls for a Communist Revolution – ‘By Any Means Necessary’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group media.townhall-15-300x153 Newly Elected Colorado Politician Calls for a Communist Revolution – ‘By Any Means Necessary’ Uncategorized socialism Politics Malcolm X Front Page Stories Featured Story Denver democrats Culture communism Colorado Capitalism candi cdeBaca Business & Economy Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

GOP Rep. Will Hurd Is Disinvited From a Tech Conference Because He’s Pro-Life, and Dan Crenshaw Isn’t Having It

Westlake Legal Group media.townhall-1-2-620x317 GOP Rep. Will Hurd Is Disinvited From a Tech Conference Because He’s Pro-Life, and Dan Crenshaw Isn’t Having It Will Hurd washington D.C. Texas Technology Social Media republicans Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Dan Crenshaw Culture Conservatives Congress Allow Media Exception Abortion

Apparently the Democratic war on pro-lifers now extends to events and conferences that have nothing whatsoever to do with the abortion debate.

According a report from the Fox News, Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX-23) was disinvited from an August cybersecurity conference last week because he is pro-life:

Hurd, a former undercover CIA officer and an advocate for cybersecurity on Capitol Hill, was invited to speak at Black Hat, one of biggest cyber security conferences in the country, being held in Las Vegas in August. But Tech Crunch security editor Zach Whittaker highlighted on Thursday what he described was Hurd’s “terrible voting record on women’s rights.” It includes voting against funding for Planned Parenthood, programs supporting women in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) fields, and his support on restricting late-term abortions.

Black Hat initially defended its decision to invite Hurd, saying in a statement “Hurd has a strong background in computer science and information security and has served as an advocate for specific cybersecurity initiatives in Congress,” adding that he will offer a “unique perspective” at the conference.

That did not, however, halt the uproar from the cybersecurity community, with some threatening to pull their involvement in the conference.

As a result of the backlash, Black Hat caved:

“Black Hat has chosen to remove U.S. Representative Will Hurd as our 2019 Black Hat USA Keynote. We misjudged the separation of technology and politics,” said a statement. “We will continue to focus on technology and research, however we recognize that Black Hat USA is not the appropriate platform for the polarizing political debate resulting from our choice of speaker.”

“We are still fully dedicated to providing an inclusive environment and apologize that this decision did not reflect that sentiment,” the statement added.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX-2) slammed the decision:

Yep.

I also wonder if anyone at Black Hat sees the irony in disinviting Hurd (who was not going to speak on pro-life issues) in the interest of not wanting to be seen as taking part in “polarizing political debates.” In axing him from the speaking engagement because of the fauxtrage expressed by concern-troll techies, that’s exactly what Black Hat did.

Hurd’s office responded in a statement:

“Representative Hurd was honored to be invited and hopes that the Black Hat Conference is a success,” said Katie Thompson, Hurd’s communications director, via email.

“Congressman Hurd has always sought to engage groups of people that don’t necessarily agree with all of his votes or opinions. That’s why Rep. Hurd is one of the loudest voices for bipartisanship in Congress.”

She continued: “This Congress alone he voted for equal pay for equal work, for the Violence Against Women Act and the Equality Act.”

Apparently that wasn’t bipartisan enough for the “you will be made to care” caucus. You are either 100% loyal to the pro-abortion cause, or you are the enemy and will be ostracized and shunned.

————-
—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 GOP Rep. Will Hurd Is Disinvited From a Tech Conference Because He’s Pro-Life, and Dan Crenshaw Isn’t Having It appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group media.townhall-1-2-300x153 GOP Rep. Will Hurd Is Disinvited From a Tech Conference Because He’s Pro-Life, and Dan Crenshaw Isn’t Having It Will Hurd washington D.C. Texas Technology Social Media republicans Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Dan Crenshaw Culture Conservatives Congress Allow Media Exception Abortion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com