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 57)

Lindsey Graham to Omar and Tlaib: Yes, We Should Reconsider Aid to Israel – by Giving Them More

Westlake Legal Group lindsey-graham-pointing-620x413 Lindsey Graham to Omar and Tlaib: Yes, We Should Reconsider Aid to Israel – by Giving Them More washington D.C. The Squad south carolina Social Media republicans rashida tlaib Politics North Carolina Minnesota Michigan Media Lindsey Graham Israel Ilhan Omar Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Congress bds anti-semitism Allow Media Exception

Lindsey Graham by Gage Skidmore, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original

In a move that was entirely predictable from the outset, Democratic Reps. Rashida Tlaib (MI) and Ilhan Omar (MN) on Monday brought up the idea during their press conference that the U.S. should reconsider giving aid to Israel after the country barred them from entry last Thursday on security grounds.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) pushed back on them on Twitter Tuesday, which we’ll get to in a minute. But first, a recap of what Omar said Monday about funding.

During the presser, where Tlaib broke down in tears describing how as a child she had to watch her mother go through “dehumanizing checkpoints” in order to visit relatives, Omar floated the idea of the U.S. cutting off aid to Israel:

Omar said U.S. aid to Israel should be tied to how Palestinians are treated.

“Fortunately, we the United States have a constructive role to play. We give Israel more than $3 million in aid every year. This is predicated on their being an important ally in the region and the only democracy in the Middle East, but denying a visit to duly elected members of Congress is not consistent with being an ally, and denying millions of people freedom of movement or expression or self-determination is not consistent with being a democracy,” she said.

“We must be asking, as Israel’s ally, the Netanyahu government stop the expansion of settlements on Palestinian land, and ensure full rights for Palestinians if we are to give them aid. These are not just my views. These are the views held by the range of experts, peace advocates on this issue. We know Donald Trump would love nothing more than to use this issue to pit Muslims and Jewish Americans against each other,” she added.

Whatever anyone wants to say about Omar and Tlaib (and The Squad in general), they have turned deceiving gullible people (their supporters and the media) by operating on the pretense of wanting peace and harmony between the Jews and Palestinians into almost an art form.

When Omar first announced several weeks ago that she and Tlaib were planning this trip, you better believe they both knew in advance about Israel’s anti-BDS law that forbids anyone promoting the anti-Semitic BDS movement entry into their country.

That their request to visit Israel was denied wasn’t a surprise to anyone. It certainly wasn’t to the two Congresswomen who pretend that supporting a hate group that doesn’t believe Israel has the right to exist, and accusing Jews of dual loyalty and buying off lawmakers can’t possibly be anti-Semitism.

Clearly both Omar and Tlaib manipulated the situation to their advantage, but not everyone is falling for it.

One person most definitely not falling for it is Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has been a vocal critic of The Squad’s tactics in the past. He responded to their push to cut off funding for Israel by saying we should actually give them more:

In two more tweets, he explained why:

Graham has taken several trips to Israel this year. One was in March to discuss the Golan Heights issue. Another was in July, where he stated he wanted “to see the lay of the land, how’s their inventory of missiles holding up, and I think we need more missile funding not less.”

——-
— 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 Lindsey Graham to Omar and Tlaib: Yes, We Should Reconsider Aid to Israel – by Giving Them More appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group lindsey-graham-pointing-300x200 Lindsey Graham to Omar and Tlaib: Yes, We Should Reconsider Aid to Israel – by Giving Them More washington D.C. The Squad south carolina Social Media republicans rashida tlaib Politics North Carolina Minnesota Michigan Media Lindsey Graham Israel Ilhan Omar Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Congress bds anti-semitism Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Economist Gives the Hottest of Takes On Poor People Living Longer and the Environment

Westlake Legal Group africa-drought-620x413 The Economist Gives the Hottest of Takes On Poor People Living Longer and the Environment The Economist Poor People Politics Meat Longer Lives healthy Global Warming Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story environment dumb cult Climate Change

Everything old is new again. That means Malthusianism was bound to return as society becomes more subjugated to the vapid arguments and hypocrisy of the modern environmentalist movement.

The Economist put out a new article today explaining how production and distribution of meat in places like Africa is leading to much better outcomes for human beings via with healthier, longer lifespans.

Of course, because modern leftist thought on the environment, and specifically global warming, relies on the nonsensical idea that humanity no longer has any ability to innovate to changing conditions, they present this objectively great news as a dichotomy of sorts. Sure, poor people are living happier, healthier, longer lives, but that’s “bad news” for the environment.

You see, more meat means more carbon emissions, which means we are all going to die in a fiery ball of death. The fact that poorer people in third world countries may actually get a chance at a real standard of living can’t be seen as unequivocally good news.

Who gives writers at The Economist the moral right to dictate who’s actions are and aren’t destroying the environment? Perhaps the writer of this article should lead by example? I somehow doubt they are. You’ll notice that those who shout the loudest about carbon emissions often emit the most. Take the “Royal Family,” which spends a lot of their time lecturing the little people on the evils of global warming and the need to cut back on emissions. That doesn’t apply to them though, as they recently took two private flights that emitted more emissions than the average British citizen does in an entire year of living.

Past that, the assumptions made in the article are ridiculous and ignore everything we know about human ingenuity. For decades Malthus and others spread the idea that population growth would outstrip a linear food supply. That theory turned out to be abject garbage. In reality, humans innovate and we are currently feeding more people, better than we were when the population was half of what it is now.

Putting aside the arguments of whether meat production is really going to cause global warming or the seas to rise, etc. even if those things were true, there’s no reason to believe we can figure out ways to not only survive, by thrive in such conditions. If the cost of “saving the planet” is dooming billions of the world’s poor to disease and shorter lifespans, that’s a cost that’s too high to pay.

Instead of pretending we can somehow control the climate via coercion of human behavior, which is unrealistic even if you believe in worst case scenarios, we should be putting our efforts into coming up with new technologies that continue to better the human experience for everyone. Fretting about poor people getting to eat more meat isn’t helping anyone. It also happens to be morally bankrupt.

————————————————-

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 The Economist Gives the Hottest of Takes On Poor People Living Longer and the Environment appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-08-21-at-10.25.40-AM-300x161 The Economist Gives the Hottest of Takes On Poor People Living Longer and the Environment The Economist Poor People Politics Meat Longer Lives healthy Global Warming Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story environment dumb cult Climate Change   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

New Comedy Central Series Based in Chicago Will Intentionally Avoid Any Mention of the Jussie Smollett Story

Westlake Legal Group jussie-smollett-sunglasses-scarf-cropped-SCREENSHOT-620x305 New Comedy Central Series Based in Chicago Will Intentionally Avoid Any Mention of the Jussie Smollett Story Television Satire racism Race Popular Culture Media Jussie Smollett Hollywood hoaxes Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Entertainment Comedy Central Chicago Allow Media Exception

Show creators deem the issue untouchable – “There’s nothing funny about it.”

In the Comedy Central program “South Side” — midway through its inaugural season — they have shown a willingness to feature real-life stories and characters involving the setting of program, the city of Chicago. However, in a recent interview, the show’s creator and head writer declared firmly that the most risible story to come out of the city this year is completely off-limits. There will be no mention at all of the Jussie Smollett controversy.

Describing the incident as “embarrassing”, writer/producer Bashir Salahuddin told The Wrap that they will not be addressing the Smollett story in any fashion. “It’s a straight-up tragedy,” Salahuddin says by way of explanation. A tragedy — describing the hoax that Smollett himself perpetrated all because he wanted to leverage a better salary for his role on the primetime drama “Empire”.

“South Side” follows the lives of two men living in South Chicago, plying their trade and also working side hustles for extra money. The program has incorporated stories and sports figures rooted in the city, so the question of whether the event surrounding Smollett — a Chicago resident himself, and the location of his hoax — was a valid one. But the head of the show has shut down any mention of the incident.

This continues the hesitancy of many in the entertainment industry to train a satirical eye on the people and events on the left side of the political spectrum. Recall during the Obama years how reticent the late-night talk shows, and Saturday Night Live had been to make sharp comments or crack jokes that were overly critical of the President. Contrast this with how swiftly Donald Trump was served up on these same shows, well before he had even been inaugurated. (It is noted, SNL was willing to create a segment that mocked Smollett.)

This desire by content creators to treat one side with kid gloves shows a self-neutering that completely undermines any of the commentary and satirical heft to which they might try staking a claim. Salahuddin, a former head writer for Jimmy Fallon, wants to seem to have a social commentary bite, but in turn he has removed some of his own teeth. “The whole situation is unfortunate,” he says in sidestepping the story entirely. “There’s nothing funny about it.”

Nothing funny. A celebrity stages his own hoax, and does so for venal purposes. The hoax itself was a comedic misfire, and the players involved also carried mockable traits. Now roll in the involvement of corrupt local officials, the media coverage, and Smollett’s own behavior in the media following the incident. Hell, you even have a number of national political figures and Presidential candidates who foolishly weighed in on the “attack”.

Despite all of that fertile material the head writer cannot see anything that could possibly be used for show content. This will not do much to illustrate just how connected to the inner workings of the city the show will be going forward.

The post New Comedy Central Series Based in Chicago Will Intentionally Avoid Any Mention of the Jussie Smollett Story appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group jussie-smollett-sunglasses-scarf-cropped-SCREENSHOT-300x148 New Comedy Central Series Based in Chicago Will Intentionally Avoid Any Mention of the Jussie Smollett Story Television Satire racism Race Popular Culture Media Jussie Smollett Hollywood hoaxes Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Entertainment Comedy Central Chicago Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Video: Joe Biden Attempts to Explain Away His Parkland Gaffe, and It Does Not Go Well

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenAPphoto-620x317 Video: Joe Biden Attempts to Explain Away His Parkland Gaffe, and It Does Not Go Well Politics North Carolina Joe Biden Iowa Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats Culture Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020

In this July 20, 2019, photo, former Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden speaks at a campaign event in an electrical workers union hall in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/John Locher)

Last week, I wrote about reports that allies of Joe Biden were trying to get his campaign to scale back his appearances due to the large amount of gaffes he’d made in recent weeks.

The belief was that he was more prone to committing gaffes later in the day when he was tired, and that cutting back on campaign stops would make him less likely to flub. It was an idea that was ripped by, among others, former President Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod.

Perhaps the most troubling among the gaffes were the comments he made on August 10th about the Parkland kids visiting him “when I was vice president”:

The frontrunner to become the Democratic presidential candidate told reporters in Iowa on Saturday that “those kids in Parkland came up to see me when I was vice president.” But when they went to Capitol Hill, lawmakers were “basically cowering, not wanting to see them. They did not want to face it on camera.” The problem with this tale? The shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida that left 17 dead took place in 2018, more than a year after Biden left the White House.

He actually made the remarks twice that day. Watch:

Fresh off of a week of vacationing in Delaware, Biden was in Iowa on Tuesday and attempted to explain away his remarks about Parkland. It did not go well:

Speaking at a campaign event, Biden said he “was still called vice president” when he met with the students from Parkland.

“I also met with the kids from Parkland, in the Capitol,” Biden said. “I was still called vice president, but it was in ’18.”

His memory of the event, however, remains incomplete.

“They asked me to come speak to them in the rotunda,” Biden said, before pausing to think.

“I think it was the rotunda, it was one of the buildings, or one of the rooms in the Capitol,” he said.

It’s sounds even worse than it reads. Watch the video:

“I was still called vice president”? SMH. He’s still called vice president now.

Whoever wrote this for him to say should be suspended from campaign duties for a couple of weeks to get them to consider how ridiculous it came cross. If they were trying to definitively rebut rumors that Biden was having trouble handling the day to day rough and tumble of the campaign trail, they failed – and failed bigly.

Related –>> Oh, No! At Iowa Rally, Biden Recalls ‘When Bobby Kennedy And Dr. King Were Assassinated, In The 70s—In The Late 70s’

——-
— 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 Video: Joe Biden Attempts to Explain Away His Parkland Gaffe, and It Does Not Go Well appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenAPphoto-300x153 Video: Joe Biden Attempts to Explain Away His Parkland Gaffe, and It Does Not Go Well Politics North Carolina Joe Biden Iowa Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats Culture Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Marble Halls & Silver Screens Ep. 2: The Time Served Edition

Westlake Legal Group easter-2144595_1280-620x411 Marble Halls & Silver Screens Ep. 2: The Time Served Edition Washington podcasts Marble Halls & Silver Screens Hollywood Front Page Stories Featured Story Entertainment Criminal Justice Reform Chicken Wars

Unfortunately, The Chicken Wars really began to heat up online after I recorded yesterday, so while I briefly touch on the new theater of the culture war — which centers around the debate over which is superior, Popeye’s new chicken sandwich or the Lord’s Chicken, Chick-Fil-A — I don’t do it the justice it deserves. I’ll save that for next week. Because it’s both hilarious and (I think) meaningful.

As for what this week’s show does offer an in-depth analysis of, I have a very special guest on this week to talk criminal justice reform. My friend Matthew Hurtt, Director of External Relationships for Americans for Prosperity Foundation’s Grassroots Leadership Academy, joins me for an extended discussion on cjr, the First Step Act, the amazing Matthew Charles, and why breaking down barriers to people re-entering society after a jail term is the right move under almost any metric.

Westlake Legal Group MatthewHurttHeadshot Marble Halls & Silver Screens Ep. 2: The Time Served Edition Washington podcasts Marble Halls & Silver Screens Hollywood Front Page Stories Featured Story Entertainment Criminal Justice Reform Chicken Wars

Matthew Hurtt, Director of External Relationships for Americans for Prosperity Foundation’s Grassroots Leadership Academy. (Image: Leadership Institute)

Additionally, this week goes into the Omar/Tlaib dis-invitation to visit Israel. Were the ladies right in blaming Donald Trump for influencing Netanyahu to make a decision restricting their visitation (restrictions, I might add, they were unwilling to meet)? I try to answer that question.

Rounding out the politics side of the show, I talk at length about the Democrat warning to SCOTUS that the high court better get in line on the gun issue (which, it turns out, they’re more liberal on than most Americans) or they may find themselves restructured. I wrote about that issue here, and you should read it. Because if the Democrats find themselves in a position of real power again, they will no doubt try to pack the court.

Finally, this week’s Hollywood coverage is a little lighter and is essentially a run down of things I haven’t seen yet, but will be putting on the list to review on future shows, including The Politician on Netflix and The Last Black Man in San Francisco (which I think I just moved to the top of my list based on the WSJ review).

There’s also a bit on whether or not Disney will be inadvertently used as a mouthpiece for the Chinese in the ongoing protests happening in Hong Kong. I know, right? Be careful who you sign up with…

Check out the episode below.

You can also find me on Google Podcasts and Apple Podcasts. And, of course, old reliable, Spreaker. Go ahead and subscribe to those because a.) it’s free and b.) you never know when I might be talking about something your were just thinking about…

Enjoy!

The post Marble Halls & Silver Screens Ep. 2: The Time Served Edition appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Marble-Halls-logo-1-300x300 Marble Halls & Silver Screens Ep. 2: The Time Served Edition Washington podcasts Marble Halls & Silver Screens Hollywood Front Page Stories Featured Story Entertainment Criminal Justice Reform Chicken Wars   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Oh, No! At Iowa Rally, Biden Recalls ‘When Bobby Kennedy And Dr. King Were Assassinated, In The 70s—In The Late 70s’

Westlake Legal Group joe-biden-caricature-620x443 Oh, No! At Iowa Rally, Biden Recalls ‘When Bobby Kennedy And Dr. King Were Assassinated, In The 70s—In The Late 70s’ white house Joe Biden gaffe's Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020

Joe Biden-Caricature by DonkeyHotey, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original

Speaking at an event in Urbande, IA on Tuesday, former Vice President Joe Biden recalled, “Just like in my generation, when I got out of school that, when Bobby Kennedy and Dr. King had been assassinated, in the 70s, the late 70s, when I got engaged.” Martin Luther King was assassinated on April 4, 1968 followed by Bobby Kennedy on June 6, 1968.

If errors like this had happened once or twice, that would be one thing, but Biden’s slips of the tongue are now occurring with regularity. Nearly every time he speaks, he makes headlines, not for the content of his speeches, but for his latest gaffe.

And it is a big deal because it’s possible (though doubtful) that he might one day hold the highest office in the U.S.

When voters are asked which Democratic presidential hopeful has the best chance of defeating President Trump, Joe Biden consistently crushes the competition.

He is seen as the most electable of them all, not for any particular achievements or attributes, but essentially because he is the “least bad” candidate among the largely unimpressive field.

Even his wife was hard pressed to name a reason for voters to choose Joe other than electability. She said, “Your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care, than Joe is, but you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election. And maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, ‘OK, I personally like so and so better,’ but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.”

The frequency of Biden’s gaffes is now starting to undermine the Democrat’s strongest argument for nominating him.

I consider his remark that “poor kids are just as bright as white kids” to be a gaffe. He would have said something like that ten years ago, even 30 years ago. However, Biden’s account of the Parkland survivors visit to the White House, an event which took place in February 2018, and his comments on Tuesday night about the assassinations of King and Kennedy, to be something else entirely.

The former vice president has always been known to be gaffe prone, but his recent blunders go well beyond gaffe territory and have left some voters wondering if he has become “too old” to serve.

We all age at different rates, and while many people retain their cognitive abilities well into their 90s, others begin to lose their sharpness earlier.

And Democrats need to give some serious thought to this. Biden will turn 77 in November. And should he win the presidency, he would take office at the age of 78. The decline in his mental acuity at that point will be even more discernible.

The New York Times reported that, “Recent interviews with more than 50 Democratic voters and party officials across four states, as well as with political strategists and some of Mr. Biden’s own donors, showed significant unease about Mr. Biden’s ability to be a reliably crisp and effective messenger against Mr. Trump.”

Until Biden announced his candidacy in April, he had been largely out of the public eye since he left office. The difference between then and now is striking. He looks old. He moves old. He acts old.

A recent headline appearing in The Wall Street Journal read, “The latest missteps by Democratic presidential front-runner give some party activists anxiety over whether he still has the stuff.”

Does Biden still have the stuff?

The post Oh, No! At Iowa Rally, Biden Recalls ‘When Bobby Kennedy And Dr. King Were Assassinated, In The 70s—In The Late 70s’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group joe-biden-caricature-300x214 Oh, No! At Iowa Rally, Biden Recalls ‘When Bobby Kennedy And Dr. King Were Assassinated, In The 70s—In The Late 70s’ white house Joe Biden gaffe's Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Gets It On Israel And The Democrat Party

Westlake Legal Group 46FE2905-7DA1-4824-91F7-1D89E40E91C6 Trump Gets It On Israel And The Democrat Party Uncategorized republicans Politics Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception

President Trump Official White House Photo

Trump Gets It On Israel and the Democrat Party

As reported by my colleague and good friend Sister Toldjah here, President Trump is calling out Democrat fakery whenever he finds it. In his latest, he called out Rashida Tlaib’s crocodile tears over not being allowed to go see her grandmother, a request the Israelis had already granted. What followed was epic Donald Trump as he used this opportunity to make inroads in yet another Democrat stronghold, Jewish Americans who vote Blue 71% compared to 25% Red since 1968.

NBC News Twitter feed at 3:05 EST Tuesday had some interesting commentary by President Trump regarding that Jewish American support for Democrats. Pointing out the hostility displayed towards Israel by by Democrat House Members, Omar and Tlaib, the President called out the Democrat Party for defending them and their open and notorious hostility towards Jews and the State of Israel.

“I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat – I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge, or great disloyalty.”

You can see the whole thing here

President Trump is correct. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib both have a long history of hostile comments regarding the state of Israel. They are both vocal supporters of the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement against the Israeli state. They also manage to ignore Hamas criminal activity against women and children while bad mouthing Israeli Rules Of Engagement,” rules that are much stricter than those currently in use by American Forces.

The President makes a very strong case that the Democrat Party has gone off the rails and has slipped so far to the left that it actively supports people who are hostile towards America and it’s allies. Trump is making a steady case that the Democrat priorities are anything but hard working Americans. Instead they are more concerned about illegal aliens who take jobs from American workers and take seats in college classrooms from American students.

This tweet is President Trump’s “What have you got to lose?” moment with American Jews. He’s asking quite pointedly, “Why do you support a party that traditionally has been hostile to your people?” “Why do you support a party that deliberately refuses to sanction one of its members for anti-Semitic comments?” Some of those Jewish Americans who have steadily voted Blue, are going to ask themselves that same question. They will be flipping the lever for President Trump in 2020.

President Trump is doing something that Republicans should have done long ago…fight for minority votes instead of writing them off. He fought for the Black vote in 2016. He got some of it. A few took him up on his “What have you got to lose?” and gave him a shot. Based on how well the economy is doing and his rising poll numbers among both Blacks and Hispanics, both of those groups who voted for him in 2016, will be back in 2020…and they’ll be bringing along some friends.

President Trump has now moved on to a new target. He is going after the Jewish American vote, like that of the Black and Hispanic communities, one long deemed by the Democrats as theirs. Buckle up. 2020 is gonna be an E-Ticket ride.

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 Trump Gets It On Israel And The Democrat Party appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 46FE2905-7DA1-4824-91F7-1D89E40E91C6-300x263 Trump Gets It On Israel And The Democrat Party Uncategorized republicans Politics Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Solomon: ‘Long Wait For Transparency’ Over Russian Collusion Docs May Soon End; Could ‘Rock Washington’ This Fall

Westlake Legal Group 99CB8FEA-3EC4-4E75-A6D4-53E011083E7B-620x620 Solomon: ‘Long Wait For Transparency’ Over Russian Collusion Docs May Soon End; Could ‘Rock Washington’ This Fall Steele dossier spying Special Counsel President Trump pete hoekstra Mueller Investigation John Solomon john durham Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption elections donald trump democrats Dan Coats Allow Media Exception 2020

Official portrait of President Donald J. Trump, Friday, October 6, 2017. (Official White House photo by Shealah Craighead)

 

Last September, President Trump announced he would order the declassification and release of all relevant documents about the role of U.S. intelligence agencies in the Russian collusion probe. Additionally, the House Intelligence Committee voted unanimously to send 53 interview transcripts from their own investigation to the director of national intelligence (DNI) for review and declassification. Neither release has happened.

Investigative reporter John Solomon, who has broken most of the major news on this story, is reporting that “the long wait for transparency may soon end.” He wrote that the expected release of many of these documents this fall “could rock Washington.”

One reason for the lack of action by the intelligence community was the leadership of DNI Dan Coats, whose interests often appeared to be at odds with those of President Trump. Coats, a former Republican senator from Indiana, resigned from his post on August 15th. Coats’ deputy, Sue Gordon, known to be on the same page as he was, left the agency as well.

Two names said to be currently under consideration to replace Coats are Pete Hoekstra and Fred Fleitz. Hoekstra, a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, currently serves as the U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands. Fleitz is a national security expert. I think Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) should be included on that shortlist, however, he may be considered too partisan.

Solomon believes “the president has an opportunity to speed up and organize the release of declassified information by simply creating an Office of Transparency and Accountability inside his own White House, run by a staffer empowered at the level of a formal assistant to the president. That would prevent intelligence agencies from continuing their game of public keep-away.”

As mentioned earlier, Solomon has followed this story closely. Over the last several months, he has interviewed four dozen U.S. officials and has identified the documents which he considers that,

When declassified, would show more completely how a routine counterintelligence probe was hijacked to turn the most awesome spy powers in America against a presidential nominee in what was essentially a political dirty trick orchestrated by Democrats.

Here is Solomon’s list of the documents that have the greatest chance of rocking Washington, if declassified:

1.  Christopher Steele’s confidential human source reports at the FBI (known as 1023 reports).

These documents show exactly what transpired each time Steele and his FBI handlers met in the summer and fall of 2016 to discuss his anti-Trump dossier. The big reveal, my sources say, could be the first evidence that the FBI shared sensitive information with Steele, such as the existence of the classified Crossfire Hurricane operation targeting the Trump campaign. It would be a huge discovery if the FBI fed Trump-Russia intel to Steele in the midst of an election, especially when his ultimate opposition-research client was Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The FBI has released only one or two of these reports under FOIA lawsuits and they were 100 percent redacted. The American public deserves better.

2.  The 53 House Intel interviews.

House Intelligence interviewed many key players in the Russia probe and asked the DNI to declassify those interviews nearly a year ago, after sending the transcripts for review last November. There are several big reveals, I’m told, including the first evidence that a lawyer tied to the Democratic National Committee had Russia-related contacts at the CIA.

3.  The Stefan Halper documents.

It has been widely reported that European-based American academic Stefan Halper and a young assistant, Azra Turk, worked as FBI sources. We know for sure that one or both had contact with targeted Trump aides like Carter Page and George Papadopoulos at the end of the election. My sources tell me there may be other documents showing Halper continued working his way to the top of Trump’s transition [team] and administration, eventually reaching senior advisers like Peter Navarro inside the White House in summer 2017. These documents would show what intelligence agencies worked with Halper, who directed his activity, how much he was paid and how long his contacts with Trump officials were directed by the U.S. government’s Russia probe.

4.  The October 2016 FBI email chain.

This is a key document identified by Rep. Nunes and his investigators. My sources say it will show exactly what concerns the FBI knew about and discussed with DOJ about using Steele’s dossier and other evidence to support a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant targeting the Trump campaign in October 2016. If those concerns weren’t shared with FISA judges who approved the warrant, there could be major repercussions.

5.  Page/Papadopoulos exculpatory statements.

Another of Nunes’ five buckets, these documents purport to show what the two Trump aides were recorded telling undercover assets or captured in intercepts insisting on their innocence. Papadopoulos told me he told an FBI undercover source in September 2016 that the Trump campaign was not trying to obtain hacked Clinton documents from Russia and considered doing so to be treason. If he made that statement with the FBI monitoring, and it was not disclosed to the FISA court, it could be another case of FBI or DOJ misconduct.

6.  The ‘Gang of Eight’ briefing materials.

These were a series of classified briefings and briefing books the FBI and DOJ provided key leaders in Congress in the summer of 2018 that identify shortcomings in the Russia collusion narrative. Of all the documents congressional leaders were shown, this is most frequently cited to me in private as having changed the minds of lawmakers who weren’t initially convinced of FISA abuses or FBI irregularities.

7.  The Steele spreadsheet.

I wrote recently that the FBI kept a spreadsheet on the accuracy and reliability of every claim in the Steele dossier. According to my sources, it showed as much as 90 percent of the claims could not be corroborated, were debunked or turned out to be open-source internet rumors. Given Steele’s own effort to leak intel in his dossier to the media before Election Day, the public deserves to see the FBI’s final analysis of his credibility. A document I reviewed recently showed the FBI described Steele’s information as only “minimally corroborated” and the bureau’s confidence in him as “medium.”

8.  The Steele interview.

It has been reported, and confirmed, that the DOJ’s inspector general (IG) interviewed the former British intelligence operative for as long as 16 hours about his contacts with the FBI while working with Clinton’s opposition research firm, Fusion GPS. It is clear from documents already forced into the public view by lawsuits that Steele admitted in the fall of 2016 that he was desperate to defeat Trump, had a political deadline to make his dirt public, was working for the DNC/Clinton campaign and was leaking to the news media. If he told that to the FBI and it wasn’t disclosed to the FISA court, there could be serious repercussions.

9.  The redacted sections of the third FISA renewal application.

This was the last of four FISA warrants targeting the Trump campaign; it was renewed in June 2017 after special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe had started, and signed by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It is the one FISA application that House Republicans have repeatedly asked to be released, and I’m told the big reveal in the currently redacted sections of the application is that it contained both misleading information and evidence of intrusive tactics used by the U.S. government to infiltrate Trump’s orbit.

10.  Records of allies’ assistance.

Multiple sources have said a handful of U.S. allies overseas – possibly Great Britain, Australia and Italy – were asked to assist FBI efforts to check on Trump connections to Russia. Members of Congress have searched recently for some key contact documents with British intelligence. My sources say these documents might help explain Attorney General Bill Barr’s recent comments that “the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign, to me, is unprecedented and it’s a serious red line that’s been crossed.”

The fall may be setting up to be a perfect storm for Democrats. In addition to the anticipated release of these documents, we can expect the DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on the FBI’s interactions with the FISA Court. Also, U.S. attorney John Durham’s team has been working hard on determining the origins of the Russian collusion investigation.

Durham was tapped by Attorney General William Barr in May to lead this probe. The few leaks we’ve heard about over the summer, such as the cooperation of alleged FBI spy Joseph Mifsud, have given us reason for optimism. We also know that prior to Durham’s appointment, he was working on cases related to this investigation.

We’ve had such a long wait already. Let’s hope John Solomon is right.

The post Solomon: ‘Long Wait For Transparency’ Over Russian Collusion Docs May Soon End; Could ‘Rock Washington’ This Fall appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 99CB8FEA-3EC4-4E75-A6D4-53E011083E7B-300x300 Solomon: ‘Long Wait For Transparency’ Over Russian Collusion Docs May Soon End; Could ‘Rock Washington’ This Fall Steele dossier spying Special Counsel President Trump pete hoekstra Mueller Investigation John Solomon john durham Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption elections donald trump democrats Dan Coats Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

They Want The New York Times’ 1619 Project To Be Taught To Your Kids

Westlake Legal Group new-york-times-builiding-620x413 They Want The New York Times’ 1619 Project To Be Taught To Your Kids slavery racism Race New York Times media bias Media Front Page Stories Featured Story Education Allow Media Exception 1619 project

New York Times building by wsifrancis, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original

Often, when something controversial happens, reporters will go out and find random, nobody accounts to say “Look, there is outrage over this!” In truth, the “controversial” thing isn’t really controversial, but people need the outrage clicks in order to survive.

So, when I say “They want the New York Times‘ 1619 Project to become a curriculum,” I want you to know right off that I didn’t just find a couple of nobody accounts.

The “1619 Project,” if you hadn’t heard, is a special issue of New York Times Magazine that focuses on America’s history with slavery. Virtually every piece is fraught with historical inaccuracies and is clearly stated by the Times itself that it is meant to be a “reframing” of American history. The essays within are written not by historians, but opinion writers who specialize in racial grievance.

It is one thing to say that America has struggled with (and, yes, it does continue to struggle with) racial issues. It is quite another to say that essentially every core moment of American history is defined by its compulsion to keep slavery in some form or another protected. It is not only wrong to say this, as the essayists in the 1619 Project do frequently, but flatly ignorant of the actual truths of American history.

Many conservatives raised concerns over historical inaccuracies, and naturally progressives took it as a sign that we felt “threatened” by the “truth” – another falsehood of many regarding the project. In fact, it isn’t that we consider it a threat, but a fear of what will inevitably be taught to our children. It’s not a fear of the truth, either, because there is so very little of that in the theses presented in the project.

If you think we’re concerned about “indoctrination,” though… well, that’s actually what it is. We can pretty easily tell that’s what it is because people who have influence and clout are calling for it to essentially become a curriculum taught in American schools.

No, not some nobody accounts with seven followers and a video game character for a profile picture. Real people who, upon reflection, you would totally expect to call for something like this.

Folks like Deray.

The leading essayist, Nikole Hannah Jones, and the Pulitzer Center.

Public speaker and activist Brittany Packnett.

The Southern Poverty Law Center-founded organization, Teaching Tolerance.

It’s not difficult to search for actual people with real influence calling for an upending of how history is taught. It is, however, worrisome that there is so much push to make something so historically inaccurate the basis for teaching U.S. History.

To assume the things that are assumed by the New York Times, you have to ignore actual evidence. You have to ignore the work of the Founding Fathers. You have to ignore the colonies that existed before the first slave ship arrived in American. You have to ignore the strides America has taken.

Are we perfect when it comes to the treatment of black people in America? Of course not. Are we doing better than we were during the era of Jim Crowe? Objectively yes.

It is not hard to teach U.S. History and be inclusive and acknowledging the horrible mistakes of the past. I know this because I teach the subject. It is an unavoidable topic when you talk about it, from the Revolution to the Civil War to Reconstruction. You can’t breathe easier after that, because you still have the working conditions of black workers during the Progressive Era, the attempts to segregate federal workers by Woodrow Wilson, and the entire Civil Rights era.

And even today, you can’t talk about modern history without gesturing broadly at the last couple of decades.

But, you can’t do it justice by teaching the 1619 Project as a curriculum to students. You are teaching them false information and you are telling them that it is okay to ham-fistedly force evidence to fit a pre-conceived thesis, rather than use evidence to help you develop a thesis. The former is what every essayist in the 1619 Project did. They had this idea that America is bad and terrible and everything that supposedly makes it good is built on slavery. In reality, slavery was a major part of the problems of America, but it isn’t still propping up American capitalism, just like it never really was during the days of the British colonies in the Americas.

You cannot allow flawed theses to become a curriculum. You can’t base a curriculum on opinion writers and reporters. They aren’t historians. They don’t spend their whole lives focusing on history. They use what other people have researched and written about history to draw conclusions and try to convince you that they are right.

The best curricula lay out the facts and encourage students to form their own opinions, and use evidence to form those opinions rather than force evidence to fit their opinions. The 1691 Project fails in this regard as much as it fails at being a historically-accurate project. The New York Times should be ashamed of the final project, but we all know that stirring up racial grievance is, in fact, the goal of the paper.

After all, they said as much themselves

The post They Want The New York Times’ 1619 Project To Be Taught To Your Kids appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group new-york-times-builiding-300x200 They Want The New York Times’ 1619 Project To Be Taught To Your Kids slavery racism Race New York Times media bias Media Front Page Stories Featured Story Education Allow Media Exception 1619 project   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

California’s New Use Of Force Laws Are The Result Of Politically Fostered Mistrust Of Police

Westlake Legal Group legal-broken-gavel California’s New Use Of Force Laws Are The Result Of Politically Fostered Mistrust Of Police Use of Force Uncategorized republicans racial profiling Politics police shootings police brutality police Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020 2019 2018
California’s New Use Of Force Laws Are The Result Of Politically Fostered Mistrust Of Police

The State of California just enacted new Use Of Force legislation for its law enforcement officers. On Monday, according to the San Fransisco Chronicle

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB392, which directs police to “use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life” and, when possible, to use techniques to de-escalate a confrontation before shooting.

The bill does not explicitly define “necessary,” though courts could consider the actions of both the officer and the suspect when determining whether a shooting was justified. The law will take effect Jan. 1.

According to the Los Angeles Times, this was the result of a widening gap between police departments and the minority communities they serve, a gap exacerbated by police shootings seen by some as racially motivated. From the Times

SACRAMENTO —  After an emotional fight that laid bare the chasm between California’s communities of color and police, Gov. Gavin Newsom Monday signed Assembly Bill 392, creating what some have described as one of the toughest standards in the nation for when law enforcement officers can kill.

Intense private negotiations and public outcry influenced the final language of the legislation, which will take effect on Jan. 1. Recent fatal police shootings of unarmed black men, in particular, prompted activists to seek changes in rules that in some cases were more than a century old. Though the final bill doesn’t go as far as some wanted, supporters say it’s a first step in changing the culture of policing in California.

The Times goes on to say that this should not have any deleterious effect on day-to-day policing in large metropolitan areas.

The new language will require that law enforcement use deadly force only when “necessary,” instead of the current wording of when it is “reasonable.” In large urban law enforcement departments that already train for de-escalation and crisis intervention, day-to-day policing will probably not noticeably change.

I’m not so sure, mainly because this procedural change isn’t the only thing going on in the arena of community-police relations. In many locales, there has been a loss of trust between the communities and the police that serve them. In certain departments, this could be a self inflicted wound. In my brief, 10 year experience in law enforcement, the Sheriff’s Office I worked for was well regarded in the Black neighborhoods while the City PD, wasn’t so well thought of. A typical comment from residents was, “County don’t play.” And we didn’t. We went by the rules and enforced the law, no favorites…and the community knew it. They didn’t always like us, but they did trust us.

In other locales, race baiters have used demonstrably false statements to inflame unfortunate incidents, into a full blown race riots. Such was the case in Ferguson, MO, where Michael Brown, a black man who had just finished robbing a convenience store attacked a white police officer responding to the robbery call. The officer fearing for his safety, shot and killed Brown as he continued to attack him. The officer was cleared by a grand jury after several witnesses and laboratory results confirmed his version of the events; that Brown had attacked him and tried to get his firearm.

That didn’t stop the race hustlers such as Al Sharpton from inciting riots that featured violence and property damage to the point that the National Guard had to be called out. Ferguson Police Department is now under a Federal consent decree due to an investigation by the Obama/Holder DOJ.

The final straw in California, was the shooting death of Stephon Clark by Sacramento Police in 2018. At the time of the shooting, Clark was unarmed, but was holding a cellphone which the Police thought was a gun. The officers were not charged.

California cities aren’t the only areas that are in the throes of an anti-police societal shift. Others we’ve seen in the news, Detroit, New York City and President Trump’s favorite example of Democrat governance, Baltimore, Maryland. It’s this societal shift, not police procedure restrictions that is the biggest danger in California’s new law.

Police Officers are professionals. Given certain legal constraints, the vast majority of these dedicated public servants work within those constraints and are able to effectively police their communities. This new law, in and of itself, is unlikely to change that. It’s the societal environment that resulted in its passage that is the problem.

Police in many locales aren’t generally trusted…and it’s not always their fault. I had the opportunity to speak with David Webb on his Tuesday morning show on Sirius XM. The subject was the Eric Garner incident in New York City, where Mr. Garner died as a result of the struggle that ensued when Police Officers attempted to arrest him on outstanding warrants.

Mr. Webb opined that Mr. Garner would certainly be alive today, if he hadn’t resisted lawful arrest—and he’s right. However, that’s not the entire story of mistrust. That particular story starts with civil authorities at all levels passing legislation that is meant to feel good but makes no sense to the populace it is inflicted on.

In Garner’s case, it was feel good cigarette taxes that are so onerous, they have fostered a burgeoning industry in bootleg smokes sold as singles. Like most folks, I believe in obeying the law (well except for highway speed limits) even if I think a particular ordinance is stupid. Moreover, “broken windows” policing, a proven method, says that even minor, infractions of “stupid” laws need to be addressed. Which, as a result of a neighborhood complaint regarding Garner’s activities, the Police were doing.

As I indicated to Webb, there’s an old military leadership adage—Never give an order, that you know damned well will not be obeyed. If the Soldier disobeys, he’s in trouble. You have to punish him. You are in trouble as a leader for punishing the Soldier for what he, his buddies and you all know…is BS. Many of the city ordinances in New York City are just that…an insult to the citizenry they are inflicted on…I mean really…a limit on the size of fountain drinks?

Our society is based on voluntary compliance with the law. Generally speaking, most of us support obedience all of our laws even when we might disagree with a few of them. But there comes a point when societal segments have had enough silliness and their respect for the law in general wanes. This is exacerbated when politicians like Bill DeBlasio New York) and Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (Baltimore) throw their own law enforcement agencies under the bus. What’s worse, we even have Democrat Presidential candidates calling Michael Brown’s death a “murder.” This after, the officer in question was fully exonerated.

How are citizens expected to respect Law Enforcement when their nominal superiors don’t? Why should police officers go out of their way via “self initiated activity,” when the payoff for being proactive is being excoriated by your ultimate boss, the Mayor. So they don’t. They answer their calls, try not to get fired and nothing more. Their communities, defend into chaos…just like Baltimore.

In short, requiring police to have a good, articulable reason for using deadly force is the least of their problems. Public distrust, most of it fostered by corrupt politicians using them as scapegoats and the subject of feel good legislation, is definitely at the tippy top.

David Webb can be found on Sirius XM Channel 125 9-12AM M-F

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 California’s New Use Of Force Laws Are The Result Of Politically Fostered Mistrust Of Police appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group legal-broken-gavel-copy-1-300x169 California’s New Use Of Force Laws Are The Result Of Politically Fostered Mistrust Of Police Use of Force Uncategorized republicans racial profiling Politics police shootings police brutality police Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020 2019 2018   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com