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 83)

The Story Of 8chan Shows Why There Is No Alternative To the Leftwing Social Media Giants

Westlake Legal Group social-media-4-620x413 The Story Of 8chan Shows Why There Is No Alternative To the Leftwing Social Media Giants voxility twitter Stormfront Social Media patrick crusius Google GAB Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook El Paso Shooting Cloudflare BitMitigate Alphabet Allow Media Exception 8chan

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

I’ll disclose my bias upfront. I think Twitter, Google (and by Google I actually mean Alphabet), and Facebook are profoundly evil corporations that epitomize Lord Acton’s admonition, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” They have eluded liability under the safe harbor provision of the Communications Decency Act and ruthlessly targeted conservative voices they think are hitting too close to home. They have even blocked the parody site Babylon Bee because the jokes were too close to being actual news.

They have branched out from merely ripping off your personal information and selling it for a profit to actively interfering in the politics of the United States. A prime example of this is the decision by Twitter to suspend the Twitter account of Mitch McConnell’s reelection campaign for encouraging violence when it tweeted a video of leftwing wackos, at least one of which appeared to be very chummy with Elizabeth “Ol’ 1/1024” Warren, at McConnell’s home shouting obscenities and threats of physical harm. This behavior is not new. During the 2018 campaign, Facebook pulled ads by Elizabeth Heng because she made reference to the fact that her parents had escaped from the Khmer Rouge genocide.

In short, I’m 100% in favor of the Department of Justice’s Anti-Trust Division putting them out of business. I’m in favor of sending as much of their staff to prison and homeless shelters as can be done legally.

When one points out the fact that these companies are so dangerous is because they have a monopoly and that if you want to use any of the major social media outlets you have to tailor your content to fit their ever morphing rules, (did you know that Facebook will flag your story as “click bait” if the headline asks a question?) you are often told “hey, we’re conservatives and they are private corporations and they can do what they want” and “well, just create a start-up and compete with them.” My contention is “screw them if they want to meddle in politics” and “you will never be allowed to compete with them.” Some small number of these people actually believe that the social media behemoths will stand idly by and let a start-up begin taking market share (naive or idealistic?). Most of them, though, belong to anodyne, milquetoast Vichy Republican outlets who actually aren’t threatened by the new rules because their real motivation is being invited to the right parties and the grift (as Ace says, “the shame is part of the kink“).

In a very short while after the Patrick Crusius, the El Paso shooter, was identified, it was a reported that he was a visitor to 8chan, a message board that is very close to an absolute free speech area. Let me digress for a moment. I’m pretty close to a free speech absolutist. If someone says something that hurts your feelings, there are lots of avenues open to you to relieve the pain, but one of them is NOT silencing the stuff you don’t want to hear. My view on this extends to people espousing racial superiority (I really don’t care which race they are talking about) and racial animus. As I posted earlier in the week, I don’t care what you think and believe, I only care about how you act.

To get back to the story, the 8chan message boards were supported by Cloudflare. In the aftermath of the shooting, Cloudflare withdrew its support from 8chan and took it offline. 8chan quickly lined up another vendor, BitMitigate, and were back online.

But later in the morning, internet infrastructure provider Voxility announced that it would be cutting off support for BitMitigate and its parent company Epik in response to the decision to provide service to 8chan.

“We do not tolerate hate speech in any form,” Voxility spokeswoman Maria Sirbu said in an email. “This is a firm stand from our team, and we will not reinstall services for Epik/BitMitigate under (any) circumstances.”

Epik and BitMitigate rented dedicated servers from Voxility, Sirbu said, and used them to sell hosting services to third parties. She said Voxility learned approximately three weeks ago that Epik was providing services for neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer, and responded by cutting access to IP addresses related to the website.

After learning that BitMitigate had begun providing security services for 8chan, Voxility made the decision to cut Epik’s access off entirely and drop them as a client, Sirbu said.

Bitmitgate’s security services also ran on server space rented from Voxility, according to BitMitigate founder and former owner Nicholas Lim, so Voxility’s decision will halt all of the subsidiary’s operations unless Epik decides to seek out an alternate server host and is able to find one.

By late Monday morning, 8chan had gone down again, and BitMitigate’s own website was also unreachable — likely a result of Voxility’s decision, Lim said.

So 8chan, a backwater only visited by a very small number of people, and quite possibly anti-free-speech advocates stalking the board to try to get evidence to shut the board down might well have outnumbered actual participants, could not be ignored. Because one of its visitors committed a crime, it had to be destroyed. The social media start up Gab has likewise found itself forced, on pain of loss of internet access, to take down accounts and posts by order of companies providing services to it.

Though 8chan and Gab represent an extreme example, they provide a good model for why creating a social media network that allows free speech within the constraints of what is legally permissible rather than what is socially acceptable to a 26 year-old gay trans woke hipster in a long-term relationship with xis gerbil (NTTAWWT) is simply not possible. 8chan was shut off from internet access by a vendor. Not by market forces. By a vendor. A new vendor was found. The new vendor was shut down by one of its vendors for providing services to 8chan. There was a time when this might have been called “restraint of trade” but if you say the wrong thing, then no one cares.

If you think this can’t happen to conservatives, you’re delusional. Look at how the concept of “white supremacy” has been broadened to include all of Donald Trump’s supporters and donors:

You, my friend, are a white supremacist to these people. And your right to political speech is just as endangered by Vichy Republicans as it is by the left.

In this case, 8chan needed a service vendor to allow it to operate on the internet. That vendor walked. The replacement vendor was dependent upon a third party for leased servers and they were shut down because they provided a service to 8chan.

The fact is that in the current environment, you can’t start a competing social media network that allows opinions that the left finds offensive unless you have the financial wherewithal to own, outright, all the hardware, software, and can provide all the necessary services to keep that network online if Big Tech disapproves of what you’re doing.

And, if you can, how do you stay in business? Who controls most of the internet advertising sales? And if an internet service company can be shut down because of its unpopular client, how many companies will permit their ads to appear on your network after Google warns them off?

No, my friends, there are two ways forward. Either we comply with situationally malleable rules designed to shut us down and accept our role as serfs or we use every tool at our disposal to either tame or destroy these corporations which are literally trying to rule the country.

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

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

The post The Story Of 8chan Shows Why There Is No Alternative To the Leftwing Social Media Giants appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group social-media-4-300x200 The Story Of 8chan Shows Why There Is No Alternative To the Leftwing Social Media Giants voxility twitter Stormfront Social Media patrick crusius Google GAB Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook El Paso Shooting Cloudflare BitMitigate Alphabet Allow Media Exception 8chan   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Why the “It’s Easier to Murder People With a Gun” Argument Doesn’t Work

Westlake Legal Group Gun-620x349 Why the “It’s Easier to Murder People With a Gun” Argument Doesn’t Work United Kingdom self-defense Politics New York murder mass shooting London knife crime Guns gun control gun Front Page Stories Featured Story crime CDC Allow Media Exception

My colleague, Kira Davis, reported on a story earlier today about a stabbing spree that occurred in California, killing four people and injuring two. If a gun was a weapon of choice here, this would classify as a mass shooting, but due to it being a knife, it won’t get a quarter of the attention.

I’m going to cut straight to the point here and address the argument that usually arises when this point is made.

“Brandon, a gun will make it way easier to kill people than a knife. More people would have died if the killer had a gun,” is usually the comeback I get after noting that a killer will kill whether he has a gun or not.

And they’re not wrong. Guns make it far easier to kill people than using knives.

When it comes to these stories, though, there’s a complete disregard for how guns play a part in the lives of the law-abiding. When we see a complete absence of firearms in a society, we see that the violent suddenly have an advantage. To see this, we need only look to London.

The United Kingdom has oppressive restrictions on firearms to the point where they might as well be completely banned. They did this in order to make the populace safer, but the exact opposite happened. London’s knife crime skyrocketed with the best use of self-defense now out of reach.

It skyrocketed so high that last year, London’s murder rate surpassed New York, with knives being the favored weapon. As a result, the U.K. has tried to launch cringe-worthy campaigns to dissuade knife crime and even asked private citizens to give up their knives, including “knife bins” where you can dispose of your cutlery. In one case, at least, these knife bins ended up being a gift to violent criminals.

All of this is, of course, assinine, as it just encourages the law-abiding to further make themselves vulnerable to violent criminals. London has since seen a year on year 50 percent rise in knife crime. Regardless, you have U.K. authorities patting themselves on the back and proudly promoting the fact that they confiscated honing rods and pliers, which aren’t even knives but are being considered weapons.

It’s easier to kill more people with a gun, but people with guns are far less brave about using them if they’re unsure who else has a gun in the vicinity. This is why those who tend to commit mass murder do so in places that are “gun-free zones” or areas where there’s less likely to be a gun to threaten them in return.

With knives, the aggressor is going to have the advantage. He’s already prone to violence while most peaceful people aren’t. In a knife fight, the bad guy may very well win here. It’s hard to miss with a knife too. Knife fights aren’t like anything you see in the movies with people looking for openings for jabs and slashes. It’s quick, brutal, chaotic, and painful.

A gun, however, changes things a bit. Missing, especially in the heat of the moment, is more likely, especially if the target is moving. With a gun, you’re not relying on strength and brutality. It requires finesse and a measure of calm. You’re trying to put a small chunk of metal into a distant target. Speed is still a great asset, but chaotic speed won’t work here. It has to include precision and discipline.

Villains in this situation are on a more even playing field with their would-be victims. Even if they do get the jump on a couple of people and shoot them, a person wielding a gun nearby may be all it takes to stop them without having to risk his person in a physical confrontation like you would a knife fight.

This is especially great for women. In fact, earlier I wrote a story about a clearly trained 14-year-old girl who defended her home with a gun from burglars. If all she had was a knife, it’s far more likely that she would have been overpowered, and possibly suffered great harm as a result.

According to CDC studies, people utilize guns for the defense about as much if not far more often than they do offensively. Guns aren’t only great to use when you’re getting shot at, they tend to stop violence from happening in the first place. The threat of a firearm is far more worrisome than someone physically confronting you. Dealing death at a distance puts far less stress on the defender than having to risk it all in a physical confrontation.

London is proof positive of this. Violent criminals utilize knives so much that they out-murder the most populated city in America that doesn’t have the restrictions the U.K. does when it comes to firearms.

Does a gun make it easier to kill more people quickly? Yes. It also stops killers from killing quickly too, and that goes undiscussed. Guns are so effective at stopping killers that in their absence, killers kill more. Mass shootings are terrible and horrific in the sudden loss of life, but compared to the overall murder rate that happens without guns, I vote to keep the firearms around.

The post Why the “It’s Easier to Murder People With a Gun” Argument Doesn’t Work appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Gun-300x169 Why the “It’s Easier to Murder People With a Gun” Argument Doesn’t Work United Kingdom self-defense Politics New York murder mass shooting London knife crime Guns gun control gun Front Page Stories Featured Story crime CDC Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Hillary Clinton Has Some Surprising Advice for House Dems: ‘Stop Grandstanding’ Over Impeachment

Westlake Legal Group hillary-clinton-american-federation-of-teachers-620x360 Hillary Clinton Has Some Surprising Advice for House Dems: ‘Stop Grandstanding’ Over Impeachment Timothy Naftali Richard Nixon Library New House investigations of Trump Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Featured Story Congress Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power

In July 2018, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sat for an interview with NYU clinical associate professor, Timothy Naftali, at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, CA. This was part of “An Oral History of Richard Nixon” project. (The interview can be viewed here.)

The sit-down received very little attention at the time, but was recently republished. I found the transcript to be both surprising and interesting. (And I am not a fan of the former First Lady…at all.)

Considering the difficulty Clinton has had in coming to terms with her bitter loss to President Trump, I did not anticipate the sober message she is conveying to House Democrats. Her cautious tone was unexpected.

In a nutshell, her message was to, “steer clear of politics, don’t hold press conferences and avoid leaks.”

She did not mention President Trump. She discussed her experience working for the House Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer during the debates among members over whether or not to impeach then-President Nixon. She had been one of the recent law school graduates who had been hand-picked by John Doar, the Committee’s lead impeachment staffer. Doar was a “Republican who had served as a civil rights chief during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.”

Clinton began this job in January 1974. She was 26-years-old and had graduated from Yale Law School the previous May. She said she and her fellow staffers worked 16-18 hours each day, weekends included.

This experience instilled in her an understanding of the gravity of impeachment. She told Naftali:

Impeachment is such a serious undertaking. Do not pursue it for trivial partisan political purposes. If it does fall to you while you’re in the House to examine abuses of power by the president, be as circumspect and careful as John Doar was. Restrain yourself from grandstanding and holding news conferences and playing to your base. This goes way beyond whose side…you’re on or who’s on your side. And try to be faithful purveyors of the history and the solemnity of the process.

Clinton recalled she and her colleagues “transcribing a White House audio tape of Nixon listening to other tapes — committee aides called it the “tape of tapes.””

So, we would sit there with the headphones on, just exhaustingly listening, trying to make out words. Some of the transcription already occurred, but some of it was garbled, it was not at all clear. But the tape of tapes was a big revelation to me. I had no idea that he would be taping himself listening to tapes and then coming up with rationalizations. So, he would call somebody into the room, and he would say, ‘I want to play this for you. Now when I said that, here’s what I meant.’ So, it was really a shocking experience.

I think for me it was listening to the tapes, and particularly the so called tape of tapes because it was almost a textbook example of someone trying to get stories straight and getting other people to get their stories straight.

She describes Doar’s warnings to the staffers to maintain “poker faces in hearings and meetings with lawmakers.” Clinton explained:

He said, ‘Don’t talk to anybody. Don’t make facial expressions. Don’t portray any opinion. We were there just to make a presentation to the members of the committee.’ So, it was a matter of honor that we would maintain the secrecy that was so critical for this, for this whole investigation.

I think that, first of all, there are no cell phones, that makes a big difference. But I think he, by just force of character, made it clear to all of us.

Doar also instructed them to ignore reporters and above all, not to leak information to the press. She said, “We would just walk by.” Clinton said they “did not know where this was going to end up.”

I certainly didn’t. I didn’t come into it with any preconceived notion that, OK, this is going to be easy. We’re going to lay out all this stuff then the House will impeach and then he’ll be convicted in the Senate. I certainly didn’t do that. I don’t know anybody who did. And because it was such a historic experience, we all felt the weight of that responsibility. And John made very clear that we would be betraying our duty as lawyers and our historic obligation if we talked.

How politics have changed over the past 50 years. House Democratic leaders such as Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff can’t seem to get enough of the spotlight. They hold press conferences after committee meetings and appear regularly on cable talk shows along with many other politicians, commentators and strategists. Leaking has become a common practice.

She and her fellow staffers conducted their research and ultimately produced “some rough guidelines that lawmakers could follow as to what constitutes an impeachable offense.”

Once I had done the research it seemed clear to me that the president was not above the law. The president did have certain authorities, certain standing. So it didn’t require that there be a crime charged in order for there to be an impeachable offense. But what that impeachable offense was often keyed to what we think of as criminal behavior.

So obstruction of justice is a crime. And whether a president is ever charged with obstruction of justice or not, the obstruction of an investigation can represent abuse of power that rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors and therefore be the basis of an article of impeachment.

Then, as now, there were members of Congress who were reluctant to vote for impeachment “without a guarantee the Senate would back them up with a trial that convicted the president.”

Well, I think that that’s one way of looking at it and it certainly is defensible. But I think another way of looking at it is that if you are persuaded that the president has abused power, committed a high crime or misdemeanor then it’s up to the proof that has to be presented in a trial to determine whether two-thirds of the Senate agrees with that. And remember the senators could bring whatever assessment they wanted to this determination. And you couldn’t second guess that, you couldn’t preempt that. It had to be left to them.

She also told Naftali that “she didn’t celebrate how the Nixon presidency came to its end.”

I was not at all happy or jubilant about him resigning. I thought it was a very sad chapter in our history. I thought the actual departure was a really poignant, painful moment for him and his family as well as for the country. So, I watched it on TV, like I guess everybody else did. And it was a really very unfortunate, sad outcome.

I think it’s important to keep talking about how serious this is. It should not be done for political partisan purposes. So, those who did it in the late 90s, those who talk about it now, should go back and study the painstaking approach that the [Watergate] impeachment inquiry staff took. And it was bipartisan. You had a bipartisan staff and you had both Democratic and Republican members of the committee reaching the same conclusions that there were grounds for impeachment.

The main difference between Watergate and the current efforts to impeach Trump by House Democrats is that in 1972, an actual crime occurred. Although the crime itself was minor, Nixon orchestrated a coverup and prosecutors had real evidence in the form of a recording.

Can a president really be impeached for angry words? For asking a subordinate to fire someone whom he had the constitutional right to fire, even though it wouldn’t have been in his best interest? Moreover, the subordinate refused to follow the order.

If only her Democratic colleagues in the House would listen to these words. But they won’t. Many of them still haven’t let go of the Russian collusion narrative.

Others have, yet they still cling to the obstruction narrative. They will have a tough time trying to prove that a man who was wrongly accused of stealing an election, and spent the first half of his presidency under a cloud of suspicion because of a bogus investigation, obstructed justice.

While most other Democrats have moved on to the “Trump is a racist/white supremacist” narrative, Nadler remains stuck.

Let’s keep him there.

The post Hillary Clinton Has Some Surprising Advice for House Dems: ‘Stop Grandstanding’ Over Impeachment appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group hillary-clinton-american-federation-of-teachers-300x174 Hillary Clinton Has Some Surprising Advice for House Dems: ‘Stop Grandstanding’ Over Impeachment Timothy Naftali Richard Nixon Library New House investigations of Trump Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Featured Story Congress Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

A Teenage Girl Defends Her Home With a Gun Showing What Education and Training Can Do

Westlake Legal Group b6e26156-ced4-48fe-bcc4-defe49363ee6-620x413 A Teenage Girl Defends Her Home With a Gun Showing What Education and Training Can Do teenage Politics mass shootings Kansas Guns gun control Girl Front Page Stories Featured Story crime Burglar Allow Media Exception

In the midst of the once more reawakened gun debate after multiple mass shootings rocked the United States, a small story of a teenage girl defending her home with a firearm in Kentucky is currently going under the radar.

According to WYMT-TV, a 14-year-old in Lawrence County was in her home when two burglars attempted to break in. According to the story, the girl took action and chased the burglars off by firing a pistol in their direction as they were attempting to gain entry:

On Sunday, two men in a white sedan pulled up to a home in Blaine. One got out of the car and repeatedly tried to gain entry by trying to kick in the doors.

Inside the home were three teenage girls who responded by calling 911. They were home alone at the time with their father at work and their mother at the store.

At one point the man who was trying to break in circled around to the backyard and was prepared to bust open a window with a shovel.

When this was about to happen, the man and his driver started arguing. During that argument, the youngest of the teenage girls in the home, only 14-years-old, found and loaded a 9mm pistol.

Once she noticed the argument between the two men, she fired the gun in their general direction and they left.

This is a great story to add to all the other great stories like it. An armed innocent person overcoming evil by utilizing a handgun isn’t exactly an uncommon story, despite the fact that these local stories often go untouched by the mainstream media.

The thing to focus on is the small details in this particular story, however.

Here we have a 14-year-old girl who knew what to do when her home was threatened. Firstly, she knew where the gun was and how to access it. Secondly, she knew how to load and operate it.

This girl had firearms training, and this training potentially saved their lives.

One of the problems with our society is that when something bad happens, too many within the populace and the politicians who fear their approval points dropping will knee-jerk into crafting laws and banning things. A ban wouldn’t have saved this girl’s life. Training and education did, though.

We should put more of a focus on teaching respect and proper use of guns instead of working to keep them out of the hands of Americans. The United States is so saturated in firearms that restrictions and bans would just make it harder for good people to have access to things the bad guys already do. Training and education will solve many problems, however.

Even law enforcement seems to agree with this.

“Considering that she is 14-years-old, she did a good job. I encourage everyone that can legally carry a firearm, to carry a firearm to protect themselves and their families just in case the need arises,” Lawrence County Constable Daniel Castle.

Consider this.

If we had more training and education, and more people were comfortable around guns even to the point of carrying them on their person, how many of these mass shootings would have actually been as deadly?

The post A Teenage Girl Defends Her Home With a Gun Showing What Education and Training Can Do appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group b6e26156-ced4-48fe-bcc4-defe49363ee6-300x200 A Teenage Girl Defends Her Home With a Gun Showing What Education and Training Can Do teenage Politics mass shootings Kansas Guns gun control Girl Front Page Stories Featured Story crime Burglar Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Poor Little Rich Boy: Self-Loathing Progressive Thinks His Wealth Is Immoral

It never stops being hilarious that the only people who really hate wealth are those that have it.

(But only in between yacht trips and Michelin-ranked dining experiences, one would imagine.)

Vox gives the story today of a young man named Adam who was unaware of his family’s early investment in the burgeoning oil industry that led to him becoming the recipient of trust funds that, according to the relatable graphic novel-esque panel format of the piece, had him receiving loads of cash from BP Oil, Exxon, and Chevron.

Adam is a community organizer and (apparently) a socialist, and he experiences an existential crisis when he finally discovers his “modest” upbringing (because he was surrounded by other wealthy families and his family only sent him to exclusive schools his grandparents paid for and he only vacationed at the local beach *eyeroll*) was actually a front for his extraordinary wealth.

Westlake Legal Group bad-wealth-620x429 Poor Little Rich Boy: Self-Loathing Progressive Thinks His Wealth Is Immoral wealth vox Morality Front Page Stories Featured Story Capitalism

Image: Vox

Adam gets “weird” about wealth once he discovers his family’s dirty little secret. He becomes (gasp!) frugal and tries to give back to the community. And finds jokes about wealthy people uncomfortable. Poor Adam. Never having to worry about paying the rent is hard.

Which leads him to finally ask:

Westlake Legal Group immoral-wealth-620x413 Poor Little Rich Boy: Self-Loathing Progressive Thinks His Wealth Is Immoral wealth vox Morality Front Page Stories Featured Story Capitalism

Image: Vox

He ultimately decides that working to help others less privileged is a good way to offset the guilt he feels about being part of the 1% (although he does wring his hands over what it means to him personally that AOC’s policy advisor wants to abolish billionaires, presumably because he’s a fan because she’s not a total policy failure like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates (he names them)).

I’m not sure how to help Adam deal with the crushing guilt of having money but I do know there are charitable organizations (Gates knows a few) that might help alleviate his pain. And that his position at “Resource Generation, which helps young people (ages 18-35) with wealth and class privilege to become transformative leaders working toward the equitable distribution of wealth, land, and power” is probably less useful than just contributing several thousands at a time to local homeless shelters or health care and/or educational facilities in lower income neighborhoods.

There are literally thousands of way to give.

Don’t feel bad for being rich Adam. I promise you no one who starts out poor and manages to get where you are through hard work feels bad for you. Just try to find it in your conflicted heart to be grateful you’re in a position to help others — and actually help them — and then enjoy your next vacation.

(My colleague Kira Davis wanted me to tip you off to her new podcast episode where she covers the morality of wealth. Give it a listen.)

The post Poor Little Rich Boy: Self-Loathing Progressive Thinks His Wealth Is Immoral appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group hazardous_to_your_wealth_title-300x169 Poor Little Rich Boy: Self-Loathing Progressive Thinks His Wealth Is Immoral wealth vox Morality Front Page Stories Featured Story Capitalism   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

VISA CEO Refuses to Play Politics, Won’t Prohibit Gun Purchases Despite Pressure

Westlake Legal Group 0656aed8-2c42-4cba-afde-ce851d435021-620x317 VISA CEO Refuses to Play Politics, Won’t Prohibit Gun Purchases Despite Pressure visa Politics Guns gun control Front Page Stories Featured Story Economy credit card commerce Business & Economy Allow Media Exception Alfred Kelly

In this day and age, corporations are expected to become involved in socio-political matters with statements and actions that reflect falling on one side or another. In the world of commerce, some companies have taken a stand by disallowing the purchase of certain things like firearms.

As early as February of last year, the New York Times was penning articles suggesting banks and credit card companies should prohibit the purchase of firearms from their end. PayPal and Square have taken that route, but it appears VISA, arguably the most popular card in America’s pockets, is not going to play politics.

Appearing on CNBC, Visa Chairman and CEO Alfred Kelly is taking the bold step of treating his customers like adults and declaring his company is Switzerland when it comes to purchases.

“We are guided by the federal laws in a country, and our job is to create and to facilitate fair and secure commerce,” Kelly told CNBC on Wednesday.

Kelly revealed his stance on this comes from the idea that it’s not up to his corporation to determine right and wrong, which is a breath of fresh air at a time when companies like Gillette and Dick’s Sporting Goods are doing that very thing.

“The reality is that it’s very hard for us to do it. … If we start to get in the mode of being legislators it’s a very slippery slope,” Kelly said. “We shouldn’t be determining what’s right or wrong in terms of people’s purchases.”

“We shouldn’t tell people they can’t purchase a 32-ounce soda. We shouldn’t tell people they can’t buy reproductive drugs,” Kelly added.

Kelly also added that legislators do need to take action, and focus on factors that aren’t being addressed like the mental health angle. Though, he did add that types of guns and magazine sizes should be addressed as well.

“They ought to get busy on some common-sense changes to deal with the horrific problems that we’ve seen in the United States, not just this weekend but for years and years,” he said. “It’s time to start looking at mental health, the size of these magazines, the type of weapons. They’ve got to do something.”

To be fair, Kelly seems to know his stuff. He didn’t call it a “clip,” for one.

I hate to say it, but Kelly’s stance of neutrality is brave. This message could easily invoke the wrath of anti-gun groups and online mobs, sparking a “conversation” in this country about what a corporation’s role in society is. Personally, I think Kelly nailed it, at least for his industry.

This isn’t a family-owned cake shop. This is a company that greases the wheels of commerce. If he, or other major card carriers begin determining what is and isn’t okay for people to buy, then that could create a situation where the cause celebre would dictate what is and isn’t okay to purchase. Card companies could literally control who gets to buy what.

It would be a disaster. Kelly even hints at it. Imagine not being able to purchase food items because of a political movement catching on that is against such things. Imagine a company that prohibits the purchase of knives or gardening tools because they may be labeled as dangerous thanks to a knee-jerk from politicians after an incident.

My hat’s off to Kelly and his bravery for not caving to political pressure. I hope the other major card companies follow this lead.

The post VISA CEO Refuses to Play Politics, Won’t Prohibit Gun Purchases Despite Pressure appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 0656aed8-2c42-4cba-afde-ce851d435021-300x153 VISA CEO Refuses to Play Politics, Won’t Prohibit Gun Purchases Despite Pressure visa Politics Guns gun control Front Page Stories Featured Story Economy credit card commerce Business & Economy Allow Media Exception Alfred Kelly   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Video: MSNBC Journalist Shocked Latino El Pasoans Were “Surprisingly Positive” During President Trump’s Visit

Westlake Legal Group DonaldTrumpElPaso-620x317 Video: MSNBC Journalist Shocked Latino El Pasoans Were “Surprisingly Positive” During President Trump’s Visit Texas Social Media republicans Politics North Carolina MSNBC Media mass shootings journalism immigration Illegal Immigration Guns gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post El Paso donald trump democrats Culture Allow Media Exception

President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump arrive at El Paso International Airport to meet with people affected by the El Paso mass shooting, Wednesday, Aug. 7, 2019, in El Paso, Texas. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

In the immediate aftermath of the horrific mass shooting incidents in El Paso, TX and Dayton, OH, there was a lot of chatter mostly among Democrats about whether or not President Trump should visit the cities. Most were opposed, naturally, for partisan reasons.

But because Trump doesn’t take his marching orders from Democrats and the MSM, he visited both Dayton and El Paso anyway. The El Paso visit was perhaps more significant than the Dayton trip only because the population of the Texas/Mexico border city is overwhelmingly Latino.

Couple that with the left’s erroneously blaming Trump’s alleged “white supremacist” rhetoric about illegal immigrants for the shootings, and the general assumption by our intellectual betters in the MSM was that Trump wouldn’t be welcomed nor tolerated.

The President visited the city on Wednesday, where the heartbroken members of the community were mourning the loss of 22 innocent lives and praying for the dozens more injured in the aftermath of a deranged domestic terrorist who opened fire at a Walmart on Saturday. MSNBC‘s Jacob Soboroff was there to cover their reaction to Trump’s visit, and here’s what he reported:

“Jacob, you’ve been in El Paso, talking to the community,” said MSNBC anchor Ali Velshi. “What’s the feeling there about the president’s visit?”

“Well, Ali, given the way that the president has talked about Latinos, and Latinos make up the vast majority of the population of the city of El Paso, surprisingly positive is the way that people are responding here, in the wake of the shooting,” Soboroff responded.

“I see calls for unity and a great spirit of togetherness,” he added.

Here’s the MSNBC Twitter account framed the segment:

The Trump campaign shared an edited clip that showed the first part of the segment rather than the very last part of it where Soboroff basically contradicted what he said in the first 30 or so seconds. He was not happy when he saw it:

In spite of acknowledging early on in the segment that El Paso Latinos were responding “surprisingly positive” to Trump’s visit, and that there were calls for unity rather than a city-wide outcry over Trump’s presence (the latter of which you’d believe if you listened to Beto O’Rourke), Soboroff came off as a partisan hack in discussing the atmosphere in El Paso, which I’ll get into in a later piece.

(Hat tip: The Blaze)

————–
— 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: MSNBC Journalist Shocked Latino El Pasoans Were “Surprisingly Positive” During President Trump’s Visit appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group DonaldTrumpElPaso-300x153 Video: MSNBC Journalist Shocked Latino El Pasoans Were “Surprisingly Positive” During President Trump’s Visit Texas Social Media republicans Politics North Carolina MSNBC Media mass shootings journalism immigration Illegal Immigration Guns gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post El Paso donald trump democrats Culture Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Hollywood is Poised to Release a Film with Liberals Hunting Conservatives – Where is the Media Outrage?

Westlake Legal Group The-Hunt-620x281 Hollywood is Poised to Release a Film with Liberals Hunting Conservatives – Where is the Media Outrage? violent rhetoric Popular Culture Movies Hollywood Guns gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Entertainment Allow Media Exception

In a news cycle where violent rhetoric is railed against will there be any condemnation for a blatant provocation?

During the recent Democratic Party Presidential debates there was a curious interlude. The candidates were addressing gun violence and the various Constitution-threatening policies they would implement if elected. Then CNN went to a commercial, and we were treated to visuals of guns. The timing was, I am sure, uncomfortable for some on the left.

What looked like an advertisement for a hunting resort was in fact a trailer for an upcoming film, “The Hunt”, tentatively being released in about a month. It appears to be an update of the classic “The Most Dangerous Game”, where it was not animals who were hunted but other humans. It has come to be known now that there is a bit of a modernization — the hunters are leftists, and their quarry (that is, the people they are hunting down) are conservatives.

In the wake of the recent shootings that have dominated the news commercials for “The Game” have been pulled. But what will be interesting to watch is how two aspects of this production will develop; will the studio (the Blumhouse Productions film is distributed by Universal Pictures) soften thee message at all in the editing suite, and will the press have any contempt for the portrayal of provocative political violence depicted?

Any of the trailers to this point have not revealed this political underpinning in the script. The content is not accidental, nor even an incidental inclusion. The political polarity appears to be rather upfront in the storyline. According to The Hollywood Reporter, after a look at the script written by Damon Lindelof and Nick Cuse, the theme is rather blatant.

Universal is re-evaluating its strategy for the certain-to-be-controversial satire. The violent, R-rated film from producer Jason Blum’s Blumhouse follows a dozen MAGA types who wake up in a clearing and realize they are being stalked for sport by elite liberals. The original title for the film had been “Red State Versus Blue State”, making the aggression right upfront — and also a possible sign of the studio softening this conflict in the marketing.

Universal is on a cusp of having a property that is either properly timed to capture the environment on social media in satirical fashion, or it could see real-life events eclipse the message and it gets delayed, out of sensitivities. The more interesting reaction to watch for will be in the media.

Currently Democrats are eager to cite anything they can to be inciting and possibly leading to violence. Even quoting a politician verbatim by others has been accused as being an act that puts the speaker of the words at risk — somehow. The imbalanced analysis of the El Paso shooting has only ramped up this hysterical commentary. But what then will these hyperbolic hectorers say about a film that has liberal specifically targeting Trump-supporting conservatives.

The conflict of ideologies is not even veiled. In one scene a leftist with a gun declares, “At least The Hunt’s coming up. Nothing better than going out to the Manor and slaughtering a dozen deplorables.”

As Christian Toto commented on the film prospects, usually these plotlines end up with the individuals being hunted turning the tables and conquering the hunters. This would then mean that ultimately the MAGA crowd is positioned as the heroes in the film, which itself is a rarity in Hollywood. But the violent depiction of combative political opponents has to be seen as a serious problem, correct? That has been what has the press in such a froth in the past weeks, and for their messaging to remain intact then this film has to be seen as a blatant provocation to violence

Seeing how the media interprets a film that crosses lines that very same media has lain already will be very interesting indeed. That is, if the film even manages to see its way to be released into our current hypersensitive environment.

The post Hollywood is Poised to Release a Film with Liberals Hunting Conservatives – Where is the Media Outrage? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group The-Hunt-300x136 Hollywood is Poised to Release a Film with Liberals Hunting Conservatives – Where is the Media Outrage? violent rhetoric Popular Culture Movies Hollywood Guns gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Entertainment Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

No, the El Paso Shooter’s Mother Didn’t Actually Call the Cops To Report Him

AP is currently running a story on the El Paso shooter headlined: The Latest: Lawyers: Crusius’ mom asked police about weapons. The story, or rather the headline, is getting a lot of play because of the current focus on the so-called red flag bill being promoted by South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and Connecticut’s contribution to Stolen Valor, Richard Blumenthal. At some level one has to believe that the headline is the story and a disingenuous effort to support a narrative because the actual story tells us nothing and is not helpful to the people trying to restrict the ability of the rest of us to own weapons.

This is the story:

An attorney for the family of the man charged in the El Paso Walmart shooting rampage says the man’s mother contacted police weeks before the rampage out of concern that her son had a rifle.

Dallas attorney Chris Ayres confirmed to The Associated Press that the call was made to police in Allen, a Dallas suburb. He declined to give details, but he and fellow attorney R. Jack Ayres told CNN that Patrick Crusius’ mother contacted the Allen Police Department to ask about an “AK” type firearm Crusius owned.

The attorneys said the mother was only seeking information and wasn’t motivated by a concern that her son was a threat to anybody. They also said the mother didn’t identify herself or her son in the call.

Sgt. Jon Felty, Allen police spokesman, said there was no record of such a call and he wasn’t aware of such a call.

To recap. The attorney’s representing the family of the shooter say a call was made to the police. The police say there is no record of the call. The attorneys add that a) the mother was not concerned about her son being dangerous and b) she wanted to, it seems, make sure that his weapon was legal and that he could legally possess it.

Thus far, nothing has surfaced in either the El Paso shooting or the soon-to-be memory-holed Dayton shooting that indicates any system not involving a Department of Pre-Crime would have had enough information to prevent either shooting. This won’t stop people from running in very small circles and making puppy noises because, as you know, we have to DO SOMETHING.

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

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

The post No, the El Paso Shooter’s Mother Didn’t Actually Call the Cops To Report Him appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group minority-report-300x146 No, the El Paso Shooter’s Mother Didn’t Actually Call the Cops To Report Him Texas Politics patrick crusius mass shootings Guns Front Page Stories Featured Story El Paso Shooting El Paso democrats cielo vista mall Allow Media Exception 2A   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Kamala Harris Says She’s Willing to Have Police Forcibly Take “Banned” Guns From Your Home

Westlake Legal Group kamala-harris-donkeyhotey-620x443 Kamala Harris Says She’s Willing to Have Police Forcibly Take “Banned” Guns From Your Home Semi-automatic Weapons Politics kamala harris Guns gun control Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats California Allow Media Exception 2020

Kamala Harris – Caricature by DonkeyHotey, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original

They’re not coming for your guns, we’re told.

No, they are, and at least California Senator Kamala Harris is fully willing to send police to your home to take your guns from you.

According to the Washington Examiner, when asked if Harris would send law enforcement to homes to seize banned firearms, Harris answered in the affirmative:

When asked by the Washington Examiner if her plan would include legal gun owner databases or gun confiscation via law enforcement visits to residents who own banned firearms, she replied, “I’m actually prepared to take executive action to put in place rules that improve this situation.”

She continued, “I also have as part of my background and experience working on this issue, when I was attorney general [of California], and we put resources into allowing law enforcement to actually knock on the doors of people who were on two lists — a list where they had been found by a court to be a danger to themselves and others.

“They were on a list where they were precluded and prohibited from owning a gun because of a conviction that prohibited that ownership. Those lists were combined and then we sent law enforcement out to take those guns, because, listen, we have to deal with this on all levels, but we have to do this with a sense of urgency,” Harris added.

When we speak of “banned” firearms, Harris has actually said what she’s willing to ban earlier this year. Back in January, Harris noted during her CNN presidential town hall that:

“We have got to have smart gun safety laws in this country, and we’ve got to stop buying this false choice. You can be in favor of the second amendment and also understand that there is no reason in this civil society that we have assault weapons around communities that can kill babies and police officers,” said Harris.

As I wrote then in more detail, it may be mistaken to think that Harris meant fully automatic weapons. The problem is that these weapons have been banned, and the talk was centered around mass shootings. She was speaking about semi-automatic weapons, which are what Americans primarily own.

So, we have Harris wanting to ban semi-automatic weapons and her admittance that she will send law enforcement to your home to forcibly taken them from you.

But remember folks. No one is trying to take your guns.

No one.

The post Kamala Harris Says She’s Willing to Have Police Forcibly Take “Banned” Guns From Your Home appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group kamala-harris-donkeyhotey-300x214 Kamala Harris Says She’s Willing to Have Police Forcibly Take “Banned” Guns From Your Home Semi-automatic Weapons Politics kamala harris Guns gun control Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats California Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com