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 87)

Tech Censorship, Leftist Bullies and the Short Term Solution

=========
=========
Promoted from the diaries by streiff. Promotion does not imply endorsement.
=========
=========

In early June, it was announced that the Justice Department, which enforces antitrust laws, and the FTC were gearing up to investigate big tech giants like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon. That is the first step and one and most likely a long process.  The last effort to look into Google took two years.  However, it is a necessary step in the right direction.

The First Amendment does not restrain censorship on social media.  Hence, the Left, through using bully tactics, has found a way to enforce their own opinions through the use of deplatforming.  It works because social media giants like those noted above are near-monopolies.  Does anyone care if you are silenced on MySpace?  If you end the monopolies, you start to eliminate a tool of the Left.

For the bulk of American history, the media published things and the First Amendment protected them whether in print, on the radio, in movies, television, and even art shows.  That covered nice things and not-so-nice things.  But then, social media hit some saturation point in 2016 with the election of Donald Trump.  There were a plethora of opinions for public consumption.  Even traditional news jettisoned reporting “the news” and started reporting what others said online.  Free speech had reached a climax- no filters, no barriers, and a global audience.   The goal was to “go viral.”

After Trump’s election, things changed.  Some who were tolerant of some form of censorship now came to demand censorship.  First, they came for Russian outlets like RT and Sputnik and no one batted an eye.  But then, it moved beyond the Russians.  When Twitter dragged its feet in banning Alex Jones, a CNN reporter went through his history of tweets and found the smoking gun- a violation of their terms.

Following in short succession were people like Milo Yiannapolos, Richard Spencer and Ann Coulter.  Except for a few supporters, they were alone in their fight.  However, the Left came to realize that these people were just the tip of the white supremacist iceberg on social media.  This “legion of hate,” they proclaimed, were out to stomp out all immigrants, people of color, all shades of LGBT and half the American population (women).  In short, there was just too much free speech on social media and someone had to do something to save America from itself and not elect the wrong President ever again.

The Left realized that those who controlled social media and the Internet (namely Google) thought like them.  They realized Twitter could silence an inalienable right.  The sparse wording of the First Amendment was replaced with “terms of service” which meant whatever the Leftist mob wanted those terms to mean.  The loathsome “heckler’s veto” was finalized as deplatforming.

Hence, there was nothing now to stop social media from deplatforming a person like Steven Crowder because he hurt the feelings of Carlos Maza.  Maza led a campaign to demonetize Crowder on YouTube which was successful.  YouTube followed up with a change to their terms of service and announced they would ban “…videos alleging a group is superior to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion…”  The classic documentary Triumph of the Will was one of the first casualties.  Soon, historians found themselves banned from uploading archival material about Hitler.  Today, YouTube proudly asserts that they have reduced the views of “supremacist” videos by 80%.

And then the infection spread.  Gab, an alternative to Twitter, was threatened by Microsoft with the cancellation of their domain based on “offensive” posts by a minor GOP candidate.  Facebook jumped on the pile by banning videos from Prager University.  When journalist Tim Shorrock criticized the New York Times for covering up American support for South Korean dictatorships, he found himself on the wrong side of the mob.

Officials for Google stated: “Although people have long been racist, sexist, and hateful in many other ways, they weren’t empowered by the Internet to recklessly express their views with abandon.”  Vice celebrated that “deplatforming works” and gleefully accepted the censorship of fellow journalists.  But, it is not just journalists, pundits, and politicians.  Just recently, parents in Virginia who questioned the school’s new transgender policy found themselves also deplatformed.

Efforts to extend the First Amendment to social media through the argument that they are the new digital public squares have been met with stiff resistance even though 70% of Americans use at least one social media site.  Trying to classify social media as “publishers” has also met with no success since they insist they are platforms, not publishers.  In essence, they say they are like phone companies that allow you to communicate with another but exercise no control over what you say.

Being a platform has its advantages.  It allows social media to exercise no control over what they print, no need to create transparent rules for using the platform, and no appeals process once deplatformed.  There is no legal recourse.  Publishers, by contrast, can be taken to court and are responsible for the content they print of it is libelous or maliciously false.  Their claim to be being a platform is based on Section 203 of the Communications Decency Act.  However, that section was based on the understanding social media, which was in its infancy at the time, would remain neutral public forums.  Now, they want the best of both worlds: the protections afforded by being a platform and the power to ideologically manipulate their content.

Breaking through the platform-publisher question will be a long battle in the courts involving third parties.  Not only does it cross international boundaries, but applies to sew sites as well as Nazi forums.  However, more immediate action is required given the importance of social media in today’s society.

Google owns 90% of the search engine market, 75% of mobile Internet browsing and, along with Facebook, 50% of online advertisement.  YouTube dominates online video.  Facebook is accountable for two-thirds of social media with Twitter owning virtually the remainder.  Although monopolies in their own right, they often work in a collusive manner.  If one, for example, bans Alex Jones, they all ban Alex Jones.  Whoever is leftover and remain on social media are then threatened with boycotts by the mob.  Eventually, even PayPal cut off Alex Jones.

With legal and legislative fixes to preserve free speech either ineffective or long term, if there is even any inertia in that direction, major antitrust enforcement efforts are the necessary clumsy fix.  The “fix” may just be breaking these tech giants into smaller companies as was done in the early stages of mass electronic communication in the country.   In this way, no single company would be large enough to stifle free speech.  It would thwart something our Founders never envisioned: People demanding censorship of speech simply because they disagreed with or did not like the results of an election.

Not likely to solve all the problems as it would not be a comprehensive enough effort to expand free speech rights, it would nevertheless be a necessary temporary effort to hold back the waters of censorship until sanity returned.

 

The post Tech Censorship, Leftist Bullies and the Short Term Solution appeared first on RedState.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

#Resist: Dem Lawmaker Who Interrupted Trump’s Va. Speech to Protest “Hate” Has Anti-Semitic History

Westlake Legal Group Ibraheem-Samirah-Protest3-620x317 #Resist: Dem Lawmaker Who Interrupted Trump’s Va. Speech to Protest “Hate” Has Anti-Semitic History Virginia Social Media Politics North Carolina MSNBC Media journalism immigration Illegal Immigration Ibraheem Samirah Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture anti-semitism Allow Media Exception #TheResistance

Virginia Del. Ibraheem Samirah, D-Fairfax, is escorted out after interrupting President Donald Trump as he spoke at an event marking the 400th anniversary of the first representative assembly, Tuesday, July 29, 2019, in Jamestown, Va. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

In case you missed it in the midst of the ongoing national media coverage of President Trump’s feud with Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD-7), a Virginia House of Delegates Democrat made headlines on Tuesday when he interrupted a speech Trump gave in Jamestown.

NBC News reports:

A Virginia lawmaker, who is Muslim, shouted “you can’t send us back!” briefly interrupting President Donald Trump during an event Tuesday commemorating the 400th anniversary of Virginia’s first legislative assembly.

Ibraheem Samirah, a Democrat elected this year to the state House of Delegates, halted Trump’s speech with a one-man demonstration as he held a sign that read “deport hate,” “reunite my family” and “go back to your corrupted home.”

Watch video of Samirah protesting Trump’s speech below:

One crucial piece of information missing from that NBC News piece on Delegate Samirah protesting “hate” is the fact that Samirah has a history of expressing anti-Semitic hate. Via Fox News:

The Washington Post, in February, reported on a series of Samirah’s social media posts from 2014 that have since been deleted.

In one Facebook post in 2014, Samirah shared an angry letter by musician Brian Eno who claimed that funding Israel was like supporting the Ku Klux Klan.

“I’d say worse,” Samirah wrote, sharing the letter. “But I’ll go along with Eno on this one.”

In another post from 2014, after former Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon died, Samirah wrote: “Ariel Sharon, burn. Burn a million times for every innocent soul you killed. Hell is excited to have you.”

Samirah also reportedly posted comments about Israeli teenagers, sharing an article about how Israel uses social media and dating apps to “legitimize murder,” writing: “Most Israeli teenagers not only want to cover up the murders in their name, but they have young urges that need to be released somehow! Tinder’s perfect for that.”

Samirah, who was a former volunteer for Tlaib, also is reportedly connected to multiple anti-Semitic organizations.

Who did Samirah learn this behavior from? Not just Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, but his own father, too:

A Washington Free Beacon investigation found in early 2019 that Samirah has connections to many anti-Semitic organizations and that his father is a organizer for the terrorist group Hamas.

Samirah himself spoke at a Hamas-related conference in 2018 and is a fervent supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel. He urged friends on Facebook in 2014 to support the BDS movement while Israel is “most exposed.”

[…]

Samirah has said that he takes his inspiration from his father, whom Al Jazeera described in 2011 as a “leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan.” Samirah posted on Facebook in 2018 that he is “inspired by my father” to “dedicate my life to the liberation of Palestine.”

To their credit, every major news outlet outside of NBC News mentioned the accusations of anti-Semitism against Samirah, although the mentions were buried in their stories and they didn’t dive too deeply into them. They didn’t mention his father’s troubling history at all.

Not only did NBC News not report on Delegate Samirah’s disturbing past, but the interview segment MSNBC‘s Ari Melber did on Samirah’s protest was stunningly ignorant and came off as more of a political promotion of Samirah’s views than it did an actual interview.

Samirah was treated like a hero by Melber, and Samirah also compared himself to MLK. With a straight face, the Virginia state lawmaker said his terrorist-supporting father was a victim of “the poor immigration policy of the United States.” Melber did not question him on the reason for that claim once, nor did he ask him about his past anti-Semitic statements.

Watch:

I’m not sure if Melber is Jewish, but at the very least he has ties to the Jewish community as he was “responsible for Jewish outreach” for Sen. John Kerry’s failed 2004 presidential campaign. If Melber confines himself to reading only NBC News stories, it’s understandable why he’s seemingly unaware of Samirah’s anti-Semitic history.

But if Melber is aware of it and still neglected to question him on it, it’s appalling that he failed to do so for reasons that go way beyond his journalistic credibility.

—————-
— 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 #Resist: Dem Lawmaker Who Interrupted Trump’s Va. Speech to Protest “Hate” Has Anti-Semitic History appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Ibraheem-Samirah-Protest3-300x153 #Resist: Dem Lawmaker Who Interrupted Trump’s Va. Speech to Protest “Hate” Has Anti-Semitic History Virginia Social Media Politics North Carolina MSNBC Media journalism immigration Illegal Immigration Ibraheem Samirah Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture anti-semitism Allow Media Exception #TheResistance   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Atlantic Unearths New Audio, Claims to Show Ronald Reagan Was a Racist

Westlake Legal Group billy-graham-ronald-nancy-reagan-SCREENSHOT-620x330 The Atlantic Unearths New Audio, Claims to Show Ronald Reagan Was a Racist United Nations The Squad tape Taiwan Ronald Reagan Richard Nixon Remarks racist Politics Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elijah cummings donald trump democrats China baltimore Audio Africans

It’s almost like there’s a concerted effort going on here to paint Republicans as racist.

The Atlantic is touting newly unearthed audio showing former President Ronald Reagan disparaging African delegates at the United Nations. That’s African, as in countries on the continent, not Americans.

The day after the United Nations voted to recognize the People’s Republic of China, then–California Governor Ronald Reagan phoned President Richard Nixon at the White House and vented his frustration at the delegates who had sided against the United States. “Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did,” Reagan said. “Yeah,” Nixon interjected. Reagan forged ahead with his complaint: “To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!” Nixon gave a huge laugh.

This took place in 1971. The context is that the UN, being the dumpster fire of an organization that it is, had just voted to recognize China over Taiwan. Some African nations sided against the United States (who history would undoubtedly prove right) and that obviously had Reagan and Nixon incensed.

As to the remark, the early 70s were obviously a very different time with very different standards, even if we agree those standards today were not good. Secondly, it’s not even clear that Reagan meant this as broad “racism” as much as a criticism of the behavior of a specific African country.

When the UN took its vote to seat a delegation from Beijing instead of from Taiwan in 1971, members of the Tanzanian delegation started dancing in the General Assembly. Reagan, a devoted defender of Taiwan, was incensed, and tried to reach Nixon the night of the vote. Reagan despised the United Nations, which he described as a “kangaroo court” filled with “bums,” and he wanted the U.S. to withdraw from full participation immediately. Nixon was asleep when Reagan called, so they spoke the next morning.

The point is, I don’t know what was in the guy’s heart, nor do I think a single line defines a person anyway. The remark was ill-advised and insensitive, but I don’t believe Reagan meant it as a racist indictment of all black people. I think he was really mad at some of the African delegates and vented in an offensive manner. Nothing about his record showed him to actually believe blacks were “inferior,” as the article supposes.

This hit piece from The Atlantic is bad faith all around, but that’s been their mark for a long time. Of course, this was all dug up specifically to hit Donald Trump.

The past month has brought presidential racism back into the headlines. This October 1971 exchange between current and future presidents is a reminder that other presidents have subscribed to the racist belief that Africans or African Americans are somehow inferior. The most novel aspect of President Donald Trump’s racist gibes isn’t that he said them, but that he said them in public.

In other words, Reagan was a racist but Trump is worse because he said things in public.

Never mind that nothing Trump said was objectively racist. The comments on “the squad” could be loosely described as xenophobic if you make certain assumptions, but there was no racial element at all. Trump was clearly not targeting them because of their race but because they are the most outspoken, radical elements of the Democrat party.

As to his latest comments,  there was no racial connotation whatsoever in his criticism of Baltimore and Elijah Cummings. In that case, we know exactly why he targeted Cummings. It was over a dishonest, gross rant he aimed at Sec. McAleenan. Baltimore is the most murderous city in the world and has extreme levels of poverty in the city proper. Those were all the reasons the President needed. There was no secret racist motive and we know that because Trump has used language like “drug-infested” before to describe predominantly white areas like New Hampshire.

Yet, it was racist because the smart set in the media told us it was. And to prove their point that this is a normal, evil Republican thing, they went and dug up this old tape of Reagan to slander his legacy because getting Trump is always worth it.

Of course, you could find more examples than you can count of past Democrat Presidents saying and doing racist things, especially given they are the party of Jim Crow and segregation. That doesn’t fit the narrative though, so going after Ronald Reagan gets the go ahead instead.

————————————————-

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 Atlantic Unearths New Audio, Claims to Show Ronald Reagan Was a Racist appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Reagan1-300x156 The Atlantic Unearths New Audio, Claims to Show Ronald Reagan Was a Racist United Nations The Squad tape Taiwan Ronald Reagan Richard Nixon Remarks racist Politics Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elijah cummings donald trump democrats China baltimore Audio Africans   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed May Be Willing to Testify Against Saudi Arabia ‘in the Absence of a Potential Death Sentence’

Westlake Legal Group ap-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-620x448 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed May Be Willing to Testify Against Saudi Arabia ‘in the Absence of a Potential Death Sentence’ The Muslim Threat to the US Terrorism National Security Martyrdom Guantanamo detainees Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story Allow Media Exception 9/11 victim's lawsuit against Saudi Arabia

FILE – This March 1, 2003, file photo obtained by the Associated Press shows Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged Sept. 11 mastermind, shortly after his capture during a raid in Pakistan. Confined to the basement of a CIA secret prison in Romania about a decade ago, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, asked his jailers whether he could embark on an unusual project: Would the spy agency allow Mohammed, who had earned his bachelor’s in mechanical engineering, to design a vacuum cleaner? The agency officer in charge of the prison called CIA headquarters and a manager approved the request, a former senior CIA official told The Associated Press. (AP Photo, File)

 

Alleged mastermind of the 9/11 terror attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has signaled through his attorneys, that he may become more “cooperative” if the U.S. government agrees to spare him from the death penalty at a Guantanamo Bay military commission.

By ‘cooperation,’ his attorneys are referring to the lawsuit filed by victims of the 9/11 attacks against the Saudi Arabian government for their part in “coordinating the attacks.”

Mohammed’s offer was contained in a letter filed on Friday at the U.S. District Court in Manhattan by the plaintiffs’ lawyers. The lawsuit seeks unspecified billions of dollars in damages from the Saudi government, which denies involvement.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

In the lawsuit against Saudi Arabia, plaintiffs’ lawyers had requested depositions from three of the five Guantanamo detainees accused in the Sept. 11 conspiracy. In the Friday filing, a status letter to U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, the lawyers wrote that earlier Friday, Mohammed’s counsel told them their client wouldn’t consent to a deposition “at the present time.”

Mohammed’s lawyer said, however, that “the primary driver” of the decision was the “capital nature of the prosecution” and that “[i]n the absence of a potential death sentence much broader cooperation would be possible,” according to the filing.

An attorney for Mohammed’s nephew and co-defendant, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (who also is known as Ammar al-Baluch), said there had been changes in the defendants’ positions.

“I think [Mohammed] feels ready and willing” to assist the Sept. 11 victims’ lawsuit, “but I think he feels he needs to get through” the death-penalty question first, said the lawyer, Alka Pradhan.

Years of reflection seem to have changed Mohammed’s position regarding “martyrdom.” During a hearing held in June of 2008, a military judge said this was to be a “death-penalty case.” Mohammed objected. He said, “It is a martyr case. This is what I wish. I’ve been looking to be martyred for a long time.”

A source told the Wall Street Journal that, “A lot has happened in the past 10 years. The 9/11 defendants are not as interested as they once were in martyring themselves.”

In 2017, the proceedings at Guantanamo were being overseen by the Department of Defense’s then Director of Military Commissions, Harvey Rishikof.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

Rishikof began exploring a potential plea bargain with the Sept. 11 defendants that would exchange guilty pleas for life sentences, according to court documents and people familiar with the case.

Mr. Rishikof is said to have been concerned that the prosecution had been undermined by the torture inflicted upon Mohammed and other defendants at secret Central Intelligence Agency facilities overseas. That issue has mired the cases against them in years of hearings and raised the possibility that a military or federal court could punish government misconduct by barring the death penalty.

After word spread of plea discussions, Mr. Rishikof was fired by then Defense Secretary Jim Mattis for what Mr. Mattis said were unrelated reasons.

The source said it had been Rishikof’s hope that if the death penalty was removed, the 9/11 defendants would speak more freely about the attacks. He believed this might provide “closure” for the victims and their families.

I’ll open this one up to our readers. Should the U.S. spare these men the death penalty in exchange for their testimony against the Saudi Arabian government?

The post Khalid Sheikh Mohammed May Be Willing to Testify Against Saudi Arabia ‘in the Absence of a Potential Death Sentence’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-300x217 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed May Be Willing to Testify Against Saudi Arabia ‘in the Absence of a Potential Death Sentence’ The Muslim Threat to the US Terrorism National Security Martyrdom Guantanamo detainees Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story Allow Media Exception 9/11 victim's lawsuit against Saudi Arabia Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Miracle in China: 3-Year-Old Falls 60 Feet From a High Rise Balcony, But Neighbors Catch Him (Video)

Westlake Legal Group sky-1122416_1280-620x382 Miracle in China: 3-Year-Old Falls 60 Feet From a High Rise Balcony, But Neighbors Catch Him (Video) Uncategorized rescue miracle Heroism hero God Front Page Stories Featured Story Faith Community China children baby Allow Media Exception

 

 

A video from southwest China posted to social media Monday reveals a harrowing scene: a 3-year-old hanging from the balcony of an apartment building, six stories up.

As indicated by the tweet, the baby boy climbed his own way out of the high-rise.

Absolute doom seemed certain.

NBC news reports he’d been left alone while his grandmother went out for groceries.

What the heck?? He’s three.

A crowd had formed far below, and someone had had the good sense to bring out out a blanket.

They stretched it…

The little one struggled to get back onto the balcony.

But he couldn’t make it up.

He lost his grip as onlookers screamed in horror.

The boy fell straight down onto the taut blanket, wondrously saved from a 60-foot plummet.

Watch the incredible video above.

All who held the blanket will live the rest of their days knowing they saved a precious life by caring enough to attempt the impossible.

And the little boy will always know he was given a second chance — by neighbors and, perhaps, strangers.

According to the BBC, he suffered no injuries.

What an absolute miracle.

May God bless the heroes of our world.

-ALEX

 

See 3 more pieces from me:

Fed Up With School’s Response To Bullying, A South Carolina Mom Takes Justice Into Her Own Hands. And I Kind Of Love Her

Christmas Miracle: Dad Murders Baby, But There Was ‘Someone Watching Over’ Her

Incredible: Man Saves His Children From A Carjacker, But The Shocking Ending Is Harrowing

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

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

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

The post Miracle in China: 3-Year-Old Falls 60 Feet From a High Rise Balcony, But Neighbors Catch Him (Video) appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group sky-1122416_1280-300x185 Miracle in China: 3-Year-Old Falls 60 Feet From a High Rise Balcony, But Neighbors Catch Him (Video) Uncategorized rescue miracle Heroism hero God Front Page Stories Featured Story Faith Community China children baby Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Gillette’s “Woke” Ad that Insulted Men Cost P&G Billions

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-1-8-620x378 Gillette’s “Woke” Ad that Insulted Men Cost P&G Billions toxic masculinity Social Justice Politics PG Misandry gillette Front Page Stories Feminism Featured Story Business & Economy Allow Media Exception

Screenshot: YouTube

The personal product-driven mega-corporation Proctor & Gamble had a pretty successful run last quarter, even beating Wall Street predictions. Only one of their brands found themselves deeply in the negative, and it just so happens to be the one that insulted its customer base in the name of being “woke.”

According to Reuters, Gillette suffered a net loss of billions of dollars last quarter. That’s billions with a “b”:

However, P&G reported a net loss of about $5.24 billion, or $2.12 per share, for the quarter ended June 30, due to an $8 billion non-cash writedown of Gillette. For the same period last year, P&G’s net income was $1.89 billion, or 72 cents per share.

According to Reuters, P&G chalked the billions in dollars lost up “to foreign exchange fluctuations, increased competition and a contracting market for blades and razors as consumers in developed markets shave less frequently.”

They’re partly right. A net loss of that much money can only mean that those who do shave have abandoned Gillette en masse, and rightly so. Gillette’s commercial that blanketed the male gender with the accusation of “toxic masculinity” while using feminist buzzwords and clips of hard-left news organizations was one of the most hated commercials of the past decade.

As P&G continued to see profits go up for all of their brands, Gillette began suffering profit drops that were revealed last April. Apparently, the drops never stopped.

Perhaps P&G isn’t willing to come forward yet with the fact that they made a monumental error in assuming men would take the “toxic masculinity” commercial well, but they should soon. The brand is damaged enough to lose billions, and men aren’t coming back, especially with cheaper alternatives embracing men for who they are and not assuming the worst about them.

I personally go out of my way to not buy Gillette products of any kind over the insult and I know many men who do the same. The commercial wasn’t just a call to fight toxic masculinity, it was an attack on men from a company known to create commercials that specialize in attacking the male gender.

The sooner P&G fires whoever thought this was a good idea and begins to move toward making amends with its customer base, the better, but it may be politically stuck now. Walking back their stance may cause them a lot of trouble with the SJW community who know how to raise a mob.

As I’ve said before, however, the mob is more bark than bite. If P&G can show some backbone and apologize, they will invite the wrath of the SJW mob but they may begin to staunch the blood flow from a very still-wide wound.

The post Gillette’s “Woke” Ad that Insulted Men Cost P&G Billions appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-1-8-300x183 Gillette’s “Woke” Ad that Insulted Men Cost P&G Billions toxic masculinity Social Justice Politics PG Misandry gillette Front Page Stories Feminism Featured Story Business & Economy Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Video: CNN’s Don Lemon Grows Visibly Agitated as Black Pastor Refuses to Take His ‘Trump Is Racist’ Bait

Westlake Legal Group DonLemonBillOwens-620x318 Video: CNN’s Don Lemon Grows Visibly Agitated as Black Pastor Refuses to Take His ‘Trump Is Racist’ Bait republicans racism Race Politics North Carolina Media journalism Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Faith donald trump Don Lemon democrats Culture & Faith Culture CNN bill owens baltimore Allow Media Exception

CNN’s Don Lemon interviews Pastor Bill Owens – 7/29/19. Screen grab via CNN.

On Monday, 20 African-American faith leaders were at the White House for a meeting with President Trump for a discussion on various issues including those that impact inner city communities across America.

The gathering happened at a time when Trump is facing accusations of racism from liberals and mainstream media journalists over his criticisms of Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD-7) and the inhumane conditions in parts of his Congressional district.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported on the meeting:

Atlanta Evangelist Alveda King said she was invited to the meeting that was planned several weeks ago.

[…]

King said the meeting was not a photo op and focused on urban affairs, “things that many of us around the table were concerned about” including the sanctity of life, urban development, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, prison reform, jobs and HBCUs.

King said she doesn’t think Trump is racist and or that his words and actions have emboldened white supremacists.

Another faith leader at the meeting was Pastor Bill Owens from the Coalition of African-American Pastors. The 80-year-old Owens was interviewed Monday night by CNN‘s Don Lemon in a segment that turned out to be a textbook example of agenda-driven journalism.

Here’s on overall recap of it went down:

“What did the president say about his attacks against the leaders of color and did any of the faith leaders raise concerns about that?” Lemon asked Owens on “CNN Tonight” after the pastor shared he has met with the president four times in five months.

“I don’t remember him saying anything about colored leaders, leaders that are colored. There was some things discussed, that were said, but I don’t remember him referring to leaders of color,” Owens, an African American, replied.

“Today the meeting was how can we help the black community. That is my concern. That was the purpose of the meeting. That is the reason I came to Washington. That is my focus, helping our inner-city young people especially. Our children. Our young people,” he added.

“So I know it’s hard for you, you think it’s hard to believe that Trump is racist. But he’s repeatedly used racially charged language. He consistently attacks black and brown elected leaders. So, why is that hard to believe, pastor?” Lemon asked.

“I find President Trump leader of all colors. He attacks who he will. He’s his own man. I can’t dictate what he should or shouldn’t do. But he does not just attack black people. He attacks anybody. And you know it,” Owens retorted.

“So as a man of faith, as a Christian he attacks anyone. It sounds like you’re condoning attacks? Is that Christianly or Godly?” Lemon asked.

“I’m just stating a statement of fact. I’m not condoning anything … President Trump does not pick the people he attacks because of color. He attacks anybody he feels needed,” Owens replied.

You can tell just from reading about the interview that Lemon changed the parameters of the discussion once Owens correctly pointed out that Trump’s criticisms are not about race. Lemon switched gears and then made it about whether or not Owens, as a Christian, condoned Trump attacking anyone.

Lemon, who has compared Trump to Hitler in the past, repeatedly pressed Owens to buy into the argument that Trump’s attacks are race-based, but Owens made it clear he wasn’t going to play that game.

And once Lemon figured out Owens was not taking the bait, the CNN anchor – who is gay – then despicably shifted his ire to Owens himself, accusing him in so many words at around the 2:35 mark of being a homophobe because he’s a conservative who is opposed to gay marriage. Lemon also cut Owens off several times during the segment, citing time constraints.

Watch the full interview below:

Had Owens agreed with Lemon’s assessment of Trump’s motivations, not only would he not have been repeatedly cut off during the course of the interview, but his “controversial” views opposing gay marriage would never have been mentioned. But because Owens doesn’t and won’t toe the liberal line on “racism” accusations against the President, he got the Lemon Treatment.

The liberally biased interview was yet another nail in the coffin of CNN‘s journalistic credibility, but they’re beyond caring at this point because Orange Man Bad and stuff.

—————-
— 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: CNN’s Don Lemon Grows Visibly Agitated as Black Pastor Refuses to Take His ‘Trump Is Racist’ Bait appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group DonLemonBillOwens-300x154 Video: CNN’s Don Lemon Grows Visibly Agitated as Black Pastor Refuses to Take His ‘Trump Is Racist’ Bait republicans racism Race Politics North Carolina Media journalism Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Faith donald trump Don Lemon democrats Culture & Faith Culture CNN bill owens baltimore Allow Media Exception Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Mario Lopez Claims Small Children Shouldn’t Choose Their Gender. What’s Worse – That or His Christian Faith?

Westlake Legal Group baby-shower-4039376_1280-620x413 Mario Lopez Claims Small Children Shouldn’t Choose Their Gender. What’s Worse – That or His Christian Faith? Uncategorized transgender The Sexes The Candace Owens Show Television saved by the bell religion Politics mario lopez LGBT Hollywood Front Page Stories Featured Story Entertainment Culture & Faith Culture Candace Owens Allow Media Exception Access Hollywood

 

 

Access Hollywood host and Saved By the Bell hunk Mario Lopez is getting grilled on the web for a recent comment he made on children and gender identity.

While guesting on The Candace Owens Show last month, television’s A.C. Slater injected his opinion on the “weird trend” of celebrities “transitioning” their small children.

Former nanny Candace posited:

“I’ve had children say they were mermaids, I’ve had children say they could fly. … I’m trying to understand this new Hollywood mentality where they just think their children now have the mental authority and clarity…”

In joined Mario:

“I’m kind of blown away, too. Look — I’m never one to tell anyone how to parent their kids, obviously. … And I would say if you come from a place of love, you really can’t go wrong. But at the same time, my God, if you’re three years old, and you’re saying you’re feeling a certain way or you think you’re a boy or girl or whatever the case may be, I just think it’s dangerous as a parent to make that determination then, ‘Okay, then you’re going to be a boy or girl’ or whatever the case may be. It’s sort of alarming and, my gosh, I just think about the repercussions later on.”


Some on social media found him outrageous:

While on Candace’s program, the actor conveyed what, to me, is a great perspective for an entertainer:

“I’m in the people business, right? ‘Cause I’m in show business. So I’m in the people business, and I don’t wanna alienate anyone. I want everyone…to wanna watch me.”

Nevertheless, he’s open about his religion:

“If you follow me (on social media), though, I’m not afraid to talk about my faith. … I don’t know why it’s become so polarizing.”

In order to make a substantial point, Mario brought up a historical figure he admires:

“One of my favorite things about [Martin Luther King] is that he came from a place of faith. If he came around today, I think he’d be a polarizing figure. Or I don’t even know if he’d be able to achieve the things or the heights that he had because he was faith-based. Which is unfortunate. … I think a lot of problems that we have stem from not having that, unfortunately, that nuclear family and having that…foundation of a strong family or having that infrastructure that’s maybe faith-based.”

It is, I believe, a great question: How would MLK be characterized today?

Martin had flaws; but he appeared very sincere in his faith.

So does Mario.

As reported by The Daily Wire:

Mario Lopez has described himself as a Catholic and even renewed his Baptismal promise in the Jordan River while visiting Israel in 2018.

And he believes small children shouldn’t choose their gender identity. In Hollywood, are either of those still okay?

Enjoy the full interview below.

-ALEX

 

See 3 more pieces from me:

Is Trump Still Wrong? Nearly Two Dozen MS-13 Members Arrested In The San Fernando Valley For A Series Of Machete Murders

Ya Gotta Love Infighting: Michael Avenatti Attacks Alyssa Milano For Attacking Him

Light In A Dark Place: Chick-Fil-A Manager Delivers Kindness To A 96-Year-Old Man In A Story That’ll Brighten Your Day

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. For iPhone instructions, see the bottom of this page.



 

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

The post Mario Lopez Claims Small Children Shouldn’t Choose Their Gender. What’s Worse – That or His Christian Faith? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group baby-shower-4039376_1280-300x200 Mario Lopez Claims Small Children Shouldn’t Choose Their Gender. What’s Worse – That or His Christian Faith? Uncategorized transgender The Sexes The Candace Owens Show Television saved by the bell religion Politics mario lopez LGBT Hollywood Front Page Stories Featured Story Entertainment Culture & Faith Culture Candace Owens Allow Media Exception Access Hollywood   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Tim Ryan Lost Last Night’s Debate Before It Even Began. Along With the Primary. Am I wrong?

Westlake Legal Group ap-tim-ryan-620x413 Tim Ryan Lost Last Night’s Debate Before It Even Began. Along With the Primary. Am I wrong? white house Uncategorized tim ryan the star-spangled banner Politics Pledge of Allegiance Patriotism National Anthem Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats Campaigns Bernie Sanders Allow Media Exception 2020 Democratic debates 2020

Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, speaks during the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia , Thursday, July 28, 2016. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

 

 

There’s nothing quite like starting off with a bang.

At Tuesday night’s Democratic debate, the National Anthem played and POW!

Tim Ryan was out the gate with a big snub to “The Star Spangled Banner.”

Excellent work, for a guy trying to convince people to let him lead the country.

The Democratic Ohio representative refused to put his hand over his heart. Unlike everyone else on stage.

According to my sensibilities, he just lost the nomination. Before the debate even began. Game Over.

That’s my sensibility, but it isn’t necessarily that of the average Democratic voter.

Still, all he has to do to lose is not score higher than everyone else on that stage.

Heck, Bill Maher scratched Tim off after the debate a month ago (here):

“Tim Ryan. I think he said one good thing. No.”

A few social media reactions:

Commentator Michael Knowles got in on the action:

Fiery Meghan McCain fired off a missile:

Prediction: He’s gonna relive that moment in memes. It’ll keep coming up until he bails. And it’s only gotta put off the moderates.

I really think he’s out. He was a long shot to begin with; he needed all the help he could get.

Bernie Sanders even sang, for Pete’s sake.

I think it’s over.

Watch a guy lose just by standing still:

On tweeter had a comment of a different sort:

Good question.

And point — looks like the DNC’s going for arctic white.

Maybe he’ll be the Comeback Kid.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Kanye West Professes His ‘Radical Obedience’ To Jesus Christ

Action Star Promises His Upcoming Movie Will ‘Constantly’ Address Toxic Masculinity

Detroit Music Festival Charges All People $10 – Except Whites, Who Owe $20 For The Sake Of ‘Equity’

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

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

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

The post Tim Ryan Lost Last Night’s Debate Before It Even Began. Along With the Primary. Am I wrong? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-tim-ryan-300x200 Tim Ryan Lost Last Night’s Debate Before It Even Began. Along With the Primary. Am I wrong? white house Uncategorized tim ryan the star-spangled banner Politics Pledge of Allegiance Patriotism National Anthem Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats Campaigns Bernie Sanders Allow Media Exception 2020 Democratic debates 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

No American Owes a Dime In Reparations

Westlake Legal Group Reparations-Now-620x421 No American Owes a Dime In Reparations reparations racism Race Politics Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats black community Allow Media Exception 2020

Last night’s Democratic debate took an odd turn as candidates began seriously discussing reparations. For those of you unfamiliar with what that means, it refers to the idea that America — specifically white people — should give people of the black community cash payments as a sort of mea culpa for slavery.

Slavery gasped its last breath in 1865 thanks to the 13th Amendment’s passage in Congress despite a very obstinate Democratic party trying to stop it from happening. It was made possible thanks to a very bloody civil war that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

I want to stop here and make something apparent. We’re now over 150 years away from that war and the terror and loss of it has escaped later generations, including myself. Mothers and wives buried sons and husbands. Family lines were broken forever. Communities were burned to the ground and the soil was soaked with blood in every direction.

One of the objectives of the war was to end slavery, and through all that horror America accomplished it. America paid for slavery, we’re just too young to remember the cost. Previous generations have built over the wreckage and crafted a shining city on the hill since, leaving the darkness of slavery behind us.

Yet I watched as the party that once tried to keep slavery alive make it a part of their platform to make everyone else pay up. Marianne Williamson was the most extreme by talking about a “$200 to $500 billion payment of a debt that is owed” while Sanders opposed a cash payment but did like the idea of 10 percent of federal spending going to areas where 20 percent of the population has been impoverished for over 30 years, or the “10-20-30 plan.”

The hard-left parts of the Democratic party went nuts. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez chimed in by trying to make the case for reparations herself on Twitter. She posted a video of rabid anti-white racist Ta-Nehisi Coates making the case for reparations.

Coates drives the idea that America owes black people reparations because America was built on the back of slavery. That’s only partly true and dismisses the idea that the blood, sweat, and tears of every kind of American had something to do with the success and prosperity of the country.

Furthermore, Coates has flawed logic. In fact, the concept of reparations is so flawed that the logistics of implementing any kind of payment would be borderline impossible.

First off, America is a country of immigrants. How many families were begun and prospered here after slavery was abolished is innumerable. Their families are in no way responsible for slavery, and yet, we’re going to make them pay? Even if families do go back to before the civil war happened, how many families had ancestors that owned slaves? How many even vehemently disagreed with it? They may have lived in a country that was built with the help of slavery, but is it truly fair to punish those who fought against the practice?

What about those of mixed race? Do they have to pay? What about successful companies that were founded after the civil war by immigrants. Do they have to pay an extra tax for a practice they never took part in nor would approve of?

What’s more, reparations is primarily aimed at the idea that white people owe black people. If we’re going to tax white people specifically, then reparations would never be paid. You’d have to tax all of America for such a plan to work, and why do all of America owe the black community? Again, many families weren’t even here for slavery and had nothing to do with it.

These are things that haven’t been addressed, and for as long as the idea of reparations has been around, you’d figure it would have been by now.

This isn’t even considering the fact that no one today was alive when racism was happening. No white person today in America has ever owned a slave and no black person has ever been one. I don’t know a person alive who would approve of such an atrocity or partake in it given the opportunity. We weren’t around to make the choice about slavery, and even if we were, today’s society would vehemently reject it.

Reparations is the idea that someone owes money to someone else simply because of their skin color. That is racist. We don’t approve of racism here in America. We make a pretty big deal out of making sure anyone who practices it is publicly shamed into oblivion. Someone suggesting that reparations be a thing is practicing racism. Some people who are for it maybe have good intentions, but hell is paved with those. Most people who push for reparations are hucksters like Coates.

The “huckster” label also includes 2020 Democrat candidates on the stage last night who don’t, at all, have good intentions. They’re utilizing the idea of reparations to literally buy votes from a minority community. They can’t pay for it, especially on top of all the promises of “free” stuff on top of that, and they know it. Regardless, they’re saying that successfully voting them into office will result in cash payments for black people.

The black community should feel insulted that their vote is reduced to nothing but cash value. It dismisses the idea of concerns about the economy, immigration, crime, or jobs. When it comes to reparations, the Democrats are essentially eliminating the idea that the black community are people, and putting a price tag on them.

Some things never change.

The post No American Owes a Dime In Reparations appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Reparations-Now-300x204 No American Owes a Dime In Reparations reparations racism Race Politics Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats black community Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com