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 94)

Bernie Sanders Has Still Not Been Asked About His Baltimore Comments, and Ronna McDaniel Wants to Know Why

Westlake Legal Group BernieSandersDemDebate-620x317 Bernie Sanders Has Still Not Been Asked About His Baltimore Comments, and Ronna McDaniel Wants to Know Why Ronna McDaniel republicans racism Race Politics North Carolina Michigan Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elijah cummings elections donald trump democrats Culture Campaigns Bernie Sanders baltimore Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks during the first of two Democratic presidential primary debates hosted by CNN Tuesday, July 30, 2019, at the Fox Theatre in Detroit. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

In the immediate aftermath of the left’s/media’s outrage over President Trump’s criticisms of Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD-7) and the inhumane conditions in some parts of his Congressional district, many conservatives pointed to similar remarks made by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in 2015.

Here’s what the Senator said at the time:

But just a few years ago, Sen. Bernie Sanders — a candidate seeking the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential nomination — took his own shots at Baltimore, a struggling Northeast city grappling with high rates of violent crime, drug abuse, poverty and political corruption.

“Anyone who took the walk that we took around this neighborhood would not think you’re in a wealthy nation,” Sanders said during a visit to the city’s West Baltimore section in December 2015, the Baltimore Sun reported. “You would think that you were in a Third World country.”

The independent U.S. senator from Vermont also referred to Baltimore as “a community in which half of the people don’t have jobs.”

“We’re talking about a community in which there are hundreds of buildings that are uninhabitable,” he added, according to the Sun.

Watch:

He also tweeted about Baltimore in 2016:

Many conservatives wondered: If Trump’s comments had to be characterized as “racist”, why weren’t Bernie’s? Furthermore, why won’t the mainstream media ask him about them?

It’s a question that was echoed by GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel on Tuesday prior to the Democratic debate:

Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel on Tuesday pressed CNN’s John Berman on why Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) hasn’t been confronted for once saying that parts of Baltimore resembled a “Third World country.”

“You have a great opportunity with your debate tonight to talk to Bernie Sanders about what he said about Baltimore. Was he racist? He was on CNN on Sunday and nobody asked him about his comments about Baltimore being a Third World country,” McDaniel said.

Watch her talk about this issue below:

To the surprise of no one anywhere, CNN did not ask Sanders about his Baltimore remarks at Tuesday night’s debate.

As Red State‘s Streiff wrote Saturday, in reality Sanders’s comments weren’t racist and Trump’s comments weren’t racist. They both accurately described the deplorable conditions that are an unfortunate reality for the Democrat-run city.

But because Trump is a Republican, which automatically = “racist” to the Democrat/MSM industrial complex, and because he’s not shy about clapping back when criticized no matter who is doing the criticizing, he’s the one who gets gratuitously slapped with the “racist” label. Because narratives 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 Bernie Sanders Has Still Not Been Asked About His Baltimore Comments, and Ronna McDaniel Wants to Know Why appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group BernieSandersDemDebate-300x153 Bernie Sanders Has Still Not Been Asked About His Baltimore Comments, and Ronna McDaniel Wants to Know Why Ronna McDaniel republicans racism Race Politics North Carolina Michigan Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elijah cummings elections donald trump democrats Culture Campaigns Bernie Sanders baltimore Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020 Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Why Babylon Bee Seeking Legal Assistance Against Snopes.com Is Important To All Of Us

Westlake Legal Group freedom-of-speech-rockwell-620x320 Why Babylon Bee Seeking Legal Assistance Against Snopes.com Is Important To All Of Us Social Media Snopes Politics Media Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook demonitizing democrats Babylon Bee Allow Media Exception Adam Ford

I’ve posted several times on my view that the Big Tech companies pose a real and present danger to American political life. Diarist Davenj1 has a piece that I put as featured earlier today that sort of sets the basis. The bottom line is that we have a small number of private companies that are not only crushing competition (albeit very smartly, they are employing the poker strategy of “buying the pot” to eliminate market entrants and they are giving enough free stuff to consumers that no one complains) but they are using their monopoly position to constrain political speech with which they disagree. And they are doing so while working under a legal get-out-of-jail free card given to them by a Congress that was, like with the no-tax-on-internet-purchases law, trying to help out a nascent industry.

The monopoly status of Facebook made it particularly vulnerable to legislative action when its preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, did not get elected by acclamation and Facebook found itself at the center of the laughable allegations that the election was swayed not only by the Russians but by fake news stories not produced by CNN or the New York Times or Washington Post circulating on that medium. To remove this vulnerability, Facebook engaged the services of contract “fact checkers.” These contractors were given the writ to declare content to be “fake” or “false” and then Facebook applied the financial screws by restricting availability of that publisher’s content until the offending item was changed or removed.

Obviously, this is has the potential for all sorts of abuses. The current fact checker for Facebook, PolitiFact, has fact checked statements by politicians and proclaimed them to be false (see this silliness in which PolitiFact proclaimed Ted Cruz’s opinion that the Iran nuclear deal could faciliate Iran getting a bomb to be false even though it was a) an opinion and b) objectively true) and seems to fly top cover for Democrats like AOC. But the worst player in that arena, a player that would even make Media Matters look rational, is Snopes.com. Snopes started out exposing intranet hoaxes and urban legends. Then it branched out into protecting Democrats from criticism by labeling any criticism of them false. Lately it has been making more of an ass of itself than usual by fact checking the Christian and right-leaning satire site, Babylon Bee. These are the Babylon Bee stories Snopes has fact checked:

Westlake Legal Group babylon-bee-1-620x436 Why Babylon Bee Seeking Legal Assistance Against Snopes.com Is Important To All Of Us Social Media Snopes Politics Media Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook demonitizing democrats Babylon Bee Allow Media Exception Adam Ford

Westlake Legal Group babylon-bee-2-620x398 Why Babylon Bee Seeking Legal Assistance Against Snopes.com Is Important To All Of Us Social Media Snopes Politics Media Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook demonitizing democrats Babylon Bee Allow Media Exception Adam Ford

Westlake Legal Group babylon-bee-3-620x449 Why Babylon Bee Seeking Legal Assistance Against Snopes.com Is Important To All Of Us Social Media Snopes Politics Media Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook demonitizing democrats Babylon Bee Allow Media Exception Adam Ford

Westlake Legal Group babylon-bee-4-620x415 Why Babylon Bee Seeking Legal Assistance Against Snopes.com Is Important To All Of Us Social Media Snopes Politics Media Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook demonitizing democrats Babylon Bee Allow Media Exception Adam Ford

On the one hand, this is humorous and plays into a well deserved stereotype of the left. On the other, after eight pages of fact checks of the Babylon Bee, it is equally obvious that something else is at work that can’t be explained by abject stupidity. The game is to build a case that that Babylon Bee’s satire is so misleading–and so injurious to Democrats–that it should be banned from Facebook. In fact, because of Snopes, Facebook has actually warned Babylon Bee that it could be demonetized:

Things really got serious last week with this:

This lampooned Georgia state representative Erica Thomas’s now thoroughly debunked claim that a Cuban immigrant told her to “go back to her country.” In this one, Snopes let the mask slip.

While this real-world incident stirred up a good amount of online anger, it wasn’t quite outrageous enough for the entertainment website Babylon Bee,” Snopes said. “In an apparent attempt to maximize the online indignation, this website published a fictionalized version of the story, changing the location to Chick-fil-A, a fast-food restaurant known for its CEO’s opposition to same-sex marriage.”

Snopes called the satirical article, which obviously pokes fun at a real life event, a fictionalized version of the story. “The Babylon Bee has tried to fool readers with its brand of satire in the past,” it said.

Demonstrating a lack of objectivity, the article continued, calling the Babylon Bee a “ruse,” which literally means “an action intended to deceive someone.”

It’s editor, Adam Ford, was not amused in the least, read his response.

To be clear, this is a serious threat. RedState gets over a third of its pageviews from Facebook. I can only imagine that Babylon Bee is much more dependent. If it gets deplatformed, as is Snopes’s obvious objective, it would be out of business. It is also clear that other leftwing outlets are picking up the charge that Babylon Bee is deliberate deception and not satire. For instance, here we have Tater from CNN:

Babylon Bee is taking this threat seriously. My colleague Kira Davis posted on this earlier.

Westlake Legal Group bb1-620x715 Why Babylon Bee Seeking Legal Assistance Against Snopes.com Is Important To All Of Us Social Media Snopes Politics Media Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook demonitizing democrats Babylon Bee Allow Media Exception Adam Ford

Westlake Legal Group bb2-620x426 Why Babylon Bee Seeking Legal Assistance Against Snopes.com Is Important To All Of Us Social Media Snopes Politics Media Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook demonitizing democrats Babylon Bee Allow Media Exception Adam Ford

The stakes are being raised and soon Snopes, which is teetering on the edge of insolvency anyway, may have to defend its jihad against Babylon Bee and its efforts to use libelous statements to put them out of business before an actual judge. Because it is not only certain that they do not have the financial resources of Gawker it is damned clear that Gawker’s publication of the video of Hulk Hogan and Mrs. Bubba-the-Love-Sponge having monkey-sex was Pulitzer Prize stuff compared to the sum total of Snopes’s product.

It is hard, a the editor of an online publication, to understate just how important this step by Babylon Bee is. The advertising market for political websites is definitely more austere than it was ten years ago. Facebook is a huge driver of traffic and the fact that agenda-driven asses can cause you grievous financial harm by lying about you is galling. I really hope Babylon Bee has hired a vicious, spiteful lawyer who gets bonuses every time he drives a Snopes employee into bankruptcy. And if they start a GoFundMe to pay for a lawsuit, I’ll give everything I can afford to see that happen.

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

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

The post Why Babylon Bee Seeking Legal Assistance Against Snopes.com Is Important To All Of Us appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group freedom-of-speech-rockwell-300x155 Why Babylon Bee Seeking Legal Assistance Against Snopes.com Is Important To All Of Us Social Media Snopes Politics Media Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook demonitizing democrats Babylon Bee Allow Media Exception Adam Ford   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Marianne Williamson Is Right About Grosse Pointe, For The Wrong Reasons.

Westlake Legal Group marianne-williamson1-j-300x153 Marianne Williamson Is Right About Grosse Pointe, For The Wrong Reasons. water crisis washington D.C. Social Media republicans racism Race progressives Politics Patriotism Morning Briefing Infrastructure Government Front Page Stories Front Page Flint Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats Conservatives Capitalism Bipartisanship Allow Media Exception 2019

Author Marianne Williamson speaks during the first of two Democratic presidential primary debates hosted by CNN Tuesday, July 30, 2019, in the Fox Theatre in Detroit. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

Last night at round 1 of the Democrats debate in my hometown of DEEETROIT at the wonderful Fox Theatre on Woodward Ave, we had the opportunity to watch 10 people who are most likely not going to be the Democrats nominee for President in 2020.

That doesn’t mean it wasn’t worth watching.

One of the breakout comments of the night was from self-help author and feelings over facts guru, Marianne Williamson, when she compared the ultra-wealthy Detroit suburb of Grosse Pointe located just a couple of miles from the Motor City to the decimated area of Flint 70 miles away.

Here is what the enlightened author said in regards to the Flint water crisis …

WXYZ Channel 7 Detroit

“I lived in Grosse Pointe. What happened in Flint would not have happened in Grosse Pointe.”

She then went on to talk about dark psychic forces and some other things that we can discuss in a later post.

She is 100% spot on though that this would never happen in G.P. and it is not because of race. Simply, it is because of competency.

Grosse Pointe and the surrounding cities are represented in District 2 by State Representative Joe Tate who just happens to be a Democrat. Also in the State Senate, this city is represented by State Senator Adam Hollier also, believe it or not, a Democrat. The citizens and the elected representatives would have never allowed the incompetence that occurred in Flint to materialize.

Back in April of 2014 when Flint changed its water delivery system from the Detroit water system to the Flint river it was overseen by…Democrats.

This does not mean that Republicans would have done better necessarily. The Governor at the time was a Republican by the name of Rick Snyder and his Department of Environmental Quality dropped the ball severely when the initial warning signs of issues popped up in Flint. As President Barrack Obama’s E.P.A. did also.

However, the debacle in Flint immediately became an issue of finger-pointing while people suffered and being used as pawns. That would not have happened in Grosse Pointe. Partly because of the value of the property but also there would have been demands for people to have been fired locally. The political class knows this and would have reacted before they had received 4 phone calls on this.

In Flint, there is still to this day almost zero accountability for the very people who put this plan into motion. If you don’t believe me take a look at the actual CITY COUNCIL MEETING from March 25th, 2013 and then google what penalties these people faced.

I’ll wait right here.

So while Williamson was right “technically” about her statement, she had it wrong and for all the wrong reasons. This had nothing to do with racism and more to do with the competence of officials that people just give a pass too when they constantly deliver poor results.

The decent citizens need to start kicking people in the arse in their city just like people in other cities across Michigan would do. I know the results they would see would amaze them.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Marianne Williamson Is Right About Grosse Pointe, For The Wrong Reasons. appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group marianne-williamson1-j-300x153 Marianne Williamson Is Right About Grosse Pointe, For The Wrong Reasons. water crisis washington D.C. Social Media republicans racism Race progressives Politics Patriotism Morning Briefing Infrastructure Government Front Page Stories Front Page Flint Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats Conservatives Capitalism Bipartisanship Allow Media Exception 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Democrat Debate Was All About Removing The Right To Choose

Westlake Legal Group Capture-9-620x316 The Democrat Debate Was All About Removing The Right To Choose socialism right to choose progressives Politics Health Care gun control Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats debates Campaigns 2020 election 2020

I thought they were the party about defending choice? When did that change?

On night one of the Democratic Party Presidential candidate political forums (dubbed “The Donkey Debates”) we were presented with few surprises and many head-scratching moments of sheer aversion to the facts. Promises were made and bromides were delivered as if by firehose. Amid all the pledges of free everything while demonizing anything approaching a functional corporate foundation something unremarked but completely remarkable took place — The Democrats defied their biggest core belief.

Early on, of course, we heard of abortion rights, but it was a lightly touched-upon segment. After all, who does not know this is essentially Democrat gospel already?! Turn against the sacrosanct issue and you are effectively excommunicated from the party. So the candidates breezed over that subject and moved on to more heady waters.

Universal healthcare was roundly supported, with a number of hopefuls pledging outright that they will see to it that private health insurance is phased out for single-payer government-run healthcare. (Recall not long ago this was something a candidate would never admit to, for fear of crippling their campaign?) Liz Warren was especially comical in this round, pointing out how insurers sometimes have you filling out dozens of forms. Yea, one thing we all know about the government, it NEVER involves excessive amounts of paperwork!

Gun control was another issue brought up, with most in some form of agreement that Americans had no reason to own a weapon. Sob stories abounded, and all pledged to make those evil guns even more evil. Immigration came up, and the call to simply do away with border protection was a general agreed-upon result. The environment was of course a big issue, and the call went out to go after the vile energy-producing companies and shift our nation over to a green energy platform.

To an extent these grand, sweeping policy proposals are expected from this group. Consider their plight; in a group of 20 names you need to be distinguished, so being as far out as you can go, and promising as much as you possibly can leads to making these outlandish promises. Except in so doing the Democrats are violating their core belief system.

What happened to their pledge to give everyone the right to choose?!?! Every single candidate — hell, almost every Democrat — adheres to the concept that the right to choose is the most important standard they can think of in politics. Defend it to the death.

Except…

They want to remove our right to choose our own health care provider. They not only want to put limits on which guns we choose to buy but to eliminate that choice entirely. Choosing to defend our border from incursions is looked to be phased out entirely. They even want to take away our choice in energy consumption — only approved green energy options will be offered.

When it comes to the issue of abortion, which concerns a segment of the country, “choice” is the preeminent standard. But once you get into broader subjects concerning nearly all of America — healthcare, energy, constitutional rights — then suddenly our right to choose is completely invalid. The smarter minds who know what is best will be more than happy to make those choices for us.

Thank you, but I prefer to choose liberty and freedom over the nannies who cannot even follow the time constraints of a debate set up, let alone the founding documents of our nation.

The post The Democrat Debate Was All About Removing The Right To Choose appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Capture-9-300x153 The Democrat Debate Was All About Removing The Right To Choose socialism right to choose progressives Politics Health Care gun control Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats debates Campaigns 2020 election 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

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