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 "Front Page Stories" (Page 22)

Anti-Trumper Chris Wallace Tells Mick Mulvaney a “Well-Connected Source” Says 20% Chance Senate Will Remove Trump

Westlake Legal Group chris-wallace-apologizes-to-kelly-clarkson Anti-Trumper Chris Wallace Tells Mick Mulvaney a “Well-Connected Source” Says 20% Chance Senate Will Remove Trump Susan Collins News Mitt Romney Mick Mulvaney Media Lisa Murkowski Lindsey Graham Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story donald trump democrats Chris Wallace Allow Media Exception 2020

 

Fox News‘ Chris Wallace no longer bothers to pretend he hates President Trump. During a contentious interview on Sunday with acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, he brought up the number of Republicans that are breaking with or at least distancing themselves from Trump after his decision to pull troops out of Northern Syria. He pointed out Mitch McConnell’s scathing op-ed last week in addition to House Republicans voting 129 to 60 to rebuke the decision.

Then, Wallace informed Mulvaney that a source, a well-connected Republican D.C. insider, “it’s a name you would know well,” had told him that if Trump is impeached by the House and a trial in the Senate follows, there is a 20% chance he would be voted out of office. The question comes at 11:40 in the video below.

Mulvaney sees the comment for what it is and instantly dismisses it. “That’s just absurd. But let’s deal with the issue of Syria.”

Wallace immediately cuts him off, and says forcefully, “No, let’s deal with the issue of Republicans – you’re losing your support.”

Mulvaney responds, “The 20%. That person clearly doesn’t know what they’re talking about…No, the president is extraordinarily popular back home, more popular in the swing districts now that impeachment has started.”

A supermajority, or 67 Senators, would be required to remove the President from office. Currently, there are 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and 2 Independents serving in the Senate. Both Independents caucus with the Democrats.  They would still need 20 Republicans to vote against Trump.

Mitt “Pierre Delecto” Romney is one and there would be a handful of others. Lisa Murkowski (R-AL) and possibly Susan Collins (R-ME) come to mind. The reality is that chances of a Trump conviction in a Senate trial are closer to nil.

Wallace’s remark filled Democrats’ with glee. The Washington Post immediately published an article entitled “A few Republican cracks on impeachment are showing” which can be viewed here.

The article cites Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who, ahead of the Syria decision, had been one of the President most loyal supporters. Graham is vehemently opposed to pulling U.S. troops out of Northern Syria and has been fiercely critical of Trump.

They point to Graham’s comments during an interview with Axios last Tuesday. When asked if he supported impeachment, he said, “Sure. I mean … show me something that … is a crime. If you could show me that, you know, Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing.”

On Saturday night, Graham appeared on Fox News’ “Justice with Jeanine Pirro” and was still quite worked up.

Following the show, he spoke on the phone with President Trump and by the time he appeared on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” his tone had changed significantly.

If the Washington Post is looking for a serious and permanent break between the two, it might be premature.

A discussion of whether or not Trump made the right call on Syria is beyond the scope of this post. But there is a huge difference between disagreeing with the President on a policy decision and removing him from office.

And it may be time for Chris Wallace to follow Shepard Smith out the door.

The post Anti-Trumper Chris Wallace Tells Mick Mulvaney a “Well-Connected Source” Says 20% Chance Senate Will Remove Trump appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group chris-wallace-apologizes-to-kelly-clarkson-300x169 Anti-Trumper Chris Wallace Tells Mick Mulvaney a “Well-Connected Source” Says 20% Chance Senate Will Remove Trump Susan Collins News Mitt Romney Mick Mulvaney Media Lisa Murkowski Lindsey Graham Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story donald trump democrats Chris Wallace Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

“We’re Not Giving Up on You”: Watch as Georgia Police Talk Down a Suicidal Father

Westlake Legal Group Capture-8 “We’re Not Giving Up on You”: Watch as Georgia Police Talk Down a Suicidal Father suicide police Georgia Front Page Stories Featured Story depression bodycam Allow Media Exception

Depression is a serial murderer, and it can cause irrationality in otherwise sane minds, lying to them and leading them down a dark path that too often results in suicide.

No one sees this more often than your local police force, who are often called to scenes in order to talk someone down from doing something that would not only end their lives, but also destroy the lives around them.

In one heartbreaking yet uplifting video, a father in Georgia was prepared to kill himself. According to the New York Post, Henry County Police arrived at the scene to find an unidentified father of a little boy holding a knife to his stomach, ready to stab himself.

The officers spoke words of hope to him and showed him who he would be devastating if he took his own life:

“We’re not giving up on you… We’re not. We’re here and we want to help you,” one of the cops told him in July, as caught on recently released bodycam footage.

Another cop recognized the dad from a previous call — and persuaded him to look at photos of his one-year-old son, with the dad pushing over his phone to show the officers the photo.

“You want to see your one year old again? You have to drop the knife,” the cop told him. “Your son hasn’t given up on you. He needs you.”

His colleague then persuaded him to look hard at the photos, telling him, “I know how much you love your son — it’s not lost, man, it’s right there. Look. Please stop. Look at his face. He needs you.

“Don’t do this to him. This will affect him in ways you won’t even understand,” he said, telling him it was not too late for a “do-over” on life.

The sobbing man eventually dropped the knife, and as a precaution, officers rushed in to handcuff him. Even as they did, they explained that he wasn’t under arrest, they’re just doing that for everyone’s safety.

Moments like these are heartbreaking and are occurring far more frequently today then they did in years past. Luckily, there are members of law enforcement who are only too willing to help those on their worst day, and stop them from making a mistake that would only make things so much worse.

Police get a lot of bad press and a horrible reputation that goes along with it but very rarely do stories like these reach the headlines despite the fact that they happen every day.

 

The post “We’re Not Giving Up on You”: Watch as Georgia Police Talk Down a Suicidal Father appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Capture-8-300x169 “We’re Not Giving Up on You”: Watch as Georgia Police Talk Down a Suicidal Father suicide police Georgia Front Page Stories Featured Story depression bodycam Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Beto O’Rourke Told a Room Full of Democrats That You – Yes You – Are a Racist

Westlake Legal Group beto-orourke-dh-620x443 Beto O’Rourke Told a Room Full of Democrats That You – Yes You – Are a Racist racism Politics Front Page Stories elections democrats Beto O'Rourke Allow Media Exception Alabama 2020

Beto O’Rourke by DonkeyHotey, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original

Democratic 2020 candidate Robert “Beto” O’Rourke is so woke that he’s officially become the wokest candidate among the pack. What’s more, he can’t wait to show you how woke he is.

While addressing the Alabama Democratic Conference’s semi-annual convention in Birmingham, Alabama, O’Rourke showed you just how racist he’s not by pointing out that everyone in America is a racist country because it’s racist at its foundations.

Bold strategy, Cotton.

“Despite my obvious pride in the role my community played in the civil rights history of America, despite what I think we represent to this country and the rest of the world — about the genius of America being able to integrate people who come from everywhere and call this country home…this country, though we may not be in El Paso, Texas, is still racist at its foundation, at its core, and throughout history,” said O’Rourke.

His calling this country “racist” naturally received applause from the Democrat attendees.

It’s odd to me that we still hear this kind of rhetoric from Democrats who currently govern a country where they elect minorities on both sides of the aisle. Democrats who live in a country where we just recently had a black president. Where we have celebrities, athletes, and business owners of every shade of skin color and ethnic background.

The institutional racism O’Rourke is mentioning here is nonexistent. A country that is racist at its core wouldn’t allow for any of the above. While it’s clear that many minority communities have their struggles, blaming it on some nebulous spirit of racism is like saying it rains because it does. The social justice left that O’Rourke belongs to would rather commit to the narrative that bad things happen to minorities because of racism, and not really look at the underlying causes as to why.

But the most insulting part is that in order for a country to be racist, there have to be practicers of racism. According to O’Rourke, that’s you. You’re racist. Maybe you don’t think you are, or maybe you don’t mean to be, but O’Rourke and woke Democrats like him are here to tell you that you’re just the worst.

In short, he thinks you’re horrible and that the only way to fix you is to give him power over you.

 

The post Beto O’Rourke Told a Room Full of Democrats That You – Yes You – Are a Racist appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group beto-orourke-dh-300x214 Beto O’Rourke Told a Room Full of Democrats That You – Yes You – Are a Racist racism Politics Front Page Stories elections democrats Beto O'Rourke Allow Media Exception Alabama 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

How Did Big Tech Get So Big? Massive Government Cronyism – Like Section 230

Westlake Legal Group Big-Tech-620x354 How Did Big Tech Get So Big? Massive Government Cronyism – Like Section 230 Web Search washington D.C. Technology technolgy Silicon Valley Section 230 progressives Privacy Politics Policy News network neutrality Net Neutrality law Internet of Things Internet Government Front Page Stories Front Page Economy Business & Economy big tech 5g 4G

Today’s thought foray – requires us to define a few terms.  First:

Internet Service Providers (ISPs):

The companies that have in the last quarter-century invested more than a trillion dollars – building the actual Internet.  Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, AT&T, etc.  The companies that laid the Information Superhighway – upon which all the rest of us ride.  The bandwidth providers.

“Edge Providers”:

The Big Tech companies.  And not just located in the Silicon Valley – more than a few are de facto centered in Communist China.  Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc.  The biggest of the Information Superhighway riders.  The Bandwidth Hogs – consuming way more than half of all the US bandwidth the ISPs provide.

The Left loves to categorize the ISPs as evil, monster companies – demanding and getting monster government cronyism.

Free & Open Internet:

“The free and open internet is a powerful tool for everyone fighting for social change and racial justice. But companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon – and their government allies – want to destroy it.”

Except as with nigh everything Left – this is titanically stupid.  For a host of reasons.

The companies allegedly looking to destroy the free and open Internet – spent more than a trillion dollars building the free and open Internet.  I’m sure their shareholders would object to their now destroying it.

So they’re probably not going to do it.  As evidenced by the entirety of the quarter-century of the private sector Internet’s existence – during which they never, ever have.

The ISPs – and their “government allies?”  This is laughable on its face.

AT&T (Market Cap: $280 billion), Comcast (Market Cap: $209 billion) and Verizon (Market Cap: $251 billion) – are certainly big.

But these hugest of ISPs – are nowhere near as huge as the Big Tech likes of Apple (Market Cap: $1.1 trillion), Amazon (Market Cap: $869 billion) and Google (Market Cap: $863 billion).

The Big Tech companies – spend MUCH more on government candidates.  And get MUCH more government cronyism in return.

Latest Beneficiary of D.C. Cronyism: Apple – The Most Valuable Company in the World

Amazon: One Of The Biggest Of Bigfoot Cronyism-Recipient Lobbyists

Cronyism: For the Likes of Google, It is Really, REALLY Good to be a Friend of Obama

ISPs spend most of their time – asking governments to leave them alone.  This isn’t cronyism – this is begging the government to let them engage in capitalism.

Big Tech spends most of their time – demanding governments do them special favors.  This isn’t capitalism – this is cronyism.

As but one example: The very stupid policy known as Network Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is a stupidly huge government imposition in the Internet – specifically on the ISPs.  A whole host of regulations restricting just about everything ISPs do to provide us service.

ISPs ask governments – to leave them alone with this Net Neutrality nonsense.

Big Tech demands government impose Net Neutrality – because it guarantees them huge government-mandated benefits.

To name but one:

As mentioned, Big Tech consumes way more than half of all US bandwidth.  Net Neutrality – mandates they not be charged any money for any of it.  We the Little People would pay MUCH more for our service – to subsidize the likes of Apple, Amazon and Google.

Net Neutrality is massive government regulation – to impose massive Big Tech cronyism.

The ISPs’ “government allies” – are simply less government types who know how stupid Net Neutrality is…and therefore don’t want to impose it.

Big Tech’s government cronies – are sell-out politicians who know how stupid Net Neutrality is…but impose it anyway because their paymasters demand it.

All of which brings us to the biggest Big Tech cronyism of all:

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act:

“Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a piece of Internet legislation.

“It provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an interactive computer service who publish information provided by others.

“An immunity clause in the Act states that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

We must now define two additional terms:

Publisher:

What we’ve always seen pre-Internet.  Newspapers, books and the like.  They edit content – so they control content.  And thus are eligible to be sued – unprotected by Section 230.

Platform:

An almost-exclusively Internet creation.  To allow for user-provided website content – videos, comments, etc – Section 230 indemnifies the websites hosting the content from being libel from many laws for the content.

Section 230 – is a HUGE government benefit to Big Tech.

And Section 230 makes some sense – so long as the Big Tech beneficiaries uphold their tiny end of this massively beneficial bargain.

Big Tech platforms – must be open to ALL users. With content only edited or deleted – for a certain, specific set of defined obvious reasons: Posting pornography, foul language, etc.

Ideological censorship – is a Section 230 no-no.

But Leftist Big Tech – censors less government types all the time.

Conservatives Face a Tough Fight as Big Tech’s Censorship Expands

Big Tech Censors Conservatives, Christians; Facebook, Google: ‘So What?’

Big Tech Has Transitioned from ‘We Don’t Censor Conservatives’ to ‘We Do and You Can’t Stop Us’

Well, we can stop them, actually.

As with nigh all things policy – the original sin here is too much government.

In this instance, the too much government – is the massive Big Tech cronyism of Section 230.

Former FCC Bureau Chief: Masters of the Universe ‘Abused’ Section 230 to Censor Conservatives

“A spokesperson for (Texas Republican) Sen. Cruz told Breitbart News in a statement:

“‘Big Tech enjoys a subsidy that no other industry does: immunity from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That immunity is predicated on the expectation that social media would be neutral public forums.

“‘Big Tech has made it abundantly clear they have no intention of abiding by that, taking the opposite tact by operating as partisan publishers.

“‘Sen. Cruz believes if they’re going to choose to be partisan publishers, then there is little reason why they should get a special immunity from liability that other publishers, such as the New York Times, don’t enjoy.’”

Most of DC is, as nigh always, bizarrely removed from Reality – and actual answers to actual questions.

A few weeks ago I attended a DC debate on Big Tech censorship.

Conservative and Human Events Editor Will Chamberlain – wanted the government to force Big Tech companies to host just about all content.

Libertarian and Reason Magazine Associate Editor Robby Soave – wanted to leave all things relevant as is.

They were opposed to one another.  I was opposed to both.

In the hour-plus long debate – NO ONE even referenced Section 230.  It never, ever came up.

Until I mentioned it during the Question & Answer period.

Oops.

Very few people in the room seemed pleased I did.  And I was screeched at by Big Tech defenders on Twitter – who were watching the event’s livestream.

The most interesting reaction?

I will now be as vague as possible about the following – to protect the involved:

A person who works for one of the biggest of Big Tech companies – a conservative I’ve known for years – was seated next to me.  This person turned to me and whispered something along the lines of:

“If you get rid of Section 230 – it will kill these companies.”

Really?  Many of these near-trillion companies got to be near-trillion dollar companies – almost solely because of Section 230?

And they can’t exist without it?

That sounds like the quintessential definition of government cronyism.

Fake energy solar panel and wind turbine companies can’t exist without government cronyism.  Should we continue to prop up them too?

That doesn’t seem to me to be very conservative, free market or less government.

So why are so many conservative, free market and less government types – defending it?

The post How Did Big Tech Get So Big? Massive Government Cronyism – Like Section 230 appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Big-Tech-300x171 How Did Big Tech Get So Big? Massive Government Cronyism – Like Section 230 Web Search washington D.C. Technology technolgy Silicon Valley Section 230 progressives Privacy Politics Policy News network neutrality Net Neutrality law Internet of Things Internet Government Front Page Stories Front Page Economy Business & Economy big tech 5g 4G   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Flop Sweat Builds As It Sure Looks Like the Barr-Durham Probe Is Now a Criminal Investigation

Westlake Legal Group ap-john-brennan-620x409 Flop Sweat Builds As It Sure Looks Like the Barr-Durham Probe Is Now a Criminal Investigation Russia Politics Lawyer Up john durham John Brennan Joe Scarborough james comey James Clapper Front Page Stories Front Page FISA Featured Story FBI donald trump doj democrats corruption bill barr Allow Media Exception 2016 Election

CIA Director John Brennan testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, June 16, 2016, before the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on the Islamic State. Brennan said that the Islamic State remains “formidable” and “resilient,” is training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks on the West and will rely more on guerrilla-style tactics to compensate for its territorial losses in the Middle East. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Yesterday, RedState via Elizabeth Vaughn shared the news that Durham had further expanded his investigation to include James Clapper and John Brennan. This of course left Brennan flailing about wildly, wondering why the DOJ would even be interested in him.

John Brennan told NBC that Durham’s investigation is “bizarre” and said, “I don’t know what the legal basis for this is.” He doesn’t? Let me refresh his memory.

Brennan’s obsessive fear that Donald Trump might win the presidency may have instigated the whole collusion narrative. He didn’t have to twist many arms to bring others on board, but his exhaustive search for “dirt” on Trump and his insistence that the FBI open a counterintelligence investigation was key.

That news came on the heels of another report I wrote on a week earlier in which it was confirmed that Barr had expanded his reach past just FISA abuse.

However, based on what he has been finding, Durham has expanded his investigation adding agents and resources, the senior administration officials said. The timeline has grown from the beginning of the probe through the election and now has included a post-election timeline through the spring of 2017, up to when Robert Mueller was named special counsel.

With the latest report, there are a few things happening that make me think this isn’t just window dressing. In fact, I think it has morphed into a full blown criminal investigation.

Note that they’ve moved past looking at process arguments involving FISA and are now targeting specific people. Brennan and Clapper are both going to be interviewed, along with the other analysts involved in Brennan’s much ballyhooed report on Russian interference. It always appeared that the Obama administration threw that report together, lacking much of any evidence, to throw Trump’s presidency into chaos.

Further, officials within these agencies are now scrambling to lawyer up and that’s never a sign things are going well for those involved.

Durham has also requested to talk to CIA analysts involved in the intelligence assessment of Russia’s activities, prompting some of them to hire lawyers, according to three former CIA officials familiar with the matter. And there is tension between the CIA and the Justice Department over what classified documents Durham can examine, two people familiar with the matter said.

It certainly appears that Barr has progressed this into a full blown criminal investigation and that has the media scrambling.

Oh, now they are concerned with whether there’s a factual basis for an investigation? I’m sure Donald Trump would be interested in the genesis of this new rule. It’s amazing to behold the lack of self-awareness some of these outlets lack. They spent over two years rattling about Russian collusion, something we found out held no basis in fact, but now they question with a straight face whether an investigation of that process is legitimate?

And here’s Brennan’s MSNBC buddy (Brennan is a paid contributor at the network) feeling a sudden tightening on his backside.

That’s called projection boys and girls.

The idea that Bill Barr, who has shown himself to be an incredibly smart and tough figure while Attorney General, is going to be be thrown in jail once he leaves office is laughable. You can bet he’s not letting one single detail slip here and the DOJ has an absolute right to investigate corruption within their ranks. It’s not Barr who needs to lawyer up and that’s shown by the fact that it’s those he’s investigating that are running to K Street right now.

Ed Morrisey notes this over at HotAir.

The point about hiring lawyers is especially interesting. The DoJ made sure to note at the beginning that Durham was conducting an internal review, not a criminal investigation, although there was nothing to prevent it from developing into one. The DoJ does not comment on the existence of criminal investigations until they either close one or get an indictment — with a couple of notable James Comey-related exceptions — and they’re not talking now, either. These developments, however, make it look like Durham has turned the corner from review to full-blown criminal investigation.

We’ve always know the IG report from Horowitz was going to be toothless. He can’t even interview people who’ve already left government, so how exactly was he going to get to the bottom of what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, etc. did? But Barr has the power of the judicial system behind him. He can force these people to all sit for interviews, and while Comey may be sly enough to avoid trouble, Brennan is basically a stump with legs.

We’ll see where all this goes. The fact that Barr and Durham are not wrapping this up but are continuing to expand and target specific people is a bad sign for those who helped perpetrate the Russian collusion hoax.

————————————————

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 Flop Sweat Builds As It Sure Looks Like the Barr-Durham Probe Is Now a Criminal Investigation appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 300e3a-300x146 Flop Sweat Builds As It Sure Looks Like the Barr-Durham Probe Is Now a Criminal Investigation Russia Politics Lawyer Up john durham John Brennan Joe Scarborough james comey James Clapper Front Page Stories Front Page FISA Featured Story FBI donald trump doj democrats corruption bill barr Allow Media Exception 2016 Election   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

On the Economic Rise of China, Part II

Westlake Legal Group chinese-flag-620x317 On the Economic Rise of China, Part II Uncategorized trade policy President Trump International Affairs Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story economic policies Communist China China Trade Talks China Trade China

A faithful waves a Chinese flag as Pope Francis arrives for his weekly general audience in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican, Wednesday, June 6, 2018. (AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia)

China represents an existential threat to the national security of the US in terms of growth of military capabilities but more importantly in the economic realm as they pursue their “Made in China 2025” and Belt-Road initiatives. The purpose of this series is to present the contents of one of those reports in “bite-sized chunks” that are more easily digestible in order to convey a better understanding of the Chinese economy and its long-term challenges to the US and the world.

Part I introduced and summarized the Congressional Research Service report, “China’s Economic Rise: History, Trends, Challenges, and Implications for the United States,” which forms the basis for this thread series. Part I can be found here. This part covers the history of China’s economic development.

Prior to 1979, China, under the leadership of Chairman Mao Zedong, maintained a centrally planned, or command, economy. A large share of the country’s economic output was directed and controlled by the state, which set production goals, controlled prices, and allocated resources throughout most of the economy. During the 1950s, all of China’s individual household farms were collectivized into large communes. To support rapid industrialization, the central government undertook large-scale investments in physical and human capital during the 1960s and 1970s. As a result, by 1978 nearly three-fourths of industrial production was produced by centrally controlled, state-owned enterprises (SOEs), according to centrally planned output targets. Private enterprises and foreign-invested firms were generally barred.

A central goal of the Chinese government was to make China’s economy relatively self-sufficient. Foreign trade was generally limited to obtaining those goods that could not be made or obtained in China. Such policies created distortions in the economy. Since most aspects of the economy were managed and run by the central government, there were no market mechanisms to efficiently allocate resources, and thus there were few incentives for firms, workers, and farmers to become more productive or be concerned with the quality of what they produced (since they were mainly focused on production goals set by the government).

According to Chinese government statistics, China’s real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 6.7% from 1953 to 1978, although the accuracy of these data has been questioned by many analysts, some of whom contend that during this period, Chinese government officials (especially at the subnational levels) often exaggerated production levels for a variety of political reasons.

Economist Angus Maddison puts China’s actual average annual real GDP growth during this period at about 4.4%.5 In addition, China’s economy suffered significant economic downturns during the leadership of Chairman Mao Zedong, including during the Great Leap Forward from 1958 to 1962 (which led to a massive famine and reportedly the deaths of up to 45 million people) and the Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976 (which caused widespread political chaos and greatly disrupted the economy).

From 1950 to 1978, China’s per capita GDP on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis, a common measurement of a country’s living standards, doubled. However, from 1958 to 1962, Chinese living standards fell by 20.3%, and from 1966 to 1968, they dropped by 9.6%. In addition, the growth in Chinese living standards paled in comparison to those in the West, such as Japan, as indicated in this figure, which compares Chinese and Japanese per capita GDP, 1950-1978:

Westlake Legal Group Econ-Rise-Pt-II-Fig-1-620x388 On the Economic Rise of China, Part II Uncategorized trade policy President Trump International Affairs Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story economic policies Communist China China Trade Talks China Trade China

In 1978, (shortly after the death of Chairman Mao in 1976), the Chinese government decided to break with its Soviet-style economic policies by gradually reforming the economy according to free market principles and opening up trade and investment with the West, in the hope that this would significantly increase economic growth and raise living standards. As Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, the architect of China’s economic reforms, put it: “Black cat, white cat, what does it matter what color the cat is as long as it catches mice?” Beginning in 1979, China launched several economic reforms. The central government-initiated price and ownership incentives for farmers, which enabled them to sell a portion of their crops on the free market. In addition, the government established four special economic zones along the coast for the purpose of attracting foreign investment, boosting exports, and importing high technology products into China.

Additional reforms, which followed in stages, sought to decentralize economic policymaking in several sectors, especially trade. Economic control of various enterprises was given to provincial and local governments, which were generally allowed to operate and compete on free market principles, rather than under the direction and guidance of state planning. In addition, citizens were encouraged to start their own businesses.

Additional coastal regions and cities were designated as open cities and development zones, which allowed them to experiment with free-market reforms and to offer tax and trade incentives to attract foreign investment. In addition, state price controls on a wide range of products were gradually eliminated. Trade liberalization was also a major key to China’s economic success. Removing trade barriers encouraged greater competition and attracted FDI inflows.

China’s gradual implementation of economic reforms sought to identify which policies produced favorable economic outcomes (and which did not) so that they could be implemented in other parts of the country, a process Deng Xiaoping reportedly referred to as “crossing the river by touching the stones.”

Since the introduction of economic reforms, China’s economy has grown substantially faster than during the pre-reform period, and, for the most part, has avoided major economic disruptions. From 1979 to 2018, China’s annual real GDP averaged 9.5%, as shown below.

Westlake Legal Group Econ-Rise-Pt-II-Fig-2-620x403 On the Economic Rise of China, Part II Uncategorized trade policy President Trump International Affairs Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story economic policies Communist China China Trade Talks China Trade China

This has meant that on average China has been able to double the size of its economy in real terms every eight years. The global economic slowdown, which began in 2008, had a significant impact on the Chinese economy.

China’s media reported in early 2009 that 20 million migrant workers had returned home after losing their jobs because of the financial crisis and that real GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2008 had fallen to 6.8% year-on-year. The Chinese government responded by implementing a $586 billion economic stimulus package, aimed largely at funding infrastructure and loosening monetary policies to increase bank lending. Such policies enabled China to counter the effects of the sharp global fall in demand for Chinese products.

From 2008 to 2010, China’s real GDP growth averaged 9.7%. However, the rate of GDP growth declined slowed for the next six consecutive years, falling from 10.6% in 2010 to 6.7% in 2016. Real GDP ticked up to 6.8% in 2017, but slowed to 6.6% in 2018, (although it rose to 6.8% in 2017).

The IMF’s April 2019 World Economic Outlook projects that China’s real GDP growth will slow each year over the next six years, falling to 5.5% in 2024, as reflected in the below figure:

Westlake Legal Group Econ-Rise-Pt-II-Fig-3-620x387 On the Economic Rise of China, Part II Uncategorized trade policy President Trump International Affairs Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story economic policies Communist China China Trade Talks China Trade China

Many economists warn that China’s economic growth could slow further if the United States and China continue to impose punitive economic measures against each other, such the tariff hikes that have resulted from U.S. action under Section 301 and Chinese retaliation. The Organization for Economic and Cooperation and Development (OECD) projects that increased tariffs on all trade between the United States and China could reduce China’s real GDP in 2021-2022 by 1.1% relative to the OECD’s baseline economic projections.

Economists generally attribute much of China’s rapid economic growth to two main factors: large-scale capital investment (financed by large domestic savings and foreign investment) and rapid productivity growth. These two factors appear to have gone together hand in hand.

This ends Part II. In the next part of this series, we will examine those two factors, which are the main causes of China’s rapid economic growth.

Note: accurate estimates of Chinese economic growth are difficult for foreigners to ascertain, as the ChiComs are known to exaggerate performance in much the same manner that the Soviets did in order to “achieve the numbers” in their 5-year plans. In addition, the renminbi isn’t a convertible currency and is regularly manipulated by the Chicoms, which makes estimating real Chinese growth difficult to ascertain as noted here. Also, China’s financial services and real estate industries are opaque and, as many observers remark, “houses of cards” waiting to tumble down as discussed here. As such, the Chinese economy is highly vulnerable to external pressures, especially the imposition of US tariffs. Economic leverage works against China despite the caterwauling of globalists to the contrary. And if it’s one thing that President Trump understands, it’s the use of economic leverage in foreign policy!

The end.

The post On the Economic Rise of China, Part II appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group borders-2099203_640-300x221 On the Economic Rise of China, Part II Uncategorized trade policy President Trump International Affairs Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story economic policies Communist China China Trade Talks China Trade China   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Joaquin Castro Slams Trump Administration’s Human Rights Violation; Except that it Happened under Obama

Westlake Legal Group JoaquinCastroAPimage-620x317 Joaquin Castro Slams Trump Administration’s Human Rights Violation; Except that it Happened under Obama Trump administration Obama Administration Joaquin Castro Impeachment of President Trump Human Rights Violations Human Rights Front Page Stories Featured Story Dreamers donald trump democrats corruption Campaigns Barack Obama Allow Media Exception 2020

Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, speaks about a resolution to block President Donald Trump’s emergency border security declaration on Capitol Hill, Monday, Feb. 25, 2019 in Washington. House Democrats have introduced a resolution to block the national emergency declaration that President Donald Trump issued last week to fund his long-sought wall along the U.S-Mexico border, setting up a fight that could result in Trump’s first-ever veto. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

 

The Hill just republished a story about migrant children quietly being adopted by U.S. citizens after their biological parents are deported. The article features a young El Salvadoran woman named Araceli Ramos. She ran away from her abusive husband, taking their daughter Alexa with her, to seek asylum in the U.S. Usually, a woman fleeing from abuse would be granted asylum, however, due to outstanding criminal charges against her, she was refused. The story can be viewed here.

Araceli was sent to a detention facility and her daughter was placed in foster care with a U.S. couple in Michigan. After several months in detention, Araceli, unable to find an attorney, was deported. She claims that an immigration agent forced her to sign a waiver to leave her daughter behind.

Araceli tried to get her daughter back, but the foster family had grown fond of her and allegedly ignored repeated requests from DHS to return her. According to The Hill:

When officially ordered to return Alexa to her mother in December of 2016, the foster parents, Sherri and Kory Barr, sued claiming that she would be abused if returned home. A Michigan judge granted them guardianship.

After pressure from social media and the Salvadoran government for the family to be reunited mounted, the Department of Justice (DOJ) weighed in, saying that “the Barrs obtained their temporary guardianship order in violation of federal law.”

The Barrs’ attorney and the Michigan judge were also found to have violated federal law by not notifying Alexa or her mother about the guardianship proceedings.

Alexa was finally returned to her mother in February 2017. Once returned home, Alexa took time to adjust to living in El Salvador, initially pining to return to Michigan and refusing to eat or play.

In a statement to The Hill, a DHS spokeswoman said that all of the cases the AP reviewed came under the Obama administration, emphasizing that all of the adoptions were done legally.

It looks like human rights warrior and 2020 presidential candidate Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) missed that line in the story. He’s been very busy these days campaigning to be Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) running mate and immediately took to twitter to blame Trump.

The Trump Administration intentionally separated kids from their parents and then put the kids up for adoption — permanently separating them. This is a human rights violation committed by the United States government.

And it looks like journalist failed to read carefully as well. She went so far as to say that “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” is among the acts the United Nations considers to be genocide.”

Yikes!

One of her followers responded: “TRUMP/GOP guilty of GENOCIDE”

After several responses, one of her followers actually read the story and pointed out the line they’d all missed:

In a statement to The Hill, a DHS spokeswoman said that all of the cases the AP reviewed came under the Obama administration, emphasizing that all of the adoptions were done legally.

Will Joaquin apologize? Probably not. He’ll just let people go right on thinking that Trump is a violator of human rights because it serves his agenda. Remember when he posted a list of the largest GOP donors in Texas a while back. Rather than apologize, he doubled down. That’s just how he rolls.

The post Joaquin Castro Slams Trump Administration’s Human Rights Violation; Except that it Happened under Obama appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group JoaquinCastroAPimage-300x153 Joaquin Castro Slams Trump Administration’s Human Rights Violation; Except that it Happened under Obama Trump administration Obama Administration Joaquin Castro Impeachment of President Trump Human Rights Violations Human Rights Front Page Stories Featured Story Dreamers donald trump democrats corruption Campaigns Barack Obama Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

FINALLY: Elizabeth Warren Will Unveil Her Medicare For All Plan. We Still Go Broke With It.

Westlake Legal Group warren-scowl-300x153 FINALLY: Elizabeth Warren Will Unveil Her Medicare For All Plan. We Still Go Broke With It. warren Front Page Stories Featured Story Elizabeth Warren Allow Media Exception 2019

 (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty, File)

Will miracles ever cease? Fauxchontas has finally decided to put one of her plans down on PAPER.

After last week’s bullying session at the CNN Democrat debate where everyone went after Elizabeth Warren on her lack of plans, she decided to finally put one on paper for all to see.

According to The Hill

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a leading Democratic presidential candidate, said Sunday she will soon be releasing a plan outlining how she will finance her “Medicare for All” health care proposal.

“I plan over the next few weeks to put out a plan that talks about, specifically, the cost of Medicare for all and, specifically, how we pay for it,” Warren said at a campaign rally in Indianola, Iowa, according to The New York Times.

“This is something I’ve been working on for months and months, and it’s got just a little more work until it’s finished,” she added.

“I will not sign a bill into law that does not lower costs for middle-class families,” she said at the debate.

She won’t sign a bill that increases costs to Americans? Then she won’t be doing any version of Medicare for all quite frankly.

Contrary to all the happy talk you hear from Democrats on this issue the system of “medicare” is already heading to insolvency. You don’t trust me, a simple libertarian writing for a conservative site? Well, how about the New York Times which penned this report from this past April called…Social Security and Medicare Funds Face Insolvency. 

As one of the candidates said on stage last week they give credit to Bernie being he is at least being honest that he is going to raise taxes on everyone to do this. Of course, adding more onto a system that is already set to crash is not a great idea but he is not whistling past the graveyard hoping to not see any graves.

Elizabeth Warren has been putting off anything on paper because once she does the plan will be exposed for the crap that anyone who watches this already knows it is. She can not add more people and reduce costs. She can’t add more people and not raises taxes.

That she is now the frontrunner for the Democrats according to the polls means the party is more interested in wishing for things than actually tackling real problems. They are not even pretending to care about reality to which we all live in.

Just say this is what you will do and magically it will appear.

I cant wait to see this plan and see how it is broken down in real-time on Twitter. I know it won’t be as big as the Indian in her DNA reveal but it might give that event a run for its money.

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 FINALLY: Elizabeth Warren Will Unveil Her Medicare For All Plan. We Still Go Broke With It. appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group warren-scowl-300x153 FINALLY: Elizabeth Warren Will Unveil Her Medicare For All Plan. We Still Go Broke With It. warren Front Page Stories Featured Story Elizabeth Warren Allow Media Exception 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Police Continue to Bash Beto Over His Promise to Send Authorities to the Homes of Gun Owners

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeElPaso-620x317 Police Continue to Bash Beto Over His Promise to Send Authorities to the Homes of Gun Owners sheriff second amendment Politics police Guns gun control Front Page Stories elections democrats Beto O'Rourke Allow Media Exception 2A 2020

Presidential candidate and former congressman Beto O’Rourke speaks with the media outside the Walmart store in the aftermath of a mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, Sunday, Aug. 4, 2019. (AP Photo/Andres Leighton)

Failed Democratic Texas Senate candidate and failing Democratic 2020 candidate Robert “Beto” O’Rourke made some promises on behalf of America’s law enforcement that America’s law enforcement isn’t happy about, and they’re speaking out about it.

Recently, O’Rourke went on MSNBC and told Joe Scarborough of “Morning Joe” that if he became president and by some dark miracle managed to make AR-15s illegal, he would institute a mandatory buyback. Should you as a gun owner not participate in that buyback, then O’Rourke said he would send law enforcement to pay you a visit.

As I reported, Sheriff’s departments from across the nation began speaking up and letting O’Rourke know that his threat wasn’t only not going to happen due to its unconstitutionality, it’s absolutely foolish in that it could result in the deaths of both civilians and officers. They lambasted O’Rourke for being so flippant about putting lives at risk.

(READ: Sheriffs Send Beto To The Burn Ward Over His Threat To Send Law Enforcement To Gun Owner’s Homes)

Apparently, the bashing from law enforcement is continuing, but now it involves the largest police union in the nation.

According to the Washington Free Beacon’s Stephen Gutowski, the National Fraternal Order of Police not only stated that his threat was unconstitutional but rubbed salt in the wound by stating that O’Rourke is likely to never be elected:

“Mr. O’Rourke may not be aware that state and local police officers (who comprise more than 90% of all police in the U.S.) receive their orders from their local jurisdictions – not from the Federal government,” Jim Pasco, executive director of the FOP, wrote in an email to the Free Beacon. “Further, any such legislation, if it passed, would no doubt be vigorously litigated with a view to its apparent inconsistency with the Second Amendment.”

“In view of the foregoing, and in view of Mr. O’Rourke’s current standing in the polls, we do not view this as an issue we will have to grapple within the foreseeable future,” he added.

It doesn’t stop there. Gutowski also reported that Sheriff AJ Louderback of Jackson County, Texas, warned that officers would mutiny en masse should a politician try to implement a threat like that into action, and flat out stated his refusal to participate in such an action should he be ordered to:

“I think he’s seriously misjudging the law enforcement response to what he wants to do,” Louderback told the Free Beacon. “Many sheriffs would not comply with his plan.”

Louderback sits on the immigration and government affairs committees of the National Sheriffs’ Association, which represents over 3,000 sheriffs across the country. He described O’Rourke’s plan as unworkable and counterproductive.

“This guy’s plan is ridiculous,” he said. “Everyone is looking for solutions to violent crime but this isn’t one of them. I’m not going to harass my citizens for owning guns.”

The National Association of Police Organizations, which represents a massive number of officers, also verbally slapped O’Rourke for his threat:

“It’s ironic that Beto O’Rourke, who was slamming police as ‘the new Jim Crow’ just a year ago, now finds a need for police when he wants to disarm individuals,” Bill Johnson, executive director of the group, told the Free Beacon. “Maybe poor Beto should spend less time live-streaming his visits to the dentist and attend a basics civics class instead. He’d be reminded that the very first law every police officer swears to uphold is the Constitution.”

The number of officers refusing to do comply with Democrat’s “door to door” promise of gun confiscation should tip off the left to what kind of country they’re trying to disarm. When even law enforcement officials at the very top of offices and unions are openly revolting against you before you’re in a position to be revolted against, you’re not going to have a good time getting your authoritarianism into action.

The post Police Continue to Bash Beto Over His Promise to Send Authorities to the Homes of Gun Owners appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeElPaso-300x153 Police Continue to Bash Beto Over His Promise to Send Authorities to the Homes of Gun Owners sheriff second amendment Politics police Guns gun control Front Page Stories elections democrats Beto O'Rourke Allow Media Exception 2A 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com