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 94)

Conservatism Isn’t Dead, But It is in Hibernation.

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

It seems that every time you turn around, someone is predicting the end of conservatism. Since a wave of populism swept President Donald Trump into the Oval Office, many have speculated that his ascent marks the final death knell for the conservative movement. But those who are concerned that conservatism is on its deathbed might want to take another look.

Recently, Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton penned an excellent op-ed for The Hill in which he discusses the potential death of the conservative movement. In the piece, he points out the growing influence of progressivism in American culture, especially among the youth. He writes:

“As liberalism continues to expand and make progress with an ever younger and more diverse America, conservatism has failed to articulate its purpose and translate that into a meaningful debate about politics and policy in a way that meets the challenges of today. Instead, it has become reactionary, incapable of addressing today’s problems.”

He’s not wrong. Socialism seems to be creeping into the zeitgeist of American youth. And the conservative movement, including the Republican Party, has not yet discovered an answer for the increasing acceptance of Marxist thought. A few months ago I interviewed conservative activist Mahgdalen Rose, who frequently discusses the lack of youth outreach on the right.

Rose explained that one of the reasons why the GOP has such a hard time reaching young voters is because they lack a coherent strategy. “They don’t run voter registration drives, they don’t strategize, the infighting (sabotage of each other) is so rampant that they can’t unify against anything, and they look at the fight against Socialism as a game.”

Singleton also points out that the conservative movement failed to articulate a message that explains why conservatism is still relevant to American society, especially in the age of Trump. “The root of conservatism from Latin is conservare, which literally means to preserve, but American conservatives have failed to articulate what is being conserved under Donald Trump,” he writes. “To the vast majority of the American people, conservatism appears to be nothing more than an ideology looking backward, but to be conservative does not mean that one has to be reactionary.”

Again, Singleton is correct. Despite winning big in 2016, the conservative movement has not yet found its voice – it has not yet figured out how to communicate its message in a way that resonates with America. Because of this, despite earning victories in the government, conservatives are still stuck reacting to the left’s attempts to move the country leftward. Instead of setting the narrative, have become its puppet.

To make matters worse, the conservative movement, along with the Republican Party, has failed to attract a wider base of voters. Singleton writes: “And instead of expanding to make a case to new groups of people, conservatism has weaponized them and turned them into negatives, thus isolating groups that otherwise might have been new recruits to the ideology.”

The conservative movement, whose adherents claim to be a wide tent, has shown itself to be rather exclusive. When it comes to reaching different types of Americans, the right has been a dismal failure.

If you follow me, you know I’m passionate about getting the GOP to start speaking to minority voters in person. And I’m not alone; other conscious black conservatives are doing the same. But instead, the conservative punditry class still relies on the same tired talking points that repulse those they wish to attract.

Sounds pretty dire, doesn’t it? Despite gaining some wins and the rise of conservative media, the right is still not making progress in the culture. Let’s not mince words. Trumpian populism has eclipsed conservatism, which has been forced to take a back seat to competing ideologies.

It has become that nerdy, socially awkward, ashy – yeah, I said ashy – kid who nobody likes. It is the annoying hall monitor threatening to tell on everyone who misbehaves. And most importantly: It is unattractive.

Conservatism needs a makeover. It needs a new wardrobe. A new hairstyle. A new car. Also, conservatism needs some lotion. While conservatism is not quite in the mainstream anymore, we need to focus on reformation. We need to start doing things differently.

Fresh new strategies, tactics, arguments, and platforms are the only things that will revitalize the movement. Trump was a wrecking ball, and instrument intended to smash the GOP establishment to little pieces. But the conservative cultural establishment would benefit from a sound smashing as well.

There are signs that a change could be on the horizon, though. A recent Pew Research Poll revealed that Generation Z is more conservative than previous generations. This might come as a shock given the left’s stranglehold on our educational institutions. But it’s happening nonetheless, and conservatives now have an opportunity to make inroads with the youth.

Another positive development is the fact that conservative media is on the upswing, with more right-leaning content on the internet being consumed. Right-leaning content creators are expanding their audiences and reaching more people. These are both positive developments.

But be warned, nothing will change unless we evolve. What we do now will determine the fate of conservatism and what happens after populism fades. As conservatives, we must force the GOP to widen its base; they must be made to see that ignoring minorities and young voters will no longer be acceptable.

We must abandon the old talking points and messaging of previous decades and construct a new platform, one that will attract instead of repel. Otherwise, Singleton’s predictions might come true, and we will live to see the demise of American conservatism. Some things are no longer worth conserving.

 

What do you think? Is conservatism dying? Let me know in the comments below!

If you want to connect, follow me on Twitter: @JeffOnTheRight

 

The post Conservatism Isn’t Dead, But It is in Hibernation. appeared first on RedState.

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

Forced Union Representation is Just as Unconstitutional as Being Forced to Pay Union Dues

Suppose you opened your own home-based business offering childcare in your community to your friends, acquaintances and new clients as word of mouth spreads.

The parents approach you, ask your hours and rates, what you provide versus what they bring or supplement for their child, and together you reach an agreement that works for both parties.

Now imagine finding out that because one of the families you’re serving receives low-income assistance to offset the cost of childcare so they can work outside the home, the state now requires you to accept union representation you don’t need or want.

Without your consent, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has been designated as your exclusive bargaining representative, able to dictate the terms of how you run your home-based childcare business — even though you’re not even a member of the union.

It seems outrageous and unfair, but this is exactly what’s going on for thousands of childcare providers across the State of Washington.

Katherine Miller is a licensed childcare provider in Washington, contracting with the state’s Department of Early Learning to provide services to children under one of the agency’s myriad assistance programs. She does not want to be a member of SEIU, nor does she want to be represented by the union or be associated with the union leaders’ political activities.

Washington state has a message for Katherine: Tough luck.

And she has a response for the state: See you in court.

Katherine is currently embroiled in a protected lawsuit with the state of Washington demanding it recognize her First Amendment rights of free speech and association to decline a relationship she doesn’t desire with a labor union whose values she doesn’t agree with.

Unfortunately, the federal courts — most recently the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — have been unjustly standing in her way by refusing to reasonably apply Supreme Court precedent.

In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. Quinn that homecare providers whose clients are subsidized by Medicaid are not “public employees” and cannot be forced to accept union representation.

Miller – also an in-home care provider – has not been a member of SEIU since 2014, but because the Harris ruling has not been broadly applied beyond Medicaid-paid homecare providers, she’s still forced by Washington state law to accept SEIU representation in bargaining matters, and is correspondingly linked to the union’s political activities.

(Interestingly, Washington’s state government gave a half nod to the Harris decision, discontinuing the deduction of agency fees from in-home care providers such as Miller.)

With legal representation provided by the Freedom Foundation and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Katherine Miller and another childcare provider, Cynthia Mentele, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against state officials and SEIU.

The district court rejected their argument in 2016, but while the plaintiffs awaited their appeal to the 9th Circuit, the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling on forced government union participation, Janus v. AFSCME, in 2018.

In Janus, the court overturned a much-criticized 44-year-old ruling to affirm that government employees cannot be compelled, as a condition of employment, to either become a full union member or pay so-called “agency fees” to offset the cost of union bargaining on their behalf.

Forced dues, the justices agreed, is a violation of their First Amendment rights. Janus was the logical successor to Harris and opened the door to free all government employees from unwanted union intrusion in their lives.

Prior to Janus, Miller, Mentele and thousands of other home childcare providers could make a compelling logical case for why it violated their free speech rights to have a union speak for them against their wishes. Now, in the wake of Janus, the legal rationale is incontrovertible.

If compelling government employees to pay dues or fees to a union they don’t support is a violation of their Constitutional rights, how could any reasonable person — or judge — conclude that forcing them to accept representation from the very same union is any more defensible?

And yet that’s precisely what the 9th Circuit ruled. Ignoring both Harris v. Quinn and Janus v. AFSCME, the country’s most overturned circuit court held in February 2019 that exclusive representation does not impinge on associational freedoms.

Cynthia Mentele, eager to assert her own First Amendment rights, has since ceased accepting childcare subsidies so that she is no longer a “partial” state employee.

Meanwhile, Katherine Miller — still working with the Freedom Foundation and National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation — has appealed the 9th Circuit’s ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is expected to announce soon whether it will hear the case.

Like Janus, Miller v. Inslee has the potential to free thousands of Americans across the country from government union tyranny once and for all.

Given that federal courts on the West Coast are thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court’s rulings in both Harris and Janus, a ruling by the court in Miller affirming the First Amendment rights of all in-home care providers to choose how they wish to be represented in their business is essential to provide consistency across the federal bench for all Americans, regardless of where they reside.

Ashley Varner is Vice President of Communications and Federal Affairs for the Freedom Foundation, a free-market organization committed to helping free government employees from forced unionization.

The post Forced Union Representation is Just as Unconstitutional as Being Forced to Pay Union Dues appeared first on RedState.

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

On Rappers, CVS Ladies, and the N-Word

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

I guess the N-word is what we’re doing on Twitter today.

It seems that every so often, a conversation arises on the right about the use of the term. It’s usually a response to a viral video showing someone using the word in a derogatory manner.

Or sometimes it comes up because a famous individual is caught saying it. This time, it was the now-infamous CVS lady, who was filmed screaming at a black woman and repeatedly calling her the N-word.

“I hate n*ggers!” she yelled as she walked to her car. The woman began using the slur over and over again: “I would kill a n*gger, but the law says I can’t kill the n*ggers. If the law didn’t say that I couldn’t kill the n*ggers, they’d all be dead.”

This is where I would normally say: “Imagine being this person.” Instead, just be grateful that you’re not.

The identity of the woman was finally revealed, and she lost her job. But that hasn’t stopped the backlash.

Conservative pundit Brandon Tatum posted a video on YouTube titled “The White lady at CVS can’t say it BUT Rappers can?” In the video, he played the footage of the woman’s rant, then played clips of rappers using the N-word in their music.

He then argued that the woman’s use of the word was equivalent to how hip-hop artists use it in their songs. “If you gonna be mad and offended because some white lady at CVS used the N-word, you should be offended when Nipsey do it, you should be offended when Young Jeezy do it,” he said.

Tatum then discussed the fact that white supremacist violence against blacks is far less than black-on-black violence. It was a departure from the original point, but it echoed the same arguments made when Congress held hearings discussing the impact of white nationalism.

Needless to say, his video elicited quite a reaction. Some agreed with his opinion while others did not. Interestingly enough, many of those who disagreed with Tatum were Trump supporters. One user tweeted:

Another took issue with the false equivalency in his arguments, tweeting:

Lastly, another argued that there is a distinct difference between the two:

<https://twitter.com/RealPaulWinters/status/1177952177697878016 The debate over the N-word has been constant on the right. But it is also a discussion common in the black community as well. Some believe that the word is harmless when used by other blacks. Others think it should never be used by anyone regardless of the meaning. People on both sides of this argument make compelling points. But this particular video obfuscates the issue in a way that is unnecessary and intellectually dishonest. Those who responded to Tatum’s video were right: There is no equivalency between the CVS lady’s use of the epithet and the way the word is used among blacks. Most know that when blacks use the N-word in reference to one another, it is typically a term of endearment, a way to call someone “friend” or “brother.” It is apparent that the lady in the video was not using it in this fashion; she was using it in the traditional manner, as a slur. The notion that these two situations are the same is patently absurd. Regardless of where one falls on the debate over the N-word, it is easy to see how one is far less offensive than the other. If you think nobody should use the word, that’s fine. Not everyone is going to agree, but I believe you can make a valid case for it. As stated previously, blacks fall on both sides of this issue. But to pretend that a rapper using the word is the same as an actual racist is an intellectually dishonest way to distract from the conversation and it downplays the woman's behavior. And the notion that the issue of white supremacist violence vs. black-on-black crime is at all relevant to the conversation is a bit silly. Nobody – including individuals on the left – actually believes this lady is going to go on a killing spree in Watts. Nor do they believe that white nationalists are hiding behind every tree with a rope waiting to kill the nearest black person. People on both sides of the political spectrum were rightly offended by the woman’s actions because they were clearly racist, and the majority of Americans are offended by actual racism. If we’re going to discuss these issues, we must discuss them honestly, and without political agendas. Otherwise, productive conversations cannot happen.   What do you think? Let me know in the comments below. If you want to discuss further, follow me on Twitter: @JeffOnTheRight

The post On Rappers, CVS Ladies, and the N-Word appeared first on RedState.

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

Trump Attacks! Calls Nadler, Schiff, and ‘AOC Plus 3’ a Bunch of ‘Democrat Savages’

Westlake Legal Group DonaldTrumpAPimage-620x317 Trump Attacks! Calls Nadler, Schiff, and ‘AOC Plus 3’ a Bunch of ‘Democrat Savages’ white house washington D.C. Uncategorized Politics Jerrold Nadler International Affairs Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Congress AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez adam schiff 2020

President Donald Trump points to cheering supporters as he leaves a campaign rally, Thursday, Aug. 15, 2019, in Manchester, N.H. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)

 

 

First of all, if you missed it, ya gotta read “Woman’s Boyfriend Shoots Her In The Head, But She Forgets For Almost Two Months So They Keep Dating.”

Moving on:

On Saturday, the President had a few choice words for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, and House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff:

“Can you imagine if these Do Nothing Democrat Savages, people like Nadler, Schiff, AOC Plus 3, and many more, had a Republican Party who would have done to Obama what the Do Nothings are doing to me. Oh well, maybe next time!”

His post, of course, hits the Twitterwaves amid escalating chants of “Impeach!” (Also, “Impeach the Mother*****r!” — here)

Personally, I find the Democrats’ move rather odd:

Firstly, keeping the Ukraine issue in the news will drag Joe through the mud and give Elizabeth a chance to take the lead (which she already has, according to this poll).

And, as I noted previously:

“[A]s surely many would agree, Donald Trump against the mild-mannered Democrat in a no-holds-barred debate will be like Dracula fighting a mosquito — they may both technically be out for blood, but one will just step on the other.”

Secondly, what’s the idea here? America voted in Trump. Why keep trying to fight the election, aka the will of the people? Trump’s already more than half-way through the term, and you’re still trying to undo 2016?

If they’re right about America, and if they have superior ideas, he’ll be ousted in 2020.

It seems the only reason to try to kick him out the back door is if they believe he’ll win again.

And if they believe that, then they believe it’s what America wants. Why, then, would they attempt to cut off at the pass the very country they serve?

Over and over, they’ve said Trump is a threat to Democracy. Isn’t that what they’re being, if the above is the case?

And if they’re that sure he’ll be re-elected, why wouldn’t they try to change lever-pulling minds by convincing America liberal policies are superior?

Regardless, Nadler responded to the President’s jab:

Alexandria likened it to a remix:

As for the other mention in Trump’s Twittering, the Schiff riff is easy to understand; Fox reports:

On Thursday, Schiff pressed Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire on his decision to not to relay a whistleblower complaint about that call. Instead of sending the complaint to the inspector general, Maguire notified the White House.

But their quest appears destined to lead nowhere:

Trump, on Wednesday, released a rough transcript of his call with Zelensky. Neither that transcript nor the whistleblower report contained an explicity quid pro quo offer of foreign aid for an investigation into Biden. But some Democrats have suggested the transcript clearly showed Trump seeking some kind of exchange with the Ukrainian government.

Man, I sure do miss the days when Washington was about the debate of ideas.

Remember JFK? That guy had some notions.

It seems the only idea contemporary Democrats have to offer is “Trump is Lucifer.”

I don’t see that playing particular well.

Voters will get to the polls and realize there’s no one else and nothing else to vote for — Dems spent the last four years just calling Trump a poopie pants.

Then he’ll get clinch another 4 years, and they’ll be crapping themselves.

Welcome to Washington D.C., where the D.C. stands for Diaper Change.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here and here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Pro-Communist ‘Revolution Club’ Protests Trump’s Visit By Burning An American Flag In Front Of The Beverly Hills Hotel. Why?

How Far Would You Go For A Lost Love? Here’s An Incredible Story About A Family And Their Commitment To Never Give Up

The BBC Releases A Lesson Plan For 9-Year-Olds: There Are More Than 100 Genders. Disagree And Go To Jail

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 Trump Attacks! Calls Nadler, Schiff, and ‘AOC Plus 3’ a Bunch of ‘Democrat Savages’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group DonaldTrumpAPimage-300x153 Trump Attacks! Calls Nadler, Schiff, and ‘AOC Plus 3’ a Bunch of ‘Democrat Savages’ white house washington D.C. Uncategorized Politics Jerrold Nadler International Affairs Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Congress AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez adam schiff 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Oops. It Turns Out the Obama White House Stored Foreign Call Transcripts On A Highly Secure Server Just Like Trump

Westlake Legal Group Jesus-facepalm-620x413 Oops. It Turns Out the Obama White House Stored Foreign Call Transcripts On A Highly Secure Server Just Like Trump whistleblower complaint volodymyr zelensky Ukraine Susan Rice Politics Michael Atkinson Front Page Stories Featured Story douchebaggery donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception

When you get right down to it, there was a lot of profoundly stupid and nonsensical stuff in the so-called whistleblower complaint. Let’s start with the  assertion that President Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine in order to pull a #QuidProJoe stunt to try to strong arm them into investigating corruption rather than follow Biden’s example and trying to force them cover up corruption.

The stupidest thing was alleging an impropriety existed when the Trump administration elected to move transcripts of presidential conversations to a storage system used for sensitive information.

I.    Efforts to restrict access to records related to the call

In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to “lock down” all records  of  the  phone  call, especially  the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced-as is  customary-by  the  White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House  officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.

 

  • White House officials told me that they were “directed” by White-House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level
  • Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system  that  is otherwise  used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One  White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security

I do not know whether similar measures were taken to restrict access to other records of the call, such as contemporaneous handwritten notes taken by those who listened in.

This is from Fusion Natasha

Just a few facts.
1. The President is the original classification authority for the transcripts. He has the authority to classify them and limit their distribution as he sees fit.
2. No mid-grade CIA toad gets a vote in how the president decides to secure documents.
3. Because transcripts of his calls had been leaked on at least two occasions in an effort to embarrass him so small wonder he chose to restrict access.
4. Exactly zero Obama executive orders apply to the Trump White House. Just like exactly zero Bush EOs applied to the Obama White House.

To put it bluntly, you may not like how the Trump White House does business but no one is asking you.

But, as it turns out, the very premise of this particular part of the complaint is just another tarted up lie.

This is how The Federalist’s David Marcus sums it up:

So from Rice we now know the decision to store the conversation on the top-secret server was not unprecedented, but a decision that Obama’s administration made multiple times as well, using its own discretion, just as the Trump administration has. And from ABC News’ reporting we know that this has been a long-standing practice in the Trump White House to protect against a high level of leaks.

Both of these revelations undermine the theory that in this specific case, some unique and bizarre method was used to hide the transcript and engage in a cover up. Rather, the Trump administration appears to have been engaging in business as usual.

This whole incident is simply an attempt to force the appointment of yet another special counsel, to force the recusal of Attorney General Bill Barr, and to be a shabby skeleton upon which to try to build an non-laughable case for impeachment. That’s it. All of it.

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

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

The post Oops. It Turns Out the Obama White House Stored Foreign Call Transcripts On A Highly Secure Server Just Like Trump appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Jesus-facepalm-300x200 Oops. It Turns Out the Obama White House Stored Foreign Call Transcripts On A Highly Secure Server Just Like Trump whistleblower complaint volodymyr zelensky Ukraine Susan Rice Politics Michael Atkinson Front Page Stories Featured Story douchebaggery donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Senate Democrat Who Claimed Evidence of Trump-Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Changes His Story

Westlake Legal Group a8636803-f428-4e76-ab5b-b516cf1d9e5e-620x317 Senate Democrat Who Claimed Evidence of Trump-Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Changes His Story whistle-blower Ukraine Trump scandal pressure Politics media bias Made up lying Joe Biden hack Front Page Stories Front Page free beacon Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption Chris Murphy

It’s almost like all these Democrats who constantly proclaim they’ve got evidence that will bring Trump down are just full of it?

As we move through the ridiculousness that is the current Trump-Ukraine “scandal,” one figure that attempted to place himself as offering corroboration of wrongdoing was Sen. Chris Murphy. He claimed that Ukrainian president Zelensky personally told him Trump pressured him to investigate Biden.

This per the Free Beacon.

Senator Chris Murphy (D., Conn.), who traveled to Ukraine in early September, told reporters this week that he had heard “directly” from Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky that Zelensky felt pressured by Trump to investigate Hunter Biden’s involvement with Ukrainian gas giant Burisma…

…The senator said Monday that the “entire new Ukrainian administration” including Zelensky told him they believed the United States withheld aid due to his “unwillingness to investigate the Bidens.”

“Once I got on the ground there, I heard about how confused the entire new Ukrainian administration was about the nature of these demands they were getting from the Trump administration to conduct this political investigation, and that they worry that the aid that was being cut off to Ukraine by the president was a consequence for their unwillingness, at the time, to investigate the Bidens,” Murphy said, adding that the concern was relayed to him “from the president directly.”

This was bandied about early this week as proof that Trump had broken the law and applied immense pressure on the Ukrainian president to investigate Joe Biden. Eventually, we’d get the transcript and learn that it was a completely mundane conversation with no pressure or threats applied. Actually, it was surprising just how nonchalant Trump was about Biden. He didn’t press the issue at all and Ukraine wasn’t even aware of any holdup with the military aid.

It’s also worth nothing that Murphy’s claims of what Zelensky told him were back-filled. He originally made no mention of any such conversation and only took to the press to make his claims after the whistle-blower story broke. It was way, way too convenient. Then the Beacon got a hold of the Sept. 11th audio, where Murphy is shown to have no mentioned any of this.

Now, apparently realizing he’s been caught in a lie, Murphy is running to change his story.

Oops. That’s pretty for removed from “they thought aid was being withheld because of Biden” isn’t it? Far removed might be an understatement. It’s not even close to the same thing.

And just like that, another plank in all this nonsense collapses. Will any media outlet call out Murphy for lying? Of course they won’t, but I’m not sure it matters anymore. There are plenty of alternative forms of media that are doing great work on this story and the news is getting out there. CNN and The New York Times can keep playing patty cake.

————————————————

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 Senate Democrat Who Claimed Evidence of Trump-Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Changes His Story appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group SenChrisMurphy-300x165 Senate Democrat Who Claimed Evidence of Trump-Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Changes His Story whistle-blower Ukraine Trump scandal pressure Politics media bias Made up lying Joe Biden hack Front Page Stories Front Page free beacon Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption Chris Murphy   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Man Gets Harassed and Accused of Shoplifting Over the Suspicious Bulge in His Pants. He Keeps Insisting it’s His Penis

Westlake Legal Group thompson-submachine-gun-2878574_1280-620x268 Man Gets Harassed and Accused of Shoplifting Over the Suspicious Bulge in His Pants. He Keeps Insisting it’s His Penis Uncategorized theft stoke-on-trent steve whitehurst scott's menwear Not Today Internet jd sports Front Page Stories Featured Story False Accusation England Culture crime Allow Media Exception

 

 

Have you ever, like the A-Team, been accused of a crime you didn’t commit?

Such an ordeal happened to a window fitter Sunday in jolly ol’ England.

As reported by The Scottish Sun, Steve Whitehurst was minding his own business in Scott’s Menswear when he was confronted by the establishment’s female manager.

And why? According to Steve — who was shopping with his girlfriend and her grandson — she wanted him to explain the giant lump.

In his pants.

I’ll let the Sun do a bit of the heavy rolling…I mean, lifting:

Steve, who claims he often has to roll up his manhood, said, “I had very tight jeans on that day and there was a bulge, yes, but that’s not illegal. I can’t help the way I’m made.”

Apparently, the supervisor and other employees were skeptical of his huge claim. Was he being honest, or tellin’ a whopper?

“The manager started arguing with me. She wouldn’t let it go. I just kept telling her that it was my penis.”

Desperate times call for desperate…measures. And Steve was willing to go to great lengths.

“Eventually, I dropped my trousers in front of everyone and just stood there in my boxer shorts and said, ‘See, I’ve got nothing to hide.’”

But the manager still wouldn’t relent.

“What’s that bulge?!”

Finally, Steve had had enough, so he decided to prove he had too much.

He walked with a male security guard to a cubicle.

Steve revealed the truth to the staff by revealing the staff of truth.

He recounted:

“I dropped my boxers. [The security guard] shook his head and ran out and spoke with the manager. I heard her say, ‘Please tell me he’s got something down there,’ and the guy said, ‘No.’”

Oh — he’s got somethin’ down there alright.

But he didn’t appreciate having to prove it.

The 47-year-old called it the “craziest experience of [his] life.” He’s since complained to the chain’s owner, JD Sports.

His girlfriend, Mandy, thinks it’s nuts that the manager was such a dingaling:

“It was so humiliating. What they did to Steve was disgusting.”

However, JD Sports told the Sun the severely anatomically-correct shoplifting suspect was acting suspicious:

“The customer in question was exhibiting suspicious behaviour and, when the store manager confronted the customer, he became abusive.”

One shop worker thought Steve got quite teste– testy:

“When they cornered him, he became very abusive.”

And they weren’t impressed with his full disclosure:

“He then dropped his trousers, but the bulge was much smaller than staff remembered it.”

That’s a bit hard to believe — see for yourself here.

As one witness put it:

“Staff had good grounds to suspect him.”

Yes, they did.

I’m just thankful Beto O’Rourke was nowhere near — if he’d seen that Steve was carrying such a big gun, he’d probably have tried to grab it.

-ALEX

 

See 3 more pieces from me:

An Elderly Man Walks Into The Hospital For A Bladder Procedure, Walks Out Circumcised – Accidentally

Best & Stupidest This Week: The UK Wars With Cutlery, Offers Knife-Free Chicken Boxes & Tales Of Murder For Dinner

Viral Video Provides A Lesson In Justice & Heroism – When Bullying Turns To Deep, Deep Regret

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 Man Gets Harassed and Accused of Shoplifting Over the Suspicious Bulge in His Pants. He Keeps Insisting it’s His Penis appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group thompson-submachine-gun-2878574_1280-300x130 Man Gets Harassed and Accused of Shoplifting Over the Suspicious Bulge in His Pants. He Keeps Insisting it’s His Penis Uncategorized theft stoke-on-trent steve whitehurst scott's menwear Not Today Internet jd sports Front Page Stories Featured Story False Accusation England Culture crime Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

NYC Makes It Illegal To Call Someone an “Illegal Alien” Or Call ICE On Person When “Motivated By Hate”

Westlake Legal Group constitution-fire NYC Makes It Illegal To Call Someone an “Illegal Alien” Or Call ICE On Person When “Motivated By Hate” Uncategorized progressives political correctness law immigration Front Page Stories Front Page First Amendment Featured Story Featured Post Constitution

Thought, speech, the Constitution and enforcing the law all appear to be taking a hit with a current move taken in New York City.

It’s now against the law in New York City to threaten to call immigration on someone or to call someone an illegal alien “when motivated by hate.”

This was announced not in a decision by the legislature, but in an edict declared by the New York Commission on Human Rights.

From Daily Wire:

The new crimes include, according to a press release from the commission, “Threatening to call [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] when motivated by discrimination, derogatory use of the term ‘illegal alien,’ and discrimination based on limited English proficiency are unlawful discriminatory treatment under the NYC Human Rights Law.”

The commission also said it was “currently investigating 4 cases involving discrimination based on threats to call ICE in order to harass, threaten, or intimidate a victim.”

And this sounds a lot like the Commission is declaring illegal aliens a “protected class.”

The new guidance “defines discrimination on the basis of perceived or actual immigration status and national origin under the New York City Human Rights Law in public accommodations, employment, and housing.”

“The guidance states that the use of the term ‘illegal alien,’ among others, when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person, is illegal under the law,” the commission said in its press release. “Further, the guidance stipulates that harassing or discriminating against someone for their use of another language or their limited English proficiency, and threatening to call ICE on a person based on a discriminatory motive, are considered to be in violation of the law.”

The Commission provides some examples of what would trigger them.

From NY Post:

“A hotel prohibits its housekeepers from speaking Spanish while cleaning because it would ‘offend’ hotel guests or make them uncomfortable,” reads one hypothetical.

“An Indian immigrant family complains to their landlord about mold and cockroaches in their unit. The landlord tells them to ‘just deal with it’ and threatens to call ICE if they file a complaint in housing court,” reads another.

“A store owner tells two friends who are speaking Thai while shopping in his store to ‘speak English’ and ‘go back to your country,’ ” reads a third.

Imagine the nightmare of accusations this is going to spawn.

Plus, the punishment is not minor. You can get a $250,000 per each incident, effectively destroying any small business or landlord.

The edict made it clear they were doing this because of the “increasingly hostile national rhetoric.”

“[W]e will do everything in our power to make sure our treasured immigrant communities are able to live with dignity and respect, free of harassment and bias,” said Carmelyn Malalis, the agency’s commissioner.

The directive comes months after Mayor Bill de Blasio vocally opposed coordinated raids by ICE on the city’s immigrant communities.

The city is also providing one million dollars to help with legal defense against deportation for illegal aliens.

So beyond the fact that this was just declared without the input of the legislature, there’s the small problem of criminalizing thought, speech and enforcement of the law.

Who gets to decide when “illegal alien” is said “with hate?” Who gets to decide what happened in a “he said, she said” matter? And is there any doubt that the city, which finds everything offensive, will err on the side of finding for the illegal alien offended?

The post NYC Makes It Illegal To Call Someone an “Illegal Alien” Or Call ICE On Person When “Motivated By Hate” appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Constitution-burning-300x199 NYC Makes It Illegal To Call Someone an “Illegal Alien” Or Call ICE On Person When “Motivated By Hate” Uncategorized progressives political correctness law immigration Front Page Stories Front Page First Amendment Featured Story Featured Post Constitution   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Did the Intelligence Community IG Actively Aid the “Whistleblower” in His Impeachment Quest

Westlake Legal Group michael-atkinson-620x353 Did the Intelligence Community IG Actively Aid the “Whistleblower” in His Impeachment Quest whistleblower complaint Politics ODNI Michael Atkinson intelligence community ic ig Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception adam schiff

Michael Atkinson. IC IG. CREDIT: ODNI/Cropped

 

Many of us have been harping on the point that the alleged “whistleblower” in the bullsh** attack on President Trump is not actually a whistleblower.

In fact, the so-called complaint is a compendium of provable lies, misrepresentations. innuendo, and links to newspaper clippings that warrants the assclown who wrote it being horsewhipped out of the front gate of CIA headquarters rather than being lionized even the by the debased excuses for humanity that constitute the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee.

But if a shocking story reported by Sean Davis yesterday is true, then not only were we wrong but the implications are that the Intelligence Community, itself, and in particular the Intelligence Community IG decided to assist in the effort create a narrative that would justify the impeachment of a lawfully elected president who was acting lawfully.

Sean Davis reported (read Bonchie’s BREAKING: Intel Community Secretly Changed the Whistle-Blower Rules to Allow the Trump-Ukraine Complaint Just Days Before It Was Filed) that the IC changed the rules for classifying disgruntled personnel as whistleblowers in a very significant way:

The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”

The internal properties of the newly revised “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed…

A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

“The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing,” the previous form stated under the bolded heading “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED.” “This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing.”

“If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, [the Intelligence Community Inspector General] will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA,” the form concluded.

What this does is essentially give anyone whistleblower immunity on the basis of rumor mongering.

This leads us to the second part of the problem, which is the seeming active complicity of the Intelligence Community IG in this little farce.

In this September 9 letter, the IG, Michael Atkinson, throws his boss under the bus in order to perpetrate this farce.

Sept. 9 letter from Intel I… by PBS NewsHour on Scribd

More follows in this September 17 letter.

Sept. 17 letter from Intel … by PBS NewsHour on Scribd

In these letters the IG claims that the matter is of “urgent concern.” We know for a fact that there was no universe win which an event that happened in July and had already been resolved, particularly a matter that did not involve any intelligence activity whatsoever was of “any” concern to the IC IG, much less of “urgent concern.” The Department of Justice looked at this claim and issued an opinion that all but had a laugh track attached. (Read the OLC ruling.) Even though the opinion is dated September 24, it is obvious from the preceding correspondence that the IG already knew of the determination and it didn’t fit his agenda. In fairness to Atkinson, he may not be a duplicitous douchebag out to destroy the man who gave him the job, he could very well be your run-of-the-mill p***y who is so intent upon winning the approval of the “right people” that he simply didn’t have the courage to stand fast and do his duty.

The second part of this equation is awarding whistleblower status when, in fact, even it its worst light the activity reported does not fall under the purview of the IC IG. (Read the Office of Legal Counsel evisceration of Atkninson’s reasoning for yourself.) Again, in fairness to Atkinson, he may just be a gutless drone who was more intent upon fellating Adam Schiff in a public forum than in doing his job.

Finally, Atkinson opines that he is fearful that the president may have violated campaign finance laws.

Again, not his f***ing job to tell Schiff about this, there are channels for reporting criminal violations that do not involve hyperpartisan Democrats or the press. We now know that possible offense had been investigated by Department of Justice’s Criminal Division and dismissed. The fact that Justice was investigating, and probably the outcome, was known to Atkinson before he wrote to Schiff. Again, in fairness to Atkinson, he may not have been working with the whistleblower to make as big a splash as possible out of this, he may have simply been a weak, feckless little man trying to ingratiate himself with the people he thinks should really be in charge.

To review the bidding. Someone in the Intelligence Committee leadership changed the definition of whistleblower so this whistleblower was elevated from a rumor monger to a protected individual. They did this about the same time as the complaint was filed. Because the IC IG is intimately involved in the whistleblower regulations (I’d be willing to guess that office is the proponent of the regulation but I don’t know that for a fact) Atkinson knew about the change. The major issues of concern Atkinson raised in his letter are, charitably, bullsh**. The allegation does not fall under the whistleblower statue because it is not an intelligence matter. It is not a matter of “urgent concern” because it isn’t. The fanciful potential criminal violation by Trump was not his business and it was investigated and resolved by the appropriate agency.

Yet, despite all this, it is Atkinson who is the driving force in creating the scandal. He, against the directions of Department of Justice, decided that this was so extra special serious that he just had to tell Adam Schiff. Given the suspicion that the whistleblower had a lot of legal help in writing the complaint and the obvious involvement of Schiff for some weeks before it all became public, one wonders the degree to which Atkinson and his office were working with Schiff to make sure this became public.

In short, at every juncture where the system was designed to stop abusive use of the whistleblower statute, Atkinson appears to object that this particular snowflake of a case was extremely special and needed deferential treatment. Right down to changing the regulation to allow a complaint to be submitted that would have been rejected only a month ago. In fact, this question raised well before we knew anything about the allegation is just as valid today as then. The incident did not involve IC people or activities, there is no way Atkinson should have take the complaint:

The fact pattern here merits a close look by the administration into whether Atkinson is part of the solution or a large chunk of the problem. At a minimum, he has shown a gutlessness and bureaucratic deference to Schiff that should disqualify him from any policy making position in the administration. At worst, he’s actively collaborated in an attempt to bring about the impeachment of a president.

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

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

The post Did the Intelligence Community IG Actively Aid the “Whistleblower” in His Impeachment Quest appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group michael-atkinson-300x171 Did the Intelligence Community IG Actively Aid the “Whistleblower” in His Impeachment Quest whistleblower complaint Politics ODNI Michael Atkinson intelligence community ic ig Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception adam schiff   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

With Impeachment Unlikely, Democrats Like Beto and AOC Try a Different Trick to Force Trump Out of Office

Westlake Legal Group AlexandraOcasioCortez-620x317 With Impeachment Unlikely, Democrats Like Beto and AOC Try a Different Trick to Force Trump Out of Office washington D.C. Texas Social Media Politics North Carolina New York Media Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats Culture Congress Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 2020 Elections 2020

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., listens during a House Financial Services Committee hearing with leaders of major banks, Wednesday, April 10, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Even if House Democrats move beyond the impeachment inquiry phase and begin actual impeachment proceedings against President Trump, they know the odds of him being impeached in the Republican- controlled Senate are close to zero.

Not only that, but impeachment even in the Democrat-controlled House is not a certainty at this point. Many in vulnerable House districts who have jumped on board have been cautious in not leapfrogging over the inquiry process to directly call for actual impeachment. There is a real fear among them that an ugly and prolonged impeachment fight will not sit will at home with voters in their districts, regardless of what day to day polling might suggest.

It it perhaps with that in mind that a growing number of Democrats have calculatingly introduced a different, alternative tactic into the mix in hopes they can avoid the long battle in a crucial election year altogether: Get Trump to resign.

2020 candidate for president Beto O’Rourke is one Democrat who is amplifying this talking point. He called for it today during the Texas Tribune Festival:

“Those people close to the president can sit down with him and level with him, and make sure that he understands what’s going to happen to him going forward, and that they also understand their complicity, and the judgement of history, and the judgment of our courts should they fail to act while there is still time to do it,” he said.

“So the best possible path, especially if you’re concerned about a country that’s never been more divided, perhaps more highly polarized every day, is for this president to resign, allow this country to heal, and ensure that we come back together with the greatest most ambitious agenda we’ve ever faced, none of it possible while he remains in power,” O’Rourke said.

Watch:

Earlier this week on CNN, O’Rourke also called for Trump to resign:

He actually thinks Trump resigning would “heal” the country’s divisions. Wow. Once again he proves he does not have a clue.

Beto is not the only high profile Democrat to float a Trump resignation. Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (NY) called for it in the wee hours of the morning Saturday:

Judging by what you can find in the #TrumpResign Twitter hashtag, liberal talking heads are also joining the growing chorus calling for Trump to resign.

Never Trumpers like Jennifer Rubin, of course, are lending a helping hand to the effort:

The Boston Globe‘s Michael Cohen wrote “Forget impeachment. Trump should resign.” The Connecticut Post published an editorial this week calling for Trump to step down.

I’ve got just two words for them: Hell. No.

Not only is Trump not the kind of politician who would resign and go quietly into the night, but Democrats – every single one of them including those who have fed into the impeachment frenzy for two and a half years now – need to see the process through. People aren’t just going to resign or step down because you don’t like them. They need to make their case or shut up about it.

Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made a good point earlier this week: He said, in so many words, that impeachment is not a partisan tool to use to oust a president simply because you don’t like them. But he understand that’s exactly what Democrats are doing and he is all but daring them to do it – because he knows ultimately they don’t have the goods.

—–
— 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 With Impeachment Unlikely, Democrats Like Beto and AOC Try a Different Trick to Force Trump Out of Office appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AlexandraOcasioCortez-300x153 With Impeachment Unlikely, Democrats Like Beto and AOC Try a Different Trick to Force Trump Out of Office washington D.C. Texas Social Media Politics North Carolina New York Media Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats Culture Congress Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com