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 97)

Mark Levin is on Fire: Calls on Adam Schiff to Release 90 Days of Texts, Phone Calls, Emails Because He is a Leaker

Westlake Legal Group mark-levin-620x349 Mark Levin is on Fire: Calls on Adam Schiff to Release 90 Days of Texts, Phone Calls, Emails Because He is a Leaker Sen. Murphy Sen. Menendez Sen. Leahy Sen. Durbin Sean Hannity Nancy Pelosi Mark Levin Joe Biden hunter biden Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption Allow Media Exception adam schiff Abuse of Power 2020

Mark Levin, “The Great One,” appeared on “Hannity” last night to weigh in on the whistleblower’s complaint. He was on top of his game. Even President Trump was impressed. He posted Levin’s monologue to his twitter account.

After listening to Levin’s defense of Trump and his attacks on Schiff and all of the rest of them, I think Trump should hire him as his attorney. Levin is smart as a whip, articulate and he’s aggressive.

Levin finds the complaint to be “1000 times worse than the transcript of the phone call” between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. We all noticed a Grand Canyon size disconnect between the two documents.

Levin points out that a Ukrainian policy guy from the CIA doesn’t write like this. It reads like “a legal brief which has been vetted by lawyers.” And he wants to know who wrote it. Who was the whistleblower working with? Adam Schiff, Democratic staffers?

The whistleblower’s attorney said it’s important to retain his client’s anonymity. That request infuriates Levin. “Too bad pal. Too late. You want to impeach the President.”

And he noted something that a lot of us have wondered about. Why aren’t the Republican leaders in the Senate doing more to defend Trump? Why aren’t they sending out subpoenas? Calling for hearings, holding press conferences.

I would have expected a more spirited defense in the House as well. Rep. Devin Nunes (CA) is and has always been a champion. So have Jim Jordan (OH), Matt Gaetz (FL), Doug Collins (GA), Steve Scalise (LA) and several others. But many of them have been a disappointment. Kevin McCarthy spoke to the press on Tuesday and I wondered if he had a pulse.

Anyway, Levin is one of my all time favorites.

Read the transcript or watch the video below.

You know, after I watched this hearing, it’s like waterboarding, by the way. When it comes to Trump, Democrats and the media are like drug addicts looking for their next fix…Their eyes are popping out of their head. The sweetbreads are coming down their face.

They’re really freaking out… I can tell you that a CIA agent can’t write something like this, this is a legal brief,” said Levin.

First of all, as a practicing lawyer, I went through this. And I can tell you that a CIA agent, who is a policy guy for Ukraine can’t write something like this. This is a legal brief. This was vetted through lawyers. I want to know who wrote this. I want to know who this man spoke to…

In the New York Times today which, of course, runs cover for the Democrats and goes after the President of the United States, they say today that this man’s lawyer, who by the way, worked for Schumer and Clinton, doesn’t want the identity of this man known.

Too bad pal. Too late. You want to impeach our President using this BS. We want to know all about your guy. And I love today’s hearing where they wrap this guy in the whistleblower statute…

He knew nothing, he heard that certain people at the White House were upset…Isn’t it funny that not a single person with first-hand knowledge filed a whistleblower complaint?

This guy files one. This guy’s represented by Democrats. I want to know if Adam Schiff, the Democrat staffers or any of the Democrats were involved in orchestrating this. This leak and coupe campaign. Did it in Russia, did it with Kavanaugh, it’s the same damn thing.

This is a rogue CIA agent. People might say, but it’s the CIA. Look what they did to the FBI. Look at this guy Brennan, a complete reprobate.

You know, when the CIA overthrew the Iranian government years ago, the liberal Democrats were upset. When they overthrew Allende in Chile, a socialist marxist, the Democrats were upset. When they tried to overthrow Castro, the Democrats were upset…But when they try to overthrow our President, they’re whistleblowers. They’re heroes. They’re courageous. Mr. Schiff, why don’t release 90 days of your phone calls? 90 days of your texts. 90 days of your emails. Cause I know something pal. You’re a leaker. You’re devious. Same with your staff.

Nancy Pelosi went to the microphone, like a dictator, and announced ‘We’re going to begin an official, formal impeachment inquiry…Why would she do that before she got the transcript? Why, because she had this or she knew about it. (Levin holds up the whistleblower’s complaint.) From the little CIA operative.

This document is a thousand times worse than the actual transcript which isn’t even cited in this document (the whistleblower’s complaint).

Now, they’re trying to rewrite this document to try and get it to work with this document (the transcript of the call). The President of the United States phone call has nothing wrong with it. It’s a long conversation. I notice in the media, they’re kind of moving sentences around, trying to attach things. Why don’t you read the whole thing. But you won’t do that. Why? Well I have a question. Why shouldn’t the President of the United States in a conversation with the President of Ukraine say ‘Hey look. Would you take a look at this? We’ve had news reports, books’ about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden obstructing just in the Ukraine, blackmailing the government.’

The President is supposed to sit there and act stupid? No, he says among a thousand other things. You might want to look into this.

‘Wow, that’s an impeachable offense.’

You now have four U.S. senators who did far worse than that. Three of them, Menendez, Leahy, and Durbin who insisted that the Ukrainian government, insisted, investigate our President. You had another one, Murphy, from Connecticut, who insisted that the Ukrainian government not investigate Biden. How come they’re not facing ethics complaints? How come they’re not facing expulsion acts in the United States Senate?

And finally, where the hell are the Republican chairman in the Senate? Why aren’t they issuing subpoenas? Why don’t they pretend they’re Elijah Cummings or Jerry Nadler? Or Schiff for that matter? I know it’s an ugly thought, but issue 100 subpoenas. Go after their bank accounts, go after their friends, go after their relatives. Go after their accountants. Go after their records. And if they don’t go for it, hold em in contempt.

The post Mark Levin is on Fire: Calls on Adam Schiff to Release 90 Days of Texts, Phone Calls, Emails Because He is a Leaker appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group mark-levin-pointing-blue-suit-300x169 Mark Levin is on Fire: Calls on Adam Schiff to Release 90 Days of Texts, Phone Calls, Emails Because He is a Leaker Sen. Murphy Sen. Menendez Sen. Leahy Sen. Durbin Sean Hannity Nancy Pelosi Mark Levin Joe Biden hunter biden Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption Allow Media Exception adam schiff Abuse of Power 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Just Say “No!” to the United Nations

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

Referring to yet another #ClimateChange statement, William Teach of The Pirate’s Coves wrote:

And they want to take all power away from sovereign nations and place it in the hands of unelected bureaucrats in the U.N.

Since the people to whom Mr Teach referred happen to be those unelected bureaucrats in the UN, of course that’s what they want!

The various Star Trek shows might not be really intense science fiction, but like so many of the images of the future, they have us with a single world government,¹ but such a thing is simply glossed over, as some form of unquestionable good. In reality, a single world government is much more likely to be a despotism of some form.

We can see it already, in the European Union: Americans see the idea as noble and good, but are uneducated concerning the real differences in European people. They have a multitude of languages and, unlike the US, have the various ethnicities geographically restricted; Frenchmen are Frenchmen first, not Europeans first.

Several ethnic groups were forced to live together in the former Yugoslavia, but that nation was held together by Marshall Tito. When he went to his eternal reward, his successors tried to hold together that unnatural polyglot of peoples, and failed; it took only a couple of goons who thought they could take more power by inflaming ethnic differences, and while it cost them in the end, it demonstrated how easily those ethnic tensions could be inflamed. Yugoslavia is now gone, replaced by several ethnically based countries.

Many Scots want to separate from the United Kingdom, the Basques want to separate from Spain, the Chechnyans want independence from Russia, the Kurds want a nation independent from Syria, Iraq and Turkey, the ‘Palestinian’ Arabs want to push the Israelis into the sea, and the list goes on and on. After decades of peaceful coexistence in Czechoslovakia, when the opportunity arose to split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia arose, that’s what happened. Many Francophone Quebecois want to separate from Anglophone Canada, even though our neighbor to the north has both French and English as the official language. In the United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s subjects voted to leave the European Union, in large part due to the heavy-handed EU bureaucracy and rules. The Brits seemed to want to govern themselves, and not be bound by the edicts of Führerin und Reichskanzlerin Angela Merkel. Maybe we ought to consider that people really don’t want ‘diversity,’ don’t want to be ruled by people different from themselves.

Heck, it seems about the only place that wants to stay with its government is that Northern Ireland, dominated by Protestants, want to stay in the United Kingdom rather than be integrated into the Catholic Republic of Ireland.

The United Nations have become over full of themselves, with many seeing themselves as the precursor to a one world government, but the UN is a terrible place from which to begin such an idea. It is wracked by infighting, with alliances between dictators and Islamic states fighting against those nations which have a Western civilization.

And that is the real crux of the matter: the visions of a one world government are the visions of people with a Western civilization frame of mind. The vast majority of Muslims want no such thing, seeing those who are not Muslim as infidels, from whom they must be separated. Much of Africa and Asia have a history of colonialism, of being subject to the mastery of European powers, and have absolutely no desire to have even the slightest semblance of rule by outsiders again.

Western civilization has produced the lands of the greatest freedom and prosperity in the world, lands in which the futuristic dreams of a single world government can be formed, but even there, the views of such are of a government which may have many ethnically and racially ‘diverse’ people in it and running it, but they are all still imbued with a veneer of Western civilization. We would have what were, in effect, everyone, of every race, color and ethnicity, all being westernized white people!

Senator Kamala Harris Emhoff (D-CA) raised the issue of busing in the United States in an attack on former Vice President Joe Biden, for his early opposition to busing, at the time a major issue in his hometown of Wilmington, Delaware:

Sixteen years after the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation in public schools, an attorney representing black families in Charlotte stood before the court. The landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling, he argued, had failed to deliver on its promise.

“Black children and parents in Charlotte have struggled since Brown,” said the attorney, Julius Chambers. He urged the high court to embrace a plan to integrate Charlotte schools through a controversial method: busing black children to white schools, and vice versa.

The Supreme Court agreed, unanimously endorsing busing as a legitimate means of unraveling the segregation of children by race. The 1971 decision launched an explosive chapter in American history, touching off a long and polarizing battle that set public opinion against busing for decades, even as the programs succeeded in promoting integration.

Later, evidence would emerge that busing improved outcomes for black students, with no harm to white students. But that evidence came far too late to change public perceptions of a program that was hugely unpopular among whites and left blacks divided.

The vexing issue has reverberated through the Democratic presidential primary since last month’s debates, when Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) criticized former vice president Joe Biden for opposing court-ordered busing in the 1970s. But Harris soon found herself backpedaling when asked whether she would advocate busing today: Last week, she called it a tool to be “considered” but mandated only if local governments are “actively opposing integration.”

That position is not so far from Biden’s, and not a single Democratic candidate is arguing for a return to mandatory busing. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has promised to “execute and enforce desegregation orders” but has not said how. Most candidates have focused on creating incentives for districts and families to create diverse schools on their own.

That segregated schools are an issue in 2019, 65 years after Brown v Board of Education and 48 years after Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education points out the uncomfortable truth: even though children were educated in (somewhat) racially integrated schools, it has not led to the unspoken but very much hoped for result of integrated living patterns. Even when our schools were integrated, our neighborhoods were not, because white Americans still chose to live in mostly white neighborhoods and black Americans chose to live in mostly black neighborhoods. The government could use the police power of the state to bus children across town to integrate the schools, but it could not require people to buy or rent houses in ‘assigned’ neighborhoods. Black people in the United States did not become what the social engineers of the 1960s and 1970s had hoped, simply darker-skinned white people.

This, in the United States, a nation uniquely ‘diverse,’ in that our ethnic groups are scattered throughout the population, rather than in traditionally ethnic regions: we still have a population which is ‘diverse’ overall but still mostly segregated at the neighborhood level:

Even as the United States becomes increasingly diverse, neighborhood segregation patterns persist in large urban areas, including in the Washington metro region, according to five-year trend data from the Census Bureau.

Segregation has remained most entrenched between black and white residents, while segregation between whites and Hispanics and whites and Asians is more fluid, according to an analysis of the bureau’s latest American Community Survey data.

Some of the starkest black-white urban divide can be seen in Midwestern and Northeastern cities with long-concentrated and slow-growing black populations, including Buffalo, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, New York and St. Louis, said William Frey, a senior demographer at the Brookings Institution, who analyzed the data.²

Integration in our public schools began in the 1960s — 1964 the school I attended — and 1970s, which means that the children in such schools are now at or nearing retirement; almost every homebuyer today grew up with racial integration in the schools, yet racial segregation still exists, due to the personal choices of American homebuyers and renters. If Americans, lacking the ethnic separation into different countries that exists across so much of the rest of the world, and lacking most of the history of real strife between national groups, are not integrated, is it reasonable to think that the people of other nations would accept classical liberal notions of integration?

The notion that we could have a single, worldwide government is a dream of some Westerners, but, at least for the foreseeable future, it is a ridiculous pipe dream.  The United Nations’ bureaucrats want to keep pushing for more and more authority into that slowly dilapidating building in Turtle Bay, but that needs to be firmly resisted.  There may, may! be a few useful functions of the United Nations, but we need to firmly reject anything which subjects the United States to the UN’s will.
____________________________
¹ – The exception would be Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, the best of the franchise. While the Federation is still a happy, happy place, Bajor is depicted as wracked with strife after the Cardassian occupation was ended.
² – Interestingly enough, the article also notes that segregation levels have mostly declined in the South: “Atlanta, Houston, Louisville, Memphis, Miami, New Orleans, Orlando and Tampa.” That kind of refutes the notions of liberals that racism is a mostly southern problem.
____________________________
Please visit my Red State story archive for more of my articles.
My personal website, The First Street Journal, includes articles not necessarily in Red State’s paradigm.
You can follow me on Twitter.

The post Just Say “No!” to the United Nations appeared first on RedState.

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

Can’t Stop Won’t Stop Losing: Beto Tells Pro-2A Advocates it’s ‘Wrong’ to be Carrying Their Weapons

Westlake Legal Group AP_18066111936008-620x360 Can’t Stop Won’t Stop Losing: Beto Tells Pro-2A Advocates it’s ‘Wrong’ to be Carrying Their Weapons Uncategorized open carry mass shootings Hysteria hunting rifles Guns gun control Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats crime Campaigns Beto O'Rourke ar-15 Allow Media Exception 2nd Amendment 2020

A supporter of senate hopeful Beto O’Rourke holds a sign during a Democratic watch party following the Texas primary election, Tuesday, March 6, 2018, in Austin, Texas. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

 

 

Are ya ready for some goofiness?

I gotcha covered.

On Wednesday at a Kent State University campaign rally, single-digit would-be hunting rifle thief Beto O’Rourke let people know it’s wrong to carry guns. At least, to any of his events, I guess.

The guy’s goin’ out with a blaze of glory — I’ll give him that.

It’s also, however, a blaze of ignorance, as he’s continued to speak about guns while making clear he’s never, at any point, said to himself, “Hey, what are guns? Maybe I should take just an hour or two to find out some information, any information. And then talk.”

Beto’s previously said he’ll be stealing your AR-15, but you can keep your hunting rifle.

Meanwhile, the AR-15 is America’s best-selling hunting rifle.

The other day, while eating a gigantic cheeseburger followed by a huge chocolate peanut butter malt, I was speaking to a friend who’s a handgun owner. I mentioned Beto’s vow to confiscate AR-15’s.

My friend:

“Well, those are like machine guns.”

That’s what she thought, from what she’d heard on the news.

We’ve got a problem here.

And O’Rourke ain’t helpin’.

Here’s what he had to say:

“It is not enough to stop selling AR-15s and AK-47s when there are more than 10 million of those potential instruments of terror.”

All guns are potential instruments of terror. AR-15’s just look spooky.

“We must mandate that every single one of them be bought back — back home, off the streets, out of our lives. No longer a threat to every to every single one of us.”

That won’t make any great difference, given that the vast majority gun deaths are due to handgun use. And AR-15’s are not the only rifles, goob. You don’t think a murderer’ll just grab the other rifle or pistol on the shelf?

Nevertheless, to Beto, so long as there exists a long gun with a scary shape, everyone’s walking around with a bullseye on ’em. But it sounds as if, if voters choose for him to steal those things from their homes, magically, the bullseyes’ll all just disappear, Jack!

“None of us should face this terror. No one in El Paso, Texas should have to tell me, as they do all the time, that they’re walking around with a target on their back.”

I have a suggestion: How about talk about things that will actually do something, rather than goofiness that makes no sense and no large difference?

Some folks came to the Beto bash in protest — and they brought their firearms:

Beto told ’em it’s wrong:

“And nobody should show up with one of these weapons that seek to intimidate us in our own democracy. That’s wrong. That’s wrong.”

What if it was a shotgun? Would that be better? A .30-06 bolt-action rifle? Preferable? No longer wrong?

The problem with politics, it seems to me, is that the majority of the CO2 appears to be comprised of absolutely meaningless words. It’s posturing, grandstanding, fluff, and — if given the benefit of the doubt — ignorance.

But so long as Beto sticks to his…guns…and continues to hammer one single kind of firearm which doesn’t make a dent in the larger scope of violent crime in America, he’ll cement himself as one more electoral fart in the wind. How about the Green New Deal fix that?

“Yesterday, people brought assault weapons to our rally at Kent State—where 4 students were shot dead in 1970.”

No, they didn’t. As for the AR-15, they brought hunting rifles.

And your rhetoric stinks.

-ALEX

 

See 3 more pieces from me:

Pioneer David Hogg Changes His Tune – The Cause Of Violence In America Is No Longer Guns

Beto Can’t Abandon His Pursuit Of 2020, Because Anything Less Wouldn’t Be ‘Good Enough’ For You. Just Ask Him

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

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 Can’t Stop Won’t Stop Losing: Beto Tells Pro-2A Advocates it’s ‘Wrong’ to be Carrying Their Weapons appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_18066111936008-300x174 Can’t Stop Won’t Stop Losing: Beto Tells Pro-2A Advocates it’s ‘Wrong’ to be Carrying Their Weapons Uncategorized open carry mass shootings Hysteria hunting rifles Guns gun control Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats crime Campaigns Beto O'Rourke ar-15 Allow Media Exception 2nd Amendment 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Open letter to the American voter

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

Westlake Legal Group Vote-or-Die Open letter to the American voter Uncategorized Front Page Stories

I am not going to request every living human being to just vote Republican, but I am asking every American voter to consider a few things before making his or her decision on who they vote.

What is a Congress elected to do, each time they convene? Is it to make appropriate legislation to further the ability of the American experiment, or is it to play tiddly-winks with our current president because a political party only wishes to overturn the results of a legitimate and official election? Is it a correct course of action for the media to say things that are factually inaccurate about their political opposites? People may have differing opinions about who is right, or who is wrong, concerning the media, but that institution has taken sides, throughout our country’s existence, and it is wrong to allow it to continue. We either make our decisions based on truth, facts and how the country is performing, or we make those decisions, based on pure political idolatry. Which would you prefer? I sincerely hope everyone would base their decision on a provable commodity, rather than what some political pundit, on any channel you watch, says, because you can listen for only a couple seconds to any commentator and see exactly who they are siding with. it does nothing productive to tell someone to stop listening to a particular channel or commentator, but one thing is highly recommended, and I wish more people would default back to it: look at the world, yourself. See what is happening around your part of the world. See what a politician says, and does, and if he or she demonstrates by his or her actions that he or she is compatible with your view on how society is to be.

Leave the entire media as a grain of salt. It would be asking too much of anyone to just throw everything out, but when you apply a little common sense, see what shapes the world around you, you can then make a more reasonable decision on who you vote for. Republican, Democrat, communist, capitalist, however you see what is progressing around you is going to make your decision for you, but never forget all the things that made our country great, and those things that failed us in the past. And, for God’s sake, look at all the suffering people have had to experience through tyrannical regimes, like Venezuela, before you go and misunderstand another example that may have been caused by some academician who has a distorted view of political structures that had nothing to do with his or her success in academia. Some people do have agendas, and many of them are not in your best interest.

Please start using your own brain and free yourself of all the political dogma. It’s really easy, and if you do decide on your own, no one will have to beg for your vote, nor have to lie to get it, because the process makes the outcome be very clear. You either wish freedom over security, which means you are capable of taking care of yourself, or you aren’t. I choose freedom, any day, over tyranny. You might disagree.

What did the Founders give us? Was it a pact to squander, or was it a way to release the chains and allow the individual, which happens to be the ultimate minority on the planet, a way to achieve individual success? Just that one question should answer a lot of the other questions that come into view. Considering self interest, first, should always be your first priority, because you can’t help anyone else until “You” prosper. You would be wise to consider your own self interest before you place blind faith in a politician. What does he or she have to offer you? What do they represent? Those are serious questions, and require serious thought.

How about doing your own homework, and leave the TV turned off. Look at the world, around you, and start having a fresh look at how you are a part of it. Then, and only then, can you make the right decision about the people who represent you. We just don’t need a perpetual impeachment hearing. We do need representatives who do their jobs, and I will never be convinced that an entire political party was sent to Congress for a perpetual impeachment hearing. That is a job covered by the Constitution, only to be used in the most dire emergencies, and, in my world, things are looking pretty good, when I see blacks, whites, hispanics and everyone else, having more jobs, making a living so they can support their families, live their lives and contributing to the experiment, known as the United States of America.

We don’t need to be kept in a perpetual state of discontent over who thinks an election was right or wrong. That job was performed, last time, by the electorate. Every four years you have the right, but you also have a duty to accept the results of your fellow voter, so make your choice wisely.

I can live with a loyal opposition, can you? I find myself on the other side of that fence, often. Nothing wrong with that.

The post Open letter to the American voter appeared first on RedState.

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

Boom: Steve Scalise, Brit Hume Drop Kick Adam Schiff’s “Parody” Account of Trump’s Ukraine Call

Westlake Legal Group Adam-Schiff-3-620x317 Boom: Steve Scalise, Brit Hume Drop Kick Adam Schiff’s “Parody” Account of Trump’s Ukraine Call washington D.C. STEVE SCALISE Politics North Carolina Massachusetts Louisiana impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture Congressional Hearing Congress Brit Hume Allow Media Exception adam schiff

As Bonchie wrote yesterday, the so-called “parody” stunt Rep. Adam Schiff (D-MA) pulled Thursday at the whistleblower hearing on the Trump/Zelensky call was one of the most despicable things to ever be done by a Congressman at one.

Instead of reading straight from the call transcript itself, Schiff just made stuff up, calling it the “essence” of what President Trump said during the July conversation. Here’s a transcribed refresher on his acting performance for those who missed it:

We’ve been very good to your country. Very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what, I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though, and I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good.

I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of it. On this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, and not just any people. I’m going to put you in touch with Attorney General of the United States, my attorney general Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him and I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy. You’re going to love him, trust me.

You know what I’m asking, and so I’m only going to say this a few more times in a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I’ve asked.

Here’s the video of Schiff’s theatrical stunt:

Schiff, who is the House Intelligence Committee Chairman, was called out for his disgusting stunt shortly thereafter. He ended up admitting what he said was “in part, a parody” (though there was no “in part” about it):

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) and veteran Fox News journalist Brit Hume both torched Schiff in response, noting the reason why he had to fabricate the conversation was because the actual conversation didn’t prove Trump did anything impeachable:

Sadly, Schiff wasn’t the only Congressman Thursday who resorted to inventing things that were never said:

Shameful.

Related –>> DNI Maguire Deflates Swalwell’s Fragile Ego in Unintentionally Humorous Moment At Congressional Hearing (Video)

—–
— 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 Boom: Steve Scalise, Brit Hume Drop Kick Adam Schiff’s “Parody” Account of Trump’s Ukraine Call appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Adam-Schiff-3-300x153 Boom: Steve Scalise, Brit Hume Drop Kick Adam Schiff’s “Parody” Account of Trump’s Ukraine Call washington D.C. STEVE SCALISE Politics North Carolina Massachusetts Louisiana impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture Congressional Hearing Congress Brit Hume Allow Media Exception adam schiff   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Judge Demands AOC Testify In Court Over Her Twitter Habits

Westlake Legal Group SquadAOCOmarTlaibPressley-620x317 Judge Demands AOC Testify In Court Over Her Twitter Habits twitter Politics New Rules lawsuit judge Hypocrisy Hikind Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats consistency Blocking

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., speaks as, from left, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., listen during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, July 15, 2019. President Donald Trump on Monday intensified his incendiary comments about the four Democratic congresswomen of color, urging them to get out if they don’t like things going on in America. They fired back at what they called his “xenophobic bigoted remarks” and said it was time for impeachment. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

This is one of the sillier stories of the day, but new rules and all that.

If you recall, Donald Trump was successfully sued by liberals with nothing better to do because he blocked people on Twitter. Eventually a judge decided you now have a constitutional right to not have to log out to view tweets if someone blocks you.

Not all heroes wear capes I guess.

Because the only way to fight back against this insanity is to make Democrats play by their own rules, a lawsuit was filed against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for also blocking people on Twitter.

I’m not going to take the time to dig up my old Twitter arguments on the matter, but the most common rebuttal I got was that AOC can block people because she only represents her district. So it’s (D)ifferent, because it always is, right? That seemed too convenient by half, as she’s still a government figure who makes national policy. Now, a judge apparently agrees and she’s being made to testify.

An aide to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Thursday said the freshman congresswoman blocks people on Twitter if their input isn’t “constructive” — but a federal judge demanded that she come and explain that herself…

…But Brooklyn federal Judge Frederic Block wants to hear directly from the prolific tweeter herself.

“I think she has to testify,” the judge said. “Her point is that this was an A-OK thing to do … she has to explain.”

Hikind said he was blocked by Ocasio-Cortez after he tweeted at her about her controversial comments in June comparing migrant centers at the border to concentration camps.

Look, I think this is ridiculous. Anyone should be able to block who they want on Twitter. But AOC was one of the people who gloated when Trump lost the lawsuit filed against him over blocking people on Twitter, so she better be willing to play by her own rules.

The real issue here is the stupidity of our justice system in the age of Trump. Judges continually torture the law and invent reasons to rule against the President simply for partisan gain. It’s how you can a judge in California have the same ruling overturned twice, finally having to be slapped down by the Supreme Court. There’s no care for normalcy or deference among many Democrat appointed judges anymore. It’s orange man bad all the time.

I’d love to return to a time of sanity on legal matters like this but that doesn’t appear possible right now. In the meantime, the best way to cut back on the nonsense is to hold Democrats to the standards they set.

————————————————

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 Judge Demands AOC Testify In Court Over Her Twitter Habits appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AOCAPimage-300x153 Judge Demands AOC Testify In Court Over Her Twitter Habits twitter Politics New Rules lawsuit judge Hypocrisy Hikind Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats consistency Blocking   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Judge Demands AOC Testify In Court Over Her Twitter Habits

Westlake Legal Group SquadAOCOmarTlaibPressley-620x317 Judge Demands AOC Testify In Court Over Her Twitter Habits twitter Politics New Rules lawsuit judge Hypocrisy Hikind Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats consistency Blocking

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., speaks as, from left, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., listen during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, July 15, 2019. President Donald Trump on Monday intensified his incendiary comments about the four Democratic congresswomen of color, urging them to get out if they don’t like things going on in America. They fired back at what they called his “xenophobic bigoted remarks” and said it was time for impeachment. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

This is one of the sillier stories of the day, but new rules and all that.

If you recall, Donald Trump was successfully sued by liberals with nothing better to do because he blocked people on Twitter. Eventually a judge decided you now have a constitutional right to not have to log out to view tweets if someone blocks you.

Not all heroes wear capes I guess.

Because the only way to fight back against this insanity is to make Democrats play by their own rules, a lawsuit was filed against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for also blocking people on Twitter.

I’m not going to take the time to dig up my old Twitter arguments on the matter, but the most common rebuttal I got was that AOC can block people because she only represents her district. So it’s (D)ifferent, because it always is, right? That seemed too convenient by half, as she’s still a government figure who makes national policy. Now, a judge apparently agrees and she’s being made to testify.

An aide to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Thursday said the freshman congresswoman blocks people on Twitter if their input isn’t “constructive” — but a federal judge demanded that she come and explain that herself…

…But Brooklyn federal Judge Frederic Block wants to hear directly from the prolific tweeter herself.

“I think she has to testify,” the judge said. “Her point is that this was an A-OK thing to do … she has to explain.”

Hikind said he was blocked by Ocasio-Cortez after he tweeted at her about her controversial comments in June comparing migrant centers at the border to concentration camps.

Look, I think this is ridiculous. Anyone should be able to block who they want on Twitter. But AOC was one of the people who gloated when Trump lost the lawsuit filed against him over blocking people on Twitter, so she better be willing to play by her own rules.

The real issue here is the stupidity of our justice system in the age of Trump. Judges continually torture the law and invent reasons to rule against the President simply for partisan gain. It’s how you can a judge in California have the same ruling overturned twice, finally having to be slapped down by the Supreme Court. There’s no care for normalcy or deference among many Democrat appointed judges anymore. It’s orange man bad all the time.

I’d love to return to a time of sanity on legal matters like this but that doesn’t appear possible right now. In the meantime, the best way to cut back on the nonsense is to hold Democrats to the standards they set.

————————————————

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 Judge Demands AOC Testify In Court Over Her Twitter Habits appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AOCAPimage-300x153 Judge Demands AOC Testify In Court Over Her Twitter Habits twitter Politics New Rules lawsuit judge Hypocrisy Hikind Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats consistency Blocking   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Elizabeth Warren Virtue Signals About the Evil of Private Prisons, but Oh the Hypocrisy

Westlake Legal Group Fauxcahontas-620x413 Elizabeth Warren Virtue Signals About the Evil of Private Prisons, but Oh the Hypocrisy Vanguard Group Private Prisons Politics negligence Investments Hypocrisy Front Page Stories Elizabeth Warren elections democrats CoreCivic Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., winks as she jokes with other senators on the Senate Banking Committee ahead of a hearing on the nomination of Marvin Goodfriend to be a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2018, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Democratic 2020 candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren sure does like to virtue signal, and this time she may have signaled a virtue that she doesn’t have at all.

Back in June, Warren wrote a Medium post about how ways that the private prison system is horrendous and fair enough. Incarcerating people for profit isn’t exactly something many would consider an American ideal, and I don’t know many people on the left or the right who have defended it.

Fox News gives an excellent rundown of how expensive and horrible private prisons are if you’re curious.

After giving a spiel about her disgust, Warren notes “this is exploitation, plain and simple,” and that private prisons are “profiteering off cruelty.”

But while Warren is busy standing on a soapbox trying to sound like a crusader standing against all that is unjust, looking into her past investments tells us a different story. In fact, it tells us the exact opposite story.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, Warren invested heavily in an organization that was one of the top shareholders in two of the largest private prison corporations in America:

Warren invested in Vanguard Target Retirement 2025—a retirement account run by the Vanguard Group, an investment management company—which in turn invested more than 30 percent of its money in Vanguard’s domestic stock index fund. Vanguard was the top shareholder of Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), and one of the largest of GEO Group, both private prison companies, according to data from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Vanguard owned more than 12 million CCA shares and nearly 9 million GEO Group shares, which were worth roughly $456 million and $216 million, respectively, in March 2013.

CCA, now called CoreCivic, was already the country’s largest owner of private prisons in 2013, according to an annual report. The company owned or controlled more than 50 correctional or detention facilities in the country, “with a total design capacity of approximately 86,000 beds in 20 states and the District of Columbia.” GEO Group is also one of the largest private prison providers in the country with 66 prison facilities across the world as of 2013. The two companies also operate many Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities for illegal immigrants.

If you’re waiting for Warren to explain it, then plan to keep waiting. She was reached out to for comment by the Free Beacon and they never got a response back.

It could be that Warren didn’t know the Vanguard Group was so heavily entrenched with CoreCivic, but it’d be odd that a politician so hell-bent on exposing and eliminating corporate corruption wouldn’t have looked into them. If she didn’t, then she’s not exactly the best person to lead when it comes to fighting the corporations. She can’t even keep her own investments straight in keeping with her supposed “morals.”

This either hypocrisy or negligence. Which one is it, Warren?

The post Elizabeth Warren Virtue Signals About the Evil of Private Prisons, but Oh the Hypocrisy appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Fauxcahontas-300x200 Elizabeth Warren Virtue Signals About the Evil of Private Prisons, but Oh the Hypocrisy Vanguard Group Private Prisons Politics negligence Investments Hypocrisy Front Page Stories Elizabeth Warren elections democrats CoreCivic Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Bad Self-Own: Beto’s New Argument for Gun Confiscation Is Exactly the Argument Against It

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeAPimage Bad Self-Own: Beto’s New Argument for Gun Confiscation Is Exactly the Argument Against It Uncategorized Guns gun control gun contol Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Campaigns Beto O'Rourke' presidential campaign Beto O Rourke 2A

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke speaks at the Iowa Federation of Labor convention, Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2019, in Altoona, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

It’s no secret that Democratic candidate Beto O’Rourke has been desperate to raise his profile somehow and gain some traction in the 2020 race.

Toward that end, he has been on a recent tear, calling for the banning and what amounts to the confiscation of guns like the AR-15 and the AK-47 by the government. He says that it would mandatory under his administration to turn in such guns.

The media has been giving him a lot of attention for making the push, although it still hasn’t helped his poll numbers which continue to wallow in the basement.

On Thursday, he spoke and again pushed this point.

He seemed not to why this was a particularly bad take about the incident where four students were shot dead at Kent State.

The unarmed students, two of whom weren’t even participating in the protest, were infamously shot by members of the National Guard during a protest there against the Vietnam War on campus, May 4, 1970.

When you’re trying to argue why you should take guns away from the people, perhaps it’s not the best argument to talk about an incident where the government shot the people dead.

Someone want to give Robert Francis a heads-up?

What a way to do in your own argument…

The post Bad Self-Own: Beto’s New Argument for Gun Confiscation Is Exactly the Argument Against It appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeAPimage-300x153 Bad Self-Own: Beto’s New Argument for Gun Confiscation Is Exactly the Argument Against It Uncategorized Guns gun control gun contol Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Campaigns Beto O'Rourke' presidential campaign Beto O Rourke 2A   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Despite Rampant Speculation of an Unsaid Quid Pro Quo, Evidence Drops That Blows Up That Narrative

Westlake Legal Group a8636803-f428-4e76-ab5b-b516cf1d9e5e-620x317 Despite Rampant Speculation of an Unsaid Quid Pro Quo, Evidence Drops That Blows Up That Narrative Whistle-Blower Report Ukraine Trump True Conservatives Politics phone call No Quid Pro Quo military aid Major Revelation Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats bombshell Ben Shapiro

Yesterday afternoon, a major tidbit in the Trump-Ukraine story dropped. Namely, that the Ukrainian government, at the time of the phone call with President Trump, didn’t even know anything about military aid being held up. We’ll get to that in a second, but first some background.

This detail is the key factor in everything. The idea is that Ukraine knew aid was being held up and that Trump was pressuring them with the understanding that they better help him. That is the entire basis for this “scandal.” It forms the supposition that even though there was no explicit quid pro quo, that “come on, of course we know what Trump and Ukraine meant!”

In fact, that supposition formed the groundwork for a lot of “true conservatives” to rush to Twitter and suggest or support impeachment of Trump, complete with snarky tweets about how crazy it is to not see a quid pro quo in the call.

Well, this latest news blows that up to a large extent.

Why is this important? Because you can’t have an unsaid quid pro quo if the other party isn’t even aware of the quid. It’s illogical. For Ukraine to be winking and nodding about getting aid, and for Trump to be pressuring them over the aid, the cardinal bit of knowledge for everyone would have to be that the aid was temporarily held up.

This entire thing is ridiculous on its face. The idea that we’d impeach a President based on pure assumption of what a foreign country may have interpreted never made sense. Now that we find out they didn’t even know anything? What’s left? That Trump was holding his foreign phone calls on a more secure government server? Good luck with that line when the genesis for the setup was two majors leaks of calls with Mexico and Australia.

Once again, a lot of conservatives at certain outlets got way out over their skis. I get they don’t like Trump and see every “scandal” as hope they’ll get Pence and a fresh election in 2020, but how many times does this get to happen before it’s acceptable to acknowledge their game? And to be clear, I’m not talking about Ben Shapiro, quoted above, who actually took a wait and see approach on this from beginning. A lot of anti-Trump conservatives could learn from that tact. You don’t have to rush to buy every left-wing premise the moment it drops. Donald Trump is not getting impeached and he will be the nominee in 2020. Deal with it.

————————————————

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 Despite Rampant Speculation of an Unsaid Quid Pro Quo, Evidence Drops That Blows Up That Narrative appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group facepalm-bear-300x157 Despite Rampant Speculation of an Unsaid Quid Pro Quo, Evidence Drops That Blows Up That Narrative Whistle-Blower Report Ukraine Trump True Conservatives Politics phone call No Quid Pro Quo military aid Major Revelation Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats bombshell Ben Shapiro   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com