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" (Page 18)

Chuck Todd Dismissed Ukraine Meddling In 2016 Election as ‘Conspiracy Theory’ But He Must Have Missed These Facts

Westlake Legal Group chuck_todd2 Chuck Todd Dismissed Ukraine Meddling In 2016 Election as ‘Conspiracy Theory’ But He Must Have Missed These Facts Ukraine investigation into 2016 election interference Ukraine Politico media bias Media Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post fake news donald trump democrats Congress Allow Media Exception

MEET THE PRESS — Pictured: (l-r) — Chuck Todd, Moderator, “Meet the Press,” appears on “Meet the Press” in Washington, D.C., Sunday, August 31, 2014. (Photo by: William B. Plowman/NBC)

On Sunday, Chuck Todd had a meltdown on “Meet the Press” when Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) raised John Brennan, the Strzok-Page texts and the allegations that the Democrats were involved with Ukraine meddling in the election in 2016.

Todd flipped out and refused to let Johnson continue raising the issue of meddling, calling it a “Fox News conspiracy propaganda” despite Johnson referencing a Politico article about the meddling. Todd claimed Johnson just didn’t want to anger President Donald Trump by criticizing him on Ukraine.

On Twitter, Todd was cheered by much of liberal media for his response. CNN’s Chris Cillizza calling Johnson’s response to Todd “nonsensical.”

But that’s part of the problem. No doubt it was nonsensical to Cillizza if he hasn’t been following the facts and had no idea what Johnson was talking about.

Todd and the response of some of the other network media types just proved the point that Johnson was trying to make – that many in media have not only downplayed the questions of the origins of the Russia probe and how that reflects on the FBI, the CIA and the Democrats but they’ve downplayed or ignored any of facts pertaining to Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election and any alleged involvement of the Democrats. If they paint it as a “conspiracy,” maybe Americans will just forget about the question and not see the inherent contradiction between spending two plus years incessantly covering the Russia collusion hoax while not saying “boo” about Democrats and Ukraine.

Some media has committed journalism and looked at the question.

Politico did a bang-up article to which Johnson referred. Here’s Politico’s second paragraph:

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

The New York Times did a report on how a Ukrainian court actually found there was meddling in our election during the campaign in 2016.

The Kiev District Administrative Court, in a statement issued Wednesday, said that Artem Sytnik, the head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, the agency that had released information about the payments, had violated the law. The court’s statement said this violation “resulted in meddling in the electoral process of the United States in 2016 and damaged the national interests of Ukraine.”

Yesterday we reported that Glenn Beck had a audio tape allegedly of Sytnik admitting he “helped” Hillary during the election by releasing “black accounting records” to hurt Paul Manafort and thereby the Trump campaign.

U.S. Attorney John Durham is now also looking into Ukrainian meddling during 2016.

All this, while it needs to be investigated, is more than a “conspiracy” theory.

Unless what you really mean is an actual conspiracy to undermine Donald Trump. We’ll leave that to John Durham to determine.

But when might we expect the networks to trumpet the facts in this matter as much as they trumpeted the empty Russia collusion hoax?

The post Chuck Todd Dismissed Ukraine Meddling In 2016 Election as ‘Conspiracy Theory’ But He Must Have Missed These Facts appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group chuck_todd2-300x199 Chuck Todd Dismissed Ukraine Meddling In 2016 Election as ‘Conspiracy Theory’ But He Must Have Missed These Facts Ukraine investigation into 2016 election interference Ukraine Politico media bias Media Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post fake news donald trump democrats Congress Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Syria Withdrawal Part I: The Right Decision

Westlake Legal Group syria-forces-620x324 Syria Withdrawal Part I: The Right Decision Uncategorized Trump Syria Susan Rice Samantha Power republicans Politics Obama Syria Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception
America woke up this morning to the news that President Trump, in consultation with President Erdogan of Turkey, has decided to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria. The process has already begun—both ways. As U.S. forces withdraw, Turkish forces are moving in to occupy the battlespace.

Because this was President Trump’s decision, predictably there was an immediate uproar, not only from the usual suspects employed by left-wing news outlets, but also never-Trump voices using FOX news as their platform. Note the strident tone of these excerpts from FOX.

And while news of the U.S. pullout stunned Syrian Kurds, the announcement also “completely blindsided” top brass at the Pentagon, U.S. officials told Fox News.

Aside from the existential threat to the Kurdish fighters posed by Turkey, Syrian Kurdish forces are also warning that ISIS sleeper cells are actively plotting to free about 12,000 militants currently detained by the Kurds and may take advantage of the Turkey-triggered turmoil to aid their plans.

Attempting to again promote the idea that President Trump doesn’t “listen to his experts,” in another article FOX says

President Trump first made waves on the issue in December 2018, when he abruptly announced the U.S. would completely pull its troops from Syria, tweeting that the mission to defeat ISIS was completed. The move prompted the resignation of then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and a coordinated campaign by then-National Security Adviser John Bolton to try to protect the Kurds, America’s fighting partner in the region.

Some of these points are valid and there are a number of serious risks attendant to this decision. However, in order to separate the political chaff from the actual data required for a sound National Security decision, we need to go back to the beginning of this entire imbroglio — Syrian President Bashar Al Assad’s alleged decision to employ chemical weapons against an ongoing insurgency in his country. President Obama believed he needed to make some sort of statement because of the (at the time) unverified information regarding this use of chemical weapons. Obama drew his “Red Line,” (im)famously stating.

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.

At that same time, insurgents known as Islamic State of Iraq & Syria/ Islamic State Of Iraq & the Levant (ISIS/ISIL) were operating in parts of Iraq and Syria, causing significant headaches to Iraqi and Iraqi Kurd forces. President Obama, likely egged on by National Security Advisor, Susan Rice and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, both “Responsibility to Protect” adherents, began operations in Syria against ISIS/ISIL forces using that flawed doctrine as an excuse.

Under orders from President Obama, U.S. manned aircraft and drones (likely along with “National Technical Means”) began surveillance of ISIS/ISIL occupied areas in Syria in September of 2014. Later that same month, a coalition of Arab Air Forces led by the United States, began attacking ISIS/ISILpositions inside Syria, a clear violation of International Convention and U.S. Law.

As I noted in an article back then, if a U.S. Pilot had been shot down by a Russian aircraft, the Russians would have been correct under International Convention, as they had been invited in by the lawful sovereign in Syria, President Bashar Al Assad. What is worse, in 2016 the (then) newly assigned Commander of U.S. Central Command took a clandestine trip into Syria to confer with U.S. Forces on the ground there. Although sharing risks with troops on the ground is of course a stellar leadership technique, imagine the damage to U.S. prestige had he been captured or killed there…not to mention, he is a personal friend of mine.

Then there is the fundamental question—U.S. troops in Syria? By what authority other than a Presidential Order are they there? Had Congress declared War? Had they even passed a Use Of Force Resolution? What rationale, other than the long-discredited “Responsibility To Protect” doctrine, espoused by One World Order acolyte Samantha Power? Power, as a little light reading will show, is one of the architects of the Obama-directed decline of U.S. international power and prestige. As time went on, it appeared that dealing with ISIS/ISIL became an excuse to engage in that (now thankfully abandoned) doctrine, in Syria.

This is the main issue. This is the reason the then-candidate, now-President Trump, made it a campaign promise and administration priority to get U.S. troops out of wars we didn’t belong in. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth about this being a surprise, an unexpected decision that somehow “blindsided” senior Department of Defense officials, is just so much drek. That line is merely an excuse for Obama holdovers and deep state operatives who have been slow walking Trump policies and decisions—policies and decisions that have been known to them since the beginning of his post-election transition.

These people need to get it through their heads just who the duly elected Commander In Chief is. If they cannot execute his policies and directives with alacrity and effectiveness, they should exhibit the character of General Mattis…and resign…quietly.

Tomorrow, Part II: Not All Kurds Are Our Friends

Mike Ford, a retired Infantry Officer, writes on Military, Foreign Affairs and occasionally dabbles in Political and Economic matters.

Follow him on Twitter: @MikeFor10394583

You can find his other Red State work here.

The post Syria Withdrawal Part I: The Right Decision appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group syria-forces-300x157 Syria Withdrawal Part I: The Right Decision Uncategorized Trump Syria Susan Rice Samantha Power republicans Politics Obama Syria Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Pence Headed to House Districts of Vulnerable Democrats With a Message: Let’s Settle This at the Ballot Box

Westlake Legal Group MikePenceAPimage-620x317 Pence Headed to House Districts of Vulnerable Democrats With a Message: Let’s Settle This at the Ballot Box white house washington D.C. Target Races republicans Politics North Carolina Mike Pence Indiana Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats Culture Congress Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020

Vice President Mike Pence speaks to the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association, Friday, April 26, 2019, in Indianapolis. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has refused to hold a formal impeachment inquiry vote on the floor of the U.S. House, but we still have a good idea of which Democrats have boarded the impeachment train so far.

There are 235 Democrats in the House and all but 9 of them have publicly expressed support for either an impeachment inquiry or outright impeachment. Some of those who have noted their support for one or the other are in districts won by Trump in 2016 but by Democrats in 2018.

It is some of those districts Vice President Mike Pence will be visiting this week as part of a Trump campaign blitz to remind voters (and the vulnerable Democratic House members) that political disagreements should be settled at the ballot box, not by way of impeachment.

Politico reports:

Each of the districts on Pence’s itinerary were won by Trump in 2016, making them potent targets for Republicans. The vice president will travel Wednesday to the southwest Iowa district of Rep. Cindy Axne, and Thursday he’s slated to visit the suburban Twin Cities district of another freshman Democrat, Minnesota Rep. Angie Craig. The vice president is then scheduled to barnstorm an array of battleground districts, including those held by Michigan Rep. Elissa Slotkin and Virginia Rep. Abigail Spanberger.
[…]
But Republicans are eager to get in sync, saying the impeachment push has given them a powerful argument to use against Democrats. At each stop, Pence is expected to paint Democrats as being more focused on destroying the president than on solving the problems of their constituents.
[…]
Democrats, Republicans point out, successfully prosecuted a similar case during the House GOP-led impeachment of Bill Clinton. Republicans suffered in that year’s midterm election, losing five congressional seats.
[…]
Roughly two dozen of the 31 House Democrats who hail from districts Trump won in 2016 have expressed support for the impeachment inquiry.

In at least one instance, Pence’s visit will be part of a two-pronged approach, appearing in Minneapolis on the same day Trump plans a speech in the Twin Cities:

Vice President Mike Pence is reportedly visiting the Twin Cities on Thursday, the same day President Donald Trump will hold a downtown Minneapolis rally.
[…]
In 2016, Trump carried Craig’s Second Congressional District by just over 1%. That same year, Craig lost the congressional race to Republican Jason Lewis by a similar margin. In 2018, Craig beat Lewis in a rematch by more than 5 percentage points.

In addition to the growing calls from Democrats to impeach Trump, there’s also wild talk about how should Pence himself should be thrown into the impeachment mix, which if successful would leave us with House Speaker Pelosi as president.

With that in mind, Pence shouldn’t have much trouble making a convincing argument that Democratic efforts to date on impeachment look more like coup attempts than legitimate inquiries into so-called “impeachable offenses.”

——-
— 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 Pence Headed to House Districts of Vulnerable Democrats With a Message: Let’s Settle This at the Ballot Box appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group MikePenceAPimage-300x153 Pence Headed to House Districts of Vulnerable Democrats With a Message: Let’s Settle This at the Ballot Box white house washington D.C. Target Races republicans Politics North Carolina Mike Pence Indiana Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats Culture Congress Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Democrats Trying to Impeach Trump in Secret Hearings

Westlake Legal Group ap-adam-schiff Democrats Trying to Impeach Trump in Secret Hearings Impeachment of President Trump Impeachment farce impeachment Government Transparency Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Congress Allow Media Exception

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, speaks after a closed meeting on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, June 6, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Nothing about what the Democrats have done so far in regards to the impeachment process has been according to previously recognized rules and precedents.

They’ve failed to even have a floor vote of the full House to open an inquiry as has been done in the past. That has also allowed them to skirt the rules requiring such things as bipartisan questioning in hearings. That’s prompted some to believe they aren’t serious, are playing to their base or are hoping to shake some more information loose to get Trump.

Republicans have ripped them for ignoring proper process so far. The White House has said they do not have to comply with the requests from Democrats if Democrats aren’t even proceeding with a vote on a formal inquiry.

But there’s another big problem in how they are proceeding, as Byron York of the Washington Examiner points out.

There have so far been two hearings in the House Democrats’ effort to impeach President Trump over the Ukraine matter. Both have been held in secret. One was Thursday, the other Friday, and the public does not know what was said in either. Two more are scheduled for this week and will be held behind closed doors, too.

The hearings are part of an effort to remove the president from office. There could not be a matter of more pressing public concern. There could not be a matter in which the American people have a greater stake. And yet the public has no idea what is being discovered.

Last week’s sessions weren’t just secret. They were super-secret. The first hearing, in which the witness was former Ukraine special envoy Kurt Volker, was held in what is known as a SCIF, which stands for sensitive compartmented information facility. It is a room in the Capitol built to be impervious to electronic surveillance so that lawmakers can discuss the nation’s most important secrets without fear of discovery.

The second hearing, in which Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson testified, was also held in the SCIF.

Obviously, there was nothing terribly secret in the Volker and Atkinson hearings, as York notes. GOP came out of the meeting saying that nothing supported the impeachment hearing.

So why would you hold it in the SCIF unless you simply didn’t want the public to hear what he had to say which apparently didn’t support the Democrats’ agenda?

Republicans are ripping the lack of transparency and pointing the finger at Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) who is leading the flawed effort.

“Adam Schiff is running an impeachment inquiry secretly, behind closed doors, and he’s making up the rules as he goes along,” said Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe.

“These proceedings should be public,” added Republican Rep. Jim Jordan. “Democrats are trying to remove the president 13 months before an election based on an anonymous whistleblower … and they’re doing it all in a closed-door process.”

“This is nothing more or less than a show trial for the media,” said Rep. Devin Nunes, ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, noting that with secrecy rules in place, the public knows only what is leaked to the press. “The Democrats leak what they want to leak to build narratives.”

This week they have more interviews coming up which will also be held in secret.

Schiff argues that the secrecy is needed to protect the whistleblower. But that’s nonsense. One doesn’t have to use his name and one can set parameters as to restrict identifying information.

But trying to use that as an excuse to keep the whole proceedings secret from the American public is Orwellian, screams “coup” and abuse of power. They don’t want you to know what’s going on, they want to filter it, feed you their narrative and have media spin it for them.

It isn’t about respect for the American people and or the Constitution, it’s all about how they can seize power. That’s fundamentally wrong and need to be called out.

The post Democrats Trying to Impeach Trump in Secret Hearings appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-adam-schiff-300x200 Democrats Trying to Impeach Trump in Secret Hearings Impeachment of President Trump Impeachment farce impeachment Government Transparency Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Congress Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Democrats Continue to Soil Themselves Over the Possibility of Voting on Impeachment

Westlake Legal Group NancyPelosiAPimage-620x317 Democrats Continue to Soil Themselves Over the Possibility of Voting on Impeachment vote Running Scared Politics No Vote Nancy Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry impeachment House Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Election donald trump democrats Congress Bluff Called Allow Media Exception 2020

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., reads a statement announcing a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

For being such a layup, Democrats sure continue to refuse to take the shot.

As we enter almost a month of impeachment fever, the House is currently in the midst of an “impeachment inquiry” led by Rep. Adam Schiff, who’s proven himself time and again to be a complete hack. If you have reservations about how fair such a process is going, congrats on being more perceptive than the media, who see no issue with Republicans being frozen out of the matter. Imagine their reaction if Republicans had done that to Democrats on Benghazi, for example.

But aside from the game playing going on, one of the more stark realities that’s being made clear is just how scared Nancy Pelosi and her party are of actually having to vote on impeachment.

Take this line put out by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, who leads the Democrat Caucus, over the weekend.

Wait, what? A vote is “cosmetic and procedural?” Who knew that actually having to follow the Constitution to enact the privileges and special powers of impeachment was just cosmetic? A lot of future Republican majorities are going to be glad to hear that.

Secondly, how can he know a majority back an inquiry without a vote? Just because they say so with nothing on the line? The logic is ludicrous, which means George Stephawhatever did nothing to push back on the claim.

Here are the facts. Impeachment inquiries, if we are talking about the use of special subpoena powers (which Democrats claim they now have), do not just happen by decree. If they did, every majority in the House throughout history could have just said they are having one and used it to harass and tie up any administration. If they want the ability to compel witnesses and document transfers, they need to actually vote on impeachment or, at the very least, they have to vote on the rules involved in an inquiry.

There’s another reason they are terrified to vote, though. It’s not just that they don’t want their moderates to have to go on record. They also don’t want to allow Republicans any power to rebut what they are doing. By not having an official inquiry, they get to make the rules in committee. The moment impeachment is officially brought to the fore, Republicans will get several tools to use themselves to fight back.

So what’s really going on? This isn’t an impeachment inquiry at all. It’s another useless, partisan committee investigation led by a known liar who’s already been caught orchestrating this entire matter. If we had a media worth anything, they’d be intellectually honest enough to report that.

Republicans should continue to demand a vote and neither they nor the White House should provide Pelosi with anything in the meantime. If they want to impeach, then impeach. Enough of the word games and abuse of power.

————————————————

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 Democrats Continue to Soil Themselves Over the Possibility of Voting on Impeachment appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group clowncar-300x160 Democrats Continue to Soil Themselves Over the Possibility of Voting on Impeachment vote Running Scared Politics No Vote Nancy Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry impeachment House Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Election donald trump democrats Congress Bluff Called Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Is Correct on Net Neutrality Court Win – But That Wasn’t the Whole Ruling

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-07-at-11.16.35-AM Trump Is Correct on Net Neutrality Court Win – But That Wasn’t the Whole Ruling wireless Wired Web Search washington D.C. Technology technolgy Section 230 satellite progressives Privacy Politics Policy News network neutrality Net Neutrality law Internet of Things Internet Government Google Global Warming Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Economy Climate Change Climate China California Business & Economy 5g 4G

President Donald Trump early Monday morning Tweeted:

“We just WON the big court case on Net Neutrality Rules! A great win for the future and speed of the internet. Will lead to many big things including 5G. Congratulations to the FCC and its Chairman, Ajit Pai!”

All of which is absolutely correct.

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit did in fact rule the Trump Administration’s decision to undo the Barack Obama Administration’s unilateral, illegal imposition of the ridiculous Network Neutrality – was Constitutional and legal.

The courts upholding the Trump Administration restoring order – after lawless Obama Administration illegal, unilateral power grabs – is by no means a fait d’acomppli.

Appeals Court Upholds Block on Trump’s Attempt to End DACA

The Obama Administration – under its unilateral, illegal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) – declared ill-defined, amorphous amnesty from prosecution for millions of illegal aliens.

Somehow, multiple clowns in gowns have ruled the Trump Administration’s attempt to revert to immigration law actually passed by our elected Congress – is illegal.  The courts – are thereby codifying the Obama Administration’s lawlessness.

So we are thankful for the DC Circuit’s excellent tether to Constitutional sanity with its Net Neutrality rollback ruling.

Most unfortunately, the Court left open a hole huge enough for a Leftist caravan to roll on through:

“The federal appeals court’s decision upheld the FCC’s reclassification of broadband Internet access service as an information service, rather than as a telecommunications service, but argued that states can pass their own net neutrality legislation.”

Emphasis ours – because that is a TERRIBLE ruling:

“This…(is) a clear violation of the (Constitution’s) Commerce Clause:

‘[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.’

“The Commerce Clause was – like all of the Constitution – a government-limiting entry. It was written to prevent states from big-government-imposing barriers to interstate commerce.

“How to Understand the Commerce Clause in One Simple Sentence:

“‘Congress has the authority to regulate trade between the states; or in other words, the process of goods and services moving from one state to another. Not the products themselves. Not the process of creating those products. Just the act of the products moving from state to state. That’s it.’

“Get that eminent simplicity?

“Let us…focus on the ‘trade between the states…(and) the process of goods and services moving from one state to another.’

“Bits on the Internet – criss-cross state and international borders hundreds of millions of times a second.

“To think that a single U.S. state here or there has the prerogative to regulate something that is so obviously a Commerce-Clause-federal-responsibility – is warped, ideological nonsense.

“It violates both the letter and the spirit of the deregulatory Commerce Clause.

“Because it exponentially grows government.”

Indeed it does.  To trained lawyers appointed as judges – all of this should be quite obvious:

“(T)he WORLD Wide Web is clearly a federal government issue.  The Feds determine our nation’s Internet policy.  And then The Feds negotiate Internet interactions with other nations.”

The federal government cannot successfully do that – if its policy is incessantly being exceeded or undercut by a state here or there.

State-by-State Net Neutrality Laws Breakdown:

“More than half of states in America are opposing the FCC’s ‘Internet Freedom’ bill with local Net Neutrality state laws.”

Washington Governor Signs First State Net Neutrality Bill

California’s Net Neutrality Bill Is Back and as Tough as Ever:

“‘This will be the most comprehensive and the strongest net neutrality protection in the United States, where we are restoring what we lost when Donald Trump’s FCC obliterated net neutrality,’ (Democrat state Senator Scott) Wiener told reporters….”

So the DC Circuit Court’s ruling – undercuts its ruling.

Their Honors ruled the Trump Administration can restore order – until the many states destroy order.

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) – will be forced to deal with an insane patchwork quilt of fifty different Net Neutrality regulatory regimes.

Complying with this nightmare mess – is going to cost ISPs a LOT of time and money.

Time and money I’d rather them spend – on increasing speeds and decreasing prices.

The federal government will have to take this titanic mishmash of fifty-state-regime Brunswick Stew (a dish famous for containing any and everything).  And try to cobble together a semi-coherent federal policy.  So as to try to incorporate our Internet – with the rest of the planet’s Internet.

Are you familiar with the expression…?

A Camel Is a Horse Designed by a Committee:

“An expression critical of committees – or by analogy, group decision-making – by emphasizing the ineffectiveness of incorporating too many conflicting opinions into a single project through compromise.

“In this figure of speech, the distinguishing features of a camel, such as its humps and poor temperament, are taken to be the deformities that resulted from its poor design.”

Imagine a REALLY surly camel – with fifty different humps.

That will be US Internet policy.

An incoherent mess.  Caused by federal officials having to constantly look over their shoulders for fifty different, often shifting Net Neutrality regulatory mandates.

Rather than looking forward – at how to best situate US in the global Internet regime.

This ain’t great for our nation.

This ain’t in compliance with the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

The latter, of course – guarantees the former.

Because, as always – the further we get from Constitutional compliance…the worse things get for us all.

The post Trump Is Correct on Net Neutrality Court Win – But That Wasn’t the Whole Ruling appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-07-at-11.16.35-AM-300x122 Trump Is Correct on Net Neutrality Court Win – But That Wasn’t the Whole Ruling wireless Wired Web Search washington D.C. Technology technolgy Section 230 satellite progressives Privacy Politics Policy News network neutrality Net Neutrality law Internet of Things Internet Government Google Global Warming Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Economy Climate Change Climate China California Business & Economy 5g 4G   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ilhan Omar Files for Divorce From Her Husband

Westlake Legal Group IlhanOmarAOCAPimage Ilhan Omar Files for Divorce From Her Husband ilhan omar marriages Ilhan Omar Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Congress Allow Media Exception

U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., left, joined at right by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., responds to base remarks by President Donald Trump after he called for four Democratic congresswomen of color to go back to their “broken” countries, as he exploited the nation’s glaring racial divisions once again for political gain, during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, July 15, 2019. All four congresswomen are American citizens and three of the four were born in the U.S. Omar is the first Somali-American in Congress. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Looks like Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) can no longer deny her marital situation.

It’s now being reported that she has filed for divorce from her present husband, Ahmed Hirsi.

She’d previously denied that they were separated amidst accusations that she was having an affair.

Earlier in the year, the wife of Democratic political consultant Tim Mynett accused her husband of having an affair with Omar in court filings pertaining to the couple’s divorce. Mynett filed a response, denying that he’d told his wife he was leaving her for Omar.

As the Washington Examiner observes:

The allegation of the affair brought added scrutiny to Omar’s own marriage. She has faced repeated questions over her marital history after allegations surfaced that she married her brother and committed immigration fraud.

The freshman congresswoman married Hirsi in 2002 during a faith ceremony but did not legally marry until years later. Omar and Hirsi had two children before they separated in 2008. The next year, Omar legally married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi. The two split in 2011, the same year Omar and Hirsi reconciled, but did not legally divorce until 2017. Meanwhile, Omar and Hirsi had a third child in 2012 and legally married in early 2018.

Omar, 37, has denied that she was in a relationship with anyone else. When asked in August whether she had separated from Hirsi or was dating anyone else, Omar said, “No I am not.”

Omar’s relationship with Mynett, her political consultant, has also faced scrutiny because of campaign finance rules.

From Fox News:

The conservative, Virginia-based National Legal and Policy Center filed a complaint against Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on Wednesday, alleging that the lawmaker used campaign funds to illegally reimburse her purported paramour for personal travel expenses.

The complaint also charges that Omar failed to itemize travel reimbursements as required by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 — and that the travel expenses increased during the same month that Omar’s alleged affair with married Washington, D.C. political consultant Tim Mynett, 38, heated up. ….

Omar’s campaign has paid Mynett’s E. Street Group, LLC around $230,000 for fundraising consulting, digital communications, Internet advertising and travel expenses since 2018, federal election records indicate. Most of those payments occurred after Election Day last year.

Omar’s legal people denied that there had been anything illegal or improper about the expenditures.

Minnesota campaign finance officials found in June that Omar had violated state campaign finance rules when she used campaign funds to pay for personal out-of-state travel. They ordered her to reimburse $3500 and fined her $500. Omar has also faced questions about allegedly filing joint tax returns with her present husband, Ahmed Hirsi, while still reportedly legally married to her past husband, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi.

The post Ilhan Omar Files for Divorce From Her Husband appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group IlhanOmarAOCAPimage-300x153 Ilhan Omar Files for Divorce From Her Husband ilhan omar marriages Ilhan Omar Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Congress Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

MSM Silent as Antifa Member Gets Justice for Attacking Man

Westlake Legal Group Antifa-Berkeley MSM Silent as Antifa Member Gets Justice for Attacking Man Media Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post crime cnn media bias antifa Allow Media Exception

Antifa members seem often to not face consequences for their actions. They might get arrested but then, often, seem to have charges dismissed.

But not this time.

According to the NY Daily News, David Campbell, 32, was originally charged with assault for strangulation, possession of a weapon, assault of a police officer, resisting arrest and loitering after attacking a 56 year old man outside of a “Night for Freedom” event in Manhattan thrown by Mike Cernovich on January 20, 2018.

Campbell was one of about eighty Antifa people agitating outside the event.

Cops said the black-clad attacker punched and choked the man.

“I saw him hit the old man,” said witness Ali Thomas, 24. “One hit. He swung hard. He hit him hard. The old man’s head hit the curb.”

The 911 caller said initially that the 56-year-old was in cardiac arrest after the fight, according to fire officials. He was taken to Bellevue Hospital in stable condition, officials noted.

This past week, according to the New York Post, Campbell pled guilty to two counts of felony assault and will be sentenced to 18 months according to the District Attorney’s office.

“When Antifa attacked a 56-year-old man, silence from the press,” Cernovich told The Post.

“Now that the criminal case is closed, I will also be taking legal action against Mr. Campbell and his confederates. It is time to find out who is funding Antifa,” he said.

Media has often failed to cover Antifa violence or painted them with a favorable brush, buying completely the idea that they are “fighting fascism” while minimizing their violence and ignoring their radical philosophy.

CNN’s Chris Cuomo, for example, has compared Antifa to the U.S. military storming the beaches at Normandy. While Cuomo has said he does not justify violence, he has claimed they have a “good cause,” painting their violence as a bug rather than as a feature.

His colleague, Don Lemon, has also spoken favorably of Antifa, while saying that no one supports violence, has claimed they were fighting fascism and “no organization is perfect.”

Apart from coverage by local and conservative media, the plea doesn’t appear to have gotten attention. A search didn’t seem show any coverage by CNN of Campbell pleading guilty.

The post MSM Silent as Antifa Member Gets Justice for Attacking Man appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Antifa-Berkeley-300x159 MSM Silent as Antifa Member Gets Justice for Attacking Man Media Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post crime cnn media bias antifa Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Hunter Biden Apparently Gets Around, Caught Doing Shady Deals In Yet Another Country

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenAPimage-620x317 Hunter Biden Apparently Gets Around, Caught Doing Shady Deals In Yet Another Country Ukraine Rudy Guiliani Romania Politics NYTs Kenneth Vogel Joe Biden hunter biden Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Chuck Todd China

Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden speaks at the Polk County Democrats Steak Fry, in Des Moines, Iowa, Saturday, Sept. 21, 2019. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

It’s amazing how a guy with zero experience in certain fields kept getting jobs in certain fields. And I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that his father was conducting foreign policy in the same places, right? But don’t ask questions, because Chuck Todd might have an aneurysm.

We’ve already heard about Hunter Biden’s lucrative dealings in Ukraine. Then there was the bribery scheme in China involving a guy under indictment. Now, we are finding out that he advised a guy headed to prison in Romania.

In other words, Biden likely broke the law here by even being involved with this dealing in Romania. He was not registered as a foreign agent and he was clearly operating as an advisor to foreigners. Of course, nothing will happen to him because FARA laws only apply to Trump associates.

At the same time Hunter was doing this, Joe was involved in at least articulating foreign policy in the region. The smell of selling influence is strong. There’s no reason Hunter would have otherwise been getting all these gigs if the people involved didn’t think he it could help their case. The most damning explanation is that they felt he could sway his father, consciously or through indirect suggestion, to change their situations. The more tame explanation is that they thought simply having Hunter around would provide a buffer between them and prosecutors, i.e. the idea that Joe Biden would protect his son. Neither is particularly good.

But who gave this information to Vogel? I have a pretty good idea.

John Kerry’s son is front and center here. The article reads like him trying to get out in front of any accusations of bad dealings on his part. He’s basically throwing Hunter under the bus. Also, remember that the media rushed to accuse Rudy Guiliani of corruption for meeting in Romania earlier in the year. Anyone think they’ll suddenly forget where Romania is on the map? I’m going to guess so.

What all this does do, regardless of how bad it actually is, is continue to bloody Biden. Trump has successfully hung all this around his neck and because so many in the media adore Elizabeth Warren, they are starting to take the chance to put Biden out to pasture. While he continues to dominate in South Carolina, he looks to lose the first three primaries and that’s a terrible position to be in.

————————————————

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 Hunter Biden Apparently Gets Around, Caught Doing Shady Deals In Yet Another Country appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 17329344-1af8-4a1f-8631-ab65d20076a0-1-300x153 Hunter Biden Apparently Gets Around, Caught Doing Shady Deals In Yet Another Country Ukraine Rudy Guiliani Romania Politics NYTs Kenneth Vogel Joe Biden hunter biden Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Chuck Todd China   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

No, Mitt Romney Would Not Have Won In 2016

Westlake Legal Group debate-number-21-e1350585992784 No, Mitt Romney Would Not Have Won In 2016 won republicans Politics Mitt Romney LOST Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page fight Featured Story Election donald trump democrats Barack Obama Bad Candidate Allow Media Exception 2016 2012

In the midst of the latest dust up between Donald Trump and Mitt Romney, the latter of which went after the president over the current Ukraine mess, a common theme has popped up in the Trump-skeptical Republican circles.

It goes something like this: The only reason Trump won is because he faced a bad candidate and the only reason Mitt Romney lost is because he faced an unbeatable juggernaut, thereby Mitt Romney is actually a better candidate compared to Trump. The purpose of this argument is to assert that we need to go back in that direction post-Trump.

You see this come up anytime someone criticizes Romney’s performance in 2012, which Trump did earlier over the weekend. I suppose it makes certain people feel better to assert that Romney was actually the superior candidate, thereby reinforcing their biases against Trump. To be frank though, this analysis is total crap and relies on several false assumptions.

First, to say Romney would beat Hillary because she was a “uniquely terrible candidate” means we must assume Romney was not a terrible candidate himself. I’d confidently posit that he was. Romney was every anti-Republican stereotype wrapped into a perfectly punch-able package. You could not have created a candidate in a lab that more perfectly alienated blue collar workers in the the rust belt than Mitt Romney. While a certain segment of Republican finds him extremely endearing, most people did not. They found him to be a contrived, flip-flopping politician with neither an ability to connect with the average voter, nor the politics to satisfy the metropolitan elite.

Secondly, the idea that Barack Obama was an unbeatable, flawless candidate is a complete rewriting of history. In reality, his approval ratings languished in the low 40s for much of the campaign until Romney became the set alternative (again testifying to the fact that Romney just wasn’t a very good candidate). Obama was mired in a bad economy and numerous foreign policy blunders. While it’s hard to remember now, there was actually a time in 2016 where a lot of prognosticators weren’t favoring the former president to be re-elected. Was Obama a better candidate than Hillary Clinton? Sure. But did he present some insurmountable challenge for an otherwise awesome candidate in Mitt Romney? Hardly, and it’s just excuse making for Romney’s failures to pretend otherwise.

Lastly,  we constantly hear that Romney won more popular votes in 2012 than Trump did in 2016. But so what? We don’t elect people via the popular vote, as I think we all know. The map Romney would have needed to win is far more important. Could he have won the rust belt? Let’s talk about it.

This analysis is extremely flawed.  Yes, Romney managed a handful more votes in WI than Trump. You know where he didn’t come close to besting Trump though? In Ohio, in Michigan, and in Pennsylvania.

For example, Trump won OH by 7 points and over 200,000 votes. He put up nearly 300,000 more votes there than Romney did, who lost the state by 3 points. In fact, Trump won more votes in 2016 in OH than Obama did in 2012. The same story plays out in Michigan, where Trump won more total votes than Romney and won the state, whereas Romney lost it by 10 points. But would Romney have somehow pulled CO and NV instead? Highly unlikely given how blue those states were turning before 2016 even happened. Perhaps he’d have made it closer, but closer doesn’t win elections.

Here’s the biggest false assumption though. Trump didn’t win 2016 simply because Hillary was a terrible candidate in a vacuum. He won because he relentlessly went after her, pulling her down to his level and ultimately overtaking her. In short, Trump is the one who made her a terrible candidate. Would Romney have done that? Would he have brought Juanita Broadrick to a debate or pushed the email scandal to its limits? Of course he wouldn’t have. He’d of told us how he’s friends with Hillary but that he just doesn’t think she’s right for the job. We’d have gotten the same milquetoast, low energy campaign he gave us in 2012 and it’d have led to his defeat.

The point is this. Enough pretending that Trump didn’t do something special in 2016. Enough downplaying his unique ability to connect with Democrat leaning blue collar workers. Stop acting like actually fighting back is irrelevant in politics. It’s time to start recognizing the political lessons Trump has exposed, even if you don’t like him personally.

So no, despite what some conservatives are saying, Mitt Romney would not have won in 2016 and he was not a superior candidate to Trump.

————————————————

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 No, Mitt Romney Would Not Have Won In 2016 appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Mitt-Romney-Real-MR-Please-Stand-Up-300x165 No, Mitt Romney Would Not Have Won In 2016 won republicans Politics Mitt Romney LOST Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page fight Featured Story Election donald trump democrats Barack Obama Bad Candidate Allow Media Exception 2016 2012   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com