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 55)

Pro-Abortion Groups Vow to Support Primary Challenger to One of the Last Remaining Pro-Life House Dems

Westlake Legal Group pro-abortion-groups-vow-to-support-primary-challenger-to-one-of-the-last-remaining-pro-life-house-dems Pro-Abortion Groups Vow to Support Primary Challenger to One of the Last Remaining Pro-Life House Dems washington D.C. Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Marie Newman Illinois Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats DCCC Dan Lipinski Culture Congress Campaigns Allow Media Exception Abortion 2020 Elections 2020

Westlake Legal Group abortion-on-demand-protesters21-620x348 Pro-Abortion Groups Vow to Support Primary Challenger to One of the Last Remaining Pro-Life House Dems washington D.C. Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Marie Newman Illinois Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats DCCC Dan Lipinski Culture Congress Campaigns Allow Media Exception Abortion 2020 Elections 2020

Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL-3) is one of the last remaining pro-life Democrats in the U.S. House. He is the co-chair of the Congressional Bipartisan Pro-Life Caucus, has a generally pro-life voting record, and spoke at this year’s March for Life rally.

This, of course, makes him a ripe target for pro-abortion groups who see anyone to the right of Cecile Richards as an “enemy of women’s rights.” As a result, those extreme left wing groups are lining up to support the same woman who tried but failed to primary Lipinski in 2018:

On Monday, EMILY’s List, MoveOn, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Democracy for America announced support for Marie Newman, who is once again challenging Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., for his suburban Chicago district.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., also recently endorsed Newman, becoming the first presidential candidate to do so.

[…]

Lipinski voted against the Affordable Care Act and has broken with his party on guns, the minimum wage, and other issues, but the focus of the backlash against him has been on abortion.

The DCCC, which earlier this year made it much more difficult for Democrats to primary other Democrats, is standing by Lipinski in spite of the challenge by groups with which they are normally allies:

“I don’t want to spend one ounce of any resource on keeping Democrats in the seats that they already have. I want to make sure that we have resources to pick up seats,” said [DCCC Chair and Rep. Cheri] Bustos, who called the DCCC “an incumbent-friendly organization.”

She called the current Democratic House majority, won in the November midterms, a “fragile majority” of 17 seats over Republicans with 31 House Democrats coming from districts that had been won by President Donald Trump, including her own 17th District.

“That’s hard. That’s job No. 1, that we spend our resources where we have to spend our resources,” she said.

As for incumbents holding positions on issues that run counter to current Democratic ideology, such as abortion rights, Bustos said her representation of rural parts of her district puts her in a position where “there’s all kinds of people who could take issue with how I vote.”

Lipinski, who has been in Congress since 2005, issued a statement defending himself:

“These endorsements make clear that Marie Newman is again running a ‘tea party of the left’ campaign at the behest of national interest groups rather than focusing on taking care of the everyday concerns of people in the district as I have a track record of doing,” Lipinski said in a statement. “This type of campaign, along with Ms. Newman’s hateful, Trump-like rhetoric, her penchant for spreading falsehoods – which she was called out for recently by an independent fact-checker, and the 2018 #metoo issues in her campaign she has still yet to address, will once again be rejected by voters.”

He narrowly won the 2018 primary. By all accounts, it was bruising.

If statements from these pro-abortion groups and the DCCC are any indication, it will be another fierce battle as Democrats on the far left seek to all but ban pro-life voices from their party, while establishment Democrats would prefer spending primary campaign funds on seats they don’t already hold.

The Illinois primary will be held on March 17, 2020.

———————
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 Pro-Abortion Groups Vow to Support Primary Challenger to One of the Last Remaining Pro-Life House Dems appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group abortion-on-demand-protesters21-300x168 Pro-Abortion Groups Vow to Support Primary Challenger to One of the Last Remaining Pro-Life House Dems washington D.C. Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Marie Newman Illinois Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats DCCC Dan Lipinski Culture Congress Campaigns Allow Media Exception Abortion 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Cory Booker’s New Gun Control Plan Is as Absolutely Insane as You’d Expect

Westlake Legal Group cory-bookers-new-gun-control-plan-is-as-absolutely-insane-as-youd-expect Cory Booker’s New Gun Control Plan Is as Absolutely Insane as You’d Expect vox unconstitutional Politics gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story DOA democrats Democrat primary Crazy Idea Cory Booker 2020 election

Westlake Legal Group booker-bug-eyed-620x349 Cory Booker’s New Gun Control Plan Is as Absolutely Insane as You’d Expect vox unconstitutional Politics gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story DOA democrats Democrat primary Crazy Idea Cory Booker 2020 election

Cory Booker’s campaign is DOA but it’s still fun to watch him flail around, desperately seeking attention.

That’s basically what his new gun control proposal is. It’s chum in the liberal waters. It’s also patently insane and unconstitutional.

Ambitious is liberal code for dumb and completely unworkable, but like a five year old painting with his hands, what really matters is that he tried.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) sums up his ambitious new gun control plan in one sentence: “If you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to own a gun.”

On Monday, Booker unveiled his proposal to tackle America’s gun problem as part of his bid for the presidency, detailing a plan that sets a high bar for the rest of the Democratic field.

You see Cory, cars are not a constitutionally protected right. There’s also no federal license to drive a car.

Booker’s proposal would require people to obtain a license to purchase and own a gun. To obtain a license, people would go to designated outposts — similar to the passport system — to get a federal license, administered by the FBI. Applicants would need to pay a fee; submit paperwork, a photo, and fingerprints; sit for an interview; pass a comprehensive background check; and go through gun safety training to get a gun. The license would be valid for five years, although it could be rescinded if someone breaks the law or otherwise proves to be a danger.

This is called unconstitutional, no matter how much good research Vox thinks is behind it. The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to say what the Federal government can’t do. They can not require licensing to exercise inalienable rights, nor can they force you to be subjected to an interview process where Cory Booker gets to decide who does and doesn’t get to own a firearm. They also can not charge you a fee to use your rights. The rest of the stuff is equally nonsensical, i.e. the idea that you’d have to pass a gun safety course, giving the Federal government yet another arm of control.

The sheer amount of craziness in this proposal is hard to grasp.

Speaking of which, when asked whether he’d jail citizens who refuse to comply with his tyrannical proposal, Booker won’t say (spoiler: he would).

Democrats need to let this go. You are never going to peaceably disarm masses of Americans by restricting their constitutional right to bear arms. Attempting such would lead chaos and possibly bloodshed. It’s not worth it. Especially when gun violence continues to decrease despite the manufactured crisis narrative we see in the media. Mass shootings are incredibly rare, which is why when one happens, it gets a week of news coverage. Most other gun violence is centered around illegal guns in inner cities, i.e. gangs, drug cartels, etc.

Taking guns from law abiding citizens is not going to solve any of that. In fact, it’s Democrats who oppose common sense ways to get illegal guns off the street via techniques like stop and frisk. This isn’t about actually solving a problem. It’s about politics and Cory Booker getting to virtue signal. Luckily, he’s not going to get anywhere near the Presidency so he can continue to enjoy being irrelevant in the Senate.

————————————————-

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 Cory Booker’s New Gun Control Plan Is as Absolutely Insane as You’d Expect appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group cory-booker-SCREENSHOT-300x173 Cory Booker’s New Gun Control Plan Is as Absolutely Insane as You’d Expect vox unconstitutional Politics gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story DOA democrats Democrat primary Crazy Idea Cory Booker 2020 election   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

‘In Bad Faith’: Big Tech’s Growing Conservative Censorship

Westlake Legal Group in-bad-faith-big-techs-growing-conservative-censorship ‘In Bad Faith’: Big Tech’s Growing Conservative Censorship World Wide Web wireless Welfare Veterans Administration twitter trade Title II Reclassification Title II Time Warner tea party Taxes tax reform tax day Tax Tariffs tariff stop online piracy act STELA spectrum incentive auction spectrum auctions Spectrum SOPA social security Social Media slowdown Slow Lanes Shutdown Science Sales tax Russia collusion Robert McChesney Retransmission Consent Retransmission republicans Regulation reed hastings reclassification public broadband protect ip act Privacy PRISM President Barack Obama Portland Politics Policy PIPA patriot Obamacare Obama NSA News network neutrality Netflix Net Neutrality National Security Agency municipal broadband muni broadband merger Medicare Media Marxists MARK LLOYD Local Choice law july 12 day of action John Brennan james comey James Clapper IRS internet sales taxes Internet Sales Tax internet reclassification Internet Internal Revenue Service infrastructure spending Infrastructure Hillary Clinton HHS Health and Human Services government broadband Government Google Fiber Google gamers FTC Front Page Stories Front Page Free trade food stamps fiat Federal Trade Commission Federal Communications Commission FEC FCC Diversity Czar fcc chairman tom wheeler FCC Fast Lanes fast and furious farm policy farm law Farm Bill facebook evan greer EPA Environmental Protection Agency Endorsements elections Edward Snowden Ed Markey Economy Economics EBT donald trump Department of Agriculture democrats default debt ceiling crossfire hurricane Cronyism crony socialism crony capitalism critical infrastructure crime CRA Congressional Review Act comcast Chicago Campaigns Business & Economy Budget broadband April 15 AOC antitrust antifa amazon Alexandria Ocasio-Cotez Affordable Care Act acquisition #OccupyPortland “federal spending”

The latest Big Tech censorship news broke last week:

Facebook Bans Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Other Far-Right Figures

Let us for the moment leave aside this massive media inanity:

“Farrakhan also among those removed from social-media sites.”

If Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan is “far-right” – I’m all the way back around to Karl Marx.

That being said, the latest move by Big Tech to de-platform people they don’t like – cleaved the center-right in two…Donald Trump-style.

The Trump-Never Trump Venn Diagram – is a nigh perfect overlay with the division over Big Tech censorship.

The Never Trump (NT) contingent mostly refused to defend the de-platformed – mostly on three fronts.

One: The de-platformed aren’t themselves defensible.  Because by their NT definition – they aren’t actually conservatives.  And/or they simply do not like them.

Which is willful blindness to the inexorable next waves of Big Tech purges – which will undoubtedly swallow very many who meet their definitions.

Next the NTers – start REALLY sounding Leftist.

Two: The de-platformed’s speech – may actually incite violence.  That crazy people will read what they say – and commit violence as a result.

This is at once incredibly anti-First Amendment, Leftist and intellectually diminutive (please pardon the redundancy).

Crazy people – are crazy.  They can be driven to mad acts – by their refrigerator manual.  Or by a Rogaine commercial.  Or by a flower opening in their yard.  Serial killer David Berkowitz said he took his murderous orders – from a dog named Harvey owned by his neighbor Sam.

Westlake Legal Group censored-620x331 ‘In Bad Faith’: Big Tech’s Growing Conservative Censorship World Wide Web wireless Welfare Veterans Administration twitter trade Title II Reclassification Title II Time Warner tea party Taxes tax reform tax day Tax Tariffs tariff stop online piracy act STELA spectrum incentive auction spectrum auctions Spectrum SOPA social security Social Media slowdown Slow Lanes Shutdown Science Sales tax Russia collusion Robert McChesney Retransmission Consent Retransmission republicans Regulation reed hastings reclassification public broadband protect ip act Privacy PRISM President Barack Obama Portland Politics Policy PIPA patriot Obamacare Obama NSA News network neutrality Netflix Net Neutrality National Security Agency municipal broadband muni broadband merger Medicare Media Marxists MARK LLOYD Local Choice law july 12 day of action John Brennan james comey James Clapper IRS internet sales taxes Internet Sales Tax internet reclassification Internet Internal Revenue Service infrastructure spending Infrastructure Hillary Clinton HHS Health and Human Services government broadband Government Google Fiber Google gamers FTC Front Page Stories Front Page Free trade food stamps fiat Federal Trade Commission Federal Communications Commission FEC FCC Diversity Czar fcc chairman tom wheeler FCC Fast Lanes fast and furious farm policy farm law Farm Bill facebook evan greer EPA Environmental Protection Agency Endorsements elections Edward Snowden Ed Markey Economy Economics EBT donald trump Department of Agriculture democrats default debt ceiling crossfire hurricane Cronyism crony socialism crony capitalism critical infrastructure crime CRA Congressional Review Act comcast Chicago Campaigns Business & Economy Budget broadband April 15 AOC antitrust antifa amazon Alexandria Ocasio-Cotez Affordable Care Act acquisition #OccupyPortland “federal spending”

You simply can not sanitize the planet for crazy people.

And there is simply no way the threshold for violence-inciting speech – is this ridiculously low:

Conservative actor James Woods has been locked out of his Twitter account for now more than a week.  For curse-word-free quoting the TV show “The Wire.”

If it was on pay TV fifteen years ago – and available via streaming services ever since – there is no way Woods Tweeting it is even remotely problematic.

We’ll get into more, even more ridiculous examples in just a bit.

Three: The NTers say “These Big Tech monsters are private companies – and they can have or not have whomever they wish on their platforms.”

Under normal circumstances, this is exactly the First Amendment “freedom to assemble” argument I have made my entire life.

In our private and business lives, we are free to assemble – or not assemble – any way we wish.  Completely free from government interference or imposition.

I made this exact argument when the Colorado baker wouldn’t bake a homosexual wedding cake.  His lawyers made the “freedom of religion” argument – which worked, he won – but that was to me the weaker tack to take.

“It’s my private business…and I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” – seems undeniably strong to me.

But when faced by monstrous Big Tech’s de-platforming – this argument simply does not apply.  For several reasons.

For starters – Big Tech isn’t making this argument:

“Facebook Inc. said it’s banning a number of controversial far-right figures…for violating the social-media company’s policies on hate speech and promoting violence.”

This is omni-directional absurd.

“Promoting violence” – ???

Gay gadfly Milo Yiannopoulos was among the recently Facebook banned.  He was also banned by Twitter in 2016.

Milo has to my knowledge – and I LOOKED prior to writing this – never said a single thing that could be even remotely construed to incite violence.

But what about Leftist radical group Antifa?

Antifa got a Milo appearance at Berkley University cancelled – by violently tearing up the campus the month prior to Milo’s arrival.

Here’s a bunch of videos of Antifa’s violent Berkley destruction.  Here’s more videos of Antifa violence – in Portland, Oregon, Huntington Beach, California, Laguna Beach, California, at Kent State University and elsewhere.  Here are two compilations of Antifa attacking people all over the place.

But Facebook – hasn’t banned Antifa.

So Milo tries to peacefully engage in free speech at Berkley.  Antifa responds with violence.

And Berkley, Twitter and Facebook – ban Milo, and keep Antifa.

That’s…a little backwards.

And “hate speech” – is speech.  You can’t ban the adjective – without banning the underlying noun.

And “hate” – is in the eye of the beholder.  And the beholder – has biases.  Because the beholder – is human(s).

Let’s do some basic math, shall we?

There are about seven-and-a-half billion people on Planet Earth.  Let’s conservatively say three billion of them have access to the Internet – which means access to Big Tech’s platforms.

There is literally no way a website with as many posting members as a Facebook or YouTube – can possibly read each and every post for possible deleting purposes.  There are simply WAY too many.

So the platforms will have to come up with some sort of criteria to preemptively prevent the kinds of posts they wish to prevent.

Well, Big Tech – is exceedingly hard Left.  So their criteria – will be exceedingly hard Left.

Google, Facebook, Reddit Are Run by a Bunch of ‘Left-Wing Guys’

Facebook, Google, YouTube All Discriminate Against Conservatives

Silicon Valley’s Anti-Conservatism Is Getting Really Ridiculous

The Tech World Is Still Screwing Conservatives

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

Google is Rigging Searches for Hillary Clinton

Google is STILL Rigging Searches for Hillary Clinton

Google Execs’ Trump Meltdown Reminds: There’s No Such Thing As ‘Unbiased’

96 Percent of Google Search Results for ‘Trump’ News Are from Liberal Media Outlets

The Purge: YouTube Mass-Censors Conservatives, New Right, Classical Liberals

Undercover Video: Twitter Engineers To ‘Ban a Way of Talking’ Through ‘Shadow Banning,’ Algorithms to Censor Opposing Political Opinions

Liberal Journos Prove Twitter is Censoring Conservatives

Twitter’s Anti-Conservative Political Bias

Twitter CEO Dorsey: Comment Backing ‘Free Speech’ Was ‘a Joke’

We could list examples…until the crack of Doom.

All of which brings us to: The 1996 Communications Decency Act – and its Section 230.

Which gives Big Tech companies running allegedly open platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube – immunity from the lawsuit likes of slander, libel and Intellectual Property (IP) infringement.

Because it is users – not the companies – posting on their platforms.

So if a user slanders someone on Facebook – Facebook must remove the post when made aware, but can not be sued for it.

If a user uploads an entire movie to YouTube – Google must remove it when made aware, but can not be sued for it.

Makes perfect sense.

Except: The Big Tech companies were given this massive immunity – in exchange for each being an open platform.

Where everyone can post – and the companies do not edit.

If the companies start editing content and users, they cease to be immunized “platforms” – and start to be sue-able “publishers.”

To wit: The New York Times is a publisher.  With First Amendment rights – including the freedom to assemble any way they wish.  But they can be sued for slander, libel and IP infringement.

Big Tech – can’t have it both ways.  Availing themselves of “platform” immunities – while editing conservatives out of existence like “publishers.”

Big Tech’s Lying Legal Two-Step – To Defend Their Censorship Of Conservatives

Here’s the portion of Section 230 – on which Big Tech seems to be hanging its anti-conservative hats:

“Civil liability:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

“(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

“(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph.”

(Emphasis ours.)

If Big Tech’s censorship is done “in good faith” – they do not lose their lawsuit immunity.

No one with an IQ above nine on a warm day – can possibly think Big Tech is censoring “in good faith.”

I’m no lawyer (thank God) – but there are several ways to address the monster, censoring monoliths these Big Tech companies have become.

Certainly antitrust is one.  (We have, in fact, made this argument also – for several years.)

Ok – Milo is kicked off of Twitter and Facebook.  What competitors to these two behemoths can he join instead?  You can’t think of a single reasonable one for either – and neither can I.

Really long second shot: We may even be able to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act:

“(C)ommonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO,…focuses specifically on racketeering and allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because they did not actually commit the crime personally.”

But where we should certainly start – is Big Tech’s wanton and blatant violations of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

I’ve been told by a Never Trump attorney that it is impossible to prove “bad faith” in court.

I’d argue I just did here in print.

But if it’s true this part of the law is unenforceable – then the law is an ass.

We should throw it out – and pass something enforceable in its place.

We must do something about what’s happening.

Because what’s happening – ain’t great for the future of our nation.

The post ‘In Bad Faith’: Big Tech’s Growing Conservative Censorship appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group censored-620x331-copy-300x160 ‘In Bad Faith’: Big Tech’s Growing Conservative Censorship World Wide Web wireless Welfare Veterans Administration twitter trade Title II Reclassification Title II Time Warner tea party Taxes tax reform tax day Tax Tariffs tariff stop online piracy act STELA spectrum incentive auction spectrum auctions Spectrum SOPA social security Social Media slowdown Slow Lanes Shutdown Science Sales tax Russia collusion Robert McChesney Retransmission Consent Retransmission republicans Regulation reed hastings reclassification public broadband protect ip act Privacy PRISM President Barack Obama Portland Politics Policy PIPA patriot Obamacare Obama NSA News network neutrality Netflix Net Neutrality National Security Agency municipal broadband muni broadband merger Medicare Media Marxists MARK LLOYD Local Choice law july 12 day of action John Brennan james comey James Clapper IRS internet sales taxes Internet Sales Tax internet reclassification Internet Internal Revenue Service infrastructure spending Infrastructure Hillary Clinton HHS Health and Human Services government broadband Government Google Fiber Google gamers FTC Front Page Stories Front Page Free trade food stamps fiat Federal Trade Commission Federal Communications Commission FEC FCC Diversity Czar fcc chairman tom wheeler FCC Fast Lanes fast and furious farm policy farm law Farm Bill facebook evan greer EPA Environmental Protection Agency Endorsements elections Edward Snowden Ed Markey Economy Economics EBT donald trump Department of Agriculture democrats default debt ceiling crossfire hurricane Cronyism crony socialism crony capitalism critical infrastructure crime CRA Congressional Review Act comcast Chicago Campaigns Business & Economy Budget broadband April 15 AOC antitrust antifa amazon Alexandria Ocasio-Cotez Affordable Care Act acquisition #OccupyPortland “federal spending”   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

WATCH: Kamala Harris Undermines Election Results for the 2018 Georgia and Florida Gubernatorial Races

Westlake Legal Group watch-kamala-harris-undermines-election-results-for-the-2018-georgia-and-florida-gubernatorial-races WATCH: Kamala Harris Undermines Election Results for the 2018 Georgia and Florida Gubernatorial Races Stacey Abrams Politics North Carolina naacp Michigan kamala harris Hillary Clinton Georgia Front Page Stories Front Page Florida Featured Story Featured Post elections DETROIT democrats Culture Campaigns California Andrew Gillum Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020 2018 elections 2018

Westlake Legal Group KamalaJussieTweet WATCH: Kamala Harris Undermines Election Results for the 2018 Georgia and Florida Gubernatorial Races Stacey Abrams Politics North Carolina naacp Michigan kamala harris Hillary Clinton Georgia Front Page Stories Front Page Florida Featured Story Featured Post elections DETROIT democrats Culture Campaigns California Andrew Gillum Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020 2018 elections 2018

On Sunday, 2020 presidential hopeful Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) spoke at the NAACP’s 64th annual Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner in Detroit.

During her speech, she it was time to “speak truth” … and then proceeded to tell a couple of whoppers about the election results for the 2018 Florida and Georgia gubernatorial races.

The Detroit News reports:

She also spoke of the Voting Rights Act and laws that “suppress the vote.” She raised the controversy that arose with Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams, who narrowly lost a bid last fall to become the first black woman elected governor in U.S. history, and Andrew Gillum, the former Tallahassee mayor. Without “voter suppression: Stacey Abams is Governor Stacey Abrams. Andrew Gillum is Governor Andrew Gillum.”

“So the truth is, we need a new voting rights act in this country with automatic voter registration,” Harris said, noting Americans have to “fight back” against Republicans “who suppress” the right to vote.

Watch Harris speak on this issue in the video clip below:

Harris’s comments came on the heels of twice-failed candidate for president Hillary Clinton’s remarks Saturday on her 2016 presidential election loss:

“You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you.”

And both Clinton’s and Harris’s statements were in addition to Stacey Abrams’s continued refusal to concede the Georgia governor’s race. She continues to say that she won, when she knows she didn’t. She’s been debunked over and over again, but continues to make the false claim.

Gillum, too, lost fair and square. His election was not “stolen.”

Remember when refusal to accept election results was a direct threat to democracy or something? Me, too.

As I’ve said before, it’s amazing how quickly their standards change. Always quick to cry foul when they lose. In fact, hotly contested elections are only considered “legitimate” in their eyes when they win.

It just doesn’t compute with them when election results are not in their favor that maybe, just maybe a majority of people truly believed in the other candidate and their ideas more.

The left’s attempts at delegitimizing legitimate election results are part of long-term strategy on their part to motivate minority voters into turning out to vote in critical elections. It’s a shameful tactic, and one that deserves calling out whenever they try it.

Besides, shouldn’t saying such things be considered “incitement”? By the left’s rules of engagement, anything that could motivate someone to retaliate violently should be considered an attempt at inciting voters. Doesn’t suggesting to voters that their votes were “suppressed” fit that description?

———————
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 WATCH: Kamala Harris Undermines Election Results for the 2018 Georgia and Florida Gubernatorial Races appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group KamalaJussieTweet-300x195 WATCH: Kamala Harris Undermines Election Results for the 2018 Georgia and Florida Gubernatorial Races Stacey Abrams Politics North Carolina naacp Michigan kamala harris Hillary Clinton Georgia Front Page Stories Front Page Florida Featured Story Featured Post elections DETROIT democrats Culture Campaigns California Andrew Gillum Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020 2018 elections 2018   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Democrat Rep Accidently Admits What Impeachment Is Really About

Westlake Legal Group democrat-rep-accidently-admits-what-impeachment-is-really-about Democrat Rep Accidently Admits What Impeachment Is Really About Politics partisan politics Nancy Pelosi Mueller report impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats Crazy Al Green 2020 election

Westlake Legal Group al-green-impeachment-SCREENSHOT-620x394 Democrat Rep Accidently Admits What Impeachment Is Really About Politics partisan politics Nancy Pelosi Mueller report impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats Crazy Al Green 2020 election

Well, maybe it wasn’t an accident, but it certainly isn’t the kind of thing Nancy Pelosi wants being said.

Democrats are currently at a fever pitch regarding impeaching President Trump. It doesn’t matter that he’s objectively done nothing that measures up to impeachment, they just want it done. While they will claim that it’s a principled pursuit, the truth is much simpler. They want Trump gone for political reasons.

In case anyone was left unconvinced of that, here’s Rep. Al Green letting the cat out of the bag.

You don’t say?

Westlake Legal Group Unknown Democrat Rep Accidently Admits What Impeachment Is Really About Politics partisan politics Nancy Pelosi Mueller report impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats Crazy Al Green 2020 election

What the video shows is a Democratic House Representative boiling impeachment down to nothing more than a political escape hatch for the opposition party. It’s also clear that even though they know the Senate would never convict, they see impeachment as an albatross to hang around Trump’s neck in the middle of an election season.

It’s a complete abuse of the system but there are no boundaries anymore. Democrats are willing to do absolutely anything to regain power.

Meanwhile, the American people don’t seem so keen on the idea.

Westlake Legal Group 00001-3-1 Democrat Rep Accidently Admits What Impeachment Is Really About Politics partisan politics Nancy Pelosi Mueller report impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats Crazy Al Green 2020 election

If Democrats keep playing these games, it’s going to end up hurting them in 2020. In fact, I don’t think Trump should even fear impeachment at this point. If I were him, I’d come out publicly and call their bluff. Tell them to start the proceedings if they feel like they’ve got the goods, but that they don’t get to play games with side-show investigations while not actually having to guts to impeach.

Pelosi has a tough job ahead as she’s seemingly losing control of her party. Good luck to her trying to keep all the insanity contained.

————————————————-

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 Democrat Rep Accidently Admits What Impeachment Is Really About appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group al-green-house-floor-SCREENSHOT-300x161 Democrat Rep Accidently Admits What Impeachment Is Really About Politics partisan politics Nancy Pelosi Mueller report impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats Crazy Al Green 2020 election   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Celebrities Sell the Equal Rights Amendment with Lies, and with No Firm Reason for Passage

Westlake Legal Group celebrities-sell-the-equal-rights-amendment-with-lies-and-with-no-firm-reason-for-passage Celebrities Sell the Equal Rights Amendment with Lies, and with No Firm Reason for Passage Stupid statements from the left Popular Culture Patricia Arquette Human Rights Hollywood Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post ERA Equaal Rights Amenddment Entertainment democrats Culture Congress Celeebrity Activism Alyssa Milano Allow Media Exception

 

Westlake Legal Group Arquette Celebrities Sell the Equal Rights Amendment with Lies, and with No Firm Reason for Passage Stupid statements from the left Popular Culture Patricia Arquette Human Rights Hollywood Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post ERA Equaal Rights Amenddment Entertainment democrats Culture Congress Celeebrity Activism Alyssa Milano Allow Media Exception

Screen cap from YouTube of Congressional testimony, (The Teapartiest)

If this Amendment to the Constitution is so vital why is there no sound reason given, and why the dramatics to push it?

I come here not as a constitutional lawyer,” said actress Patricia Arquette last week, in a statement that surprised exactly no one. She was testifying before a Congressional hearing on the Equal Rights Amendment, and as if she intended to prove her words accurate, Arquette went on to make a profoundly ignorant statement about the Constitution.

 

Women have waited 232 years to be enshrined as full and equal citizens,” she continued. Imagine how many females in this country had to be surprised to learn they are not, in fact, actual citizens of the United States. But Ms. Arquette next proceeded to display every reason why she should not be a spokesperson for this new drive to reinstitute the ERA. “Because in 1787, women were left out of the Constitution intentionally.”

(sigh)

Now, in one fashion, the activist thespian is somewhat accurate in her statement, but not in the manner she thinks. While it is true that women are not mentioned in the Constitution, and it was intentional, it was not due to a nefarious design by the framers. There is a detail that will come as a surprise to Arquette, and the other females and politicians in the country, leaning on this factoid.

The truth they miss, or avoid, is that the words “men” and “man” also do not appear on our crucial document. It was written for “people”, and “all persons”, and there is no gender affirmed. Turns out the framers actually were not a gaggle of misogynistic white oppressors, as implied by the likes of Arquette, and Rep. Eric Swalwell, who mangle the history.

Yes, I do need to explain this means that women were in fact included in our founding policies and rights, and therefore the claims of women having diminished citizenry are hyperbolic nonsense. But for some reason there is a renewed push to have the ERA brought back to life. It is telling that the people behind this effort consider themselves “Progressives”, as they attempt to resurrect an expired piece of legislation from nearly 50 years ago.

The ERA sprang out of the activist ’60s, and was drawn up and voted upon in the early ’70s. It successfully passed Congress, but in a needed civics lesson for many on the left, that was only half of the battle to alter our Constitution. The individual states had to vote on ratifying the new addition, and on that respect it failed. The ERA was passed by Congress in 1972 and sent to the states. The seven-year process for completion was extended to ten years by Congress, and still it failed to achieve the required threshold. By the time the deadline arrived in June of 1982, only 35 of the required 38 states.

Every few years it seems a renewed effort crops up to attempt to get things moving on the expired amendment process. The recent #MeToo movement appears to be the most recent impetus. And as such celebrities, such as Ms. Arquette, are cropping up to make asinine claims.

Actress Dana Delany declared that as of now women are not equal. Alyssa Milano commented after the hearings in a video, and in her affected prolix she even alludes to the central theme of the Constitution, which rendered all of her claims invalid. “I don’t have equal rights under the Constitution,” she claims, with abject ignorance. And then, as if to disprove herself, she manages to illustrate the idiocy of her own claim. “It is time for the constitution to reflect the powerful principles of its first three words: We the People’”. That is correct, Alyssa — “People”, of which you and your gender are included.

To illustrate the utter vacancy behind this push all one needs to do is ask what is accomplished with ERA’s passage? What is lacking for females in America that would be addressed in this amendment? I have been asking this frequently, and any answer I receive concerns a matter in already existing federal legislation.

Females cannot be singled out based on their sex, as a result of a law few acknowledge addresses this issue — the Civil Rights Act. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination or harassment based on sex. Okay, but what about the oft-trumpeted problem in the workplace, Gender pay equality? That long-debunked claim that women are paid less for equal work, were it real, is already illegal based on the Equal Pay Act, where all employees get paid the same for the same work, regardless of gender. Both of these laws predate the creation of ERA, The CRA passed in 1964, and the EPA passed in 1963.

Numerous other federal statutes protect women from unfair treatment. The Family Medical Leave Act allows for treating of newborns, and there is the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to prevent firing or the denial of hiring based on a woman’s birthing progress. Title IX addresses equal access to educational and athletic opportunities on college campuses, and on financial matters there is the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and in regards to dwellings, there is the Fair Housing Act.

Most any other discriminations can be prevented, or deemed illegal, under the U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 21, which covers discrimination based on gender, age, disability, race, and/or religion. This covers a wide array of areas, such as education, employment, business, federal services, and more. Chapter 21 serves as the basis of many of the civil rights legislation passed on the federal level, and gender protections are nearly always the first of the items listed as being covered.

Some are willing to say if ERA is such a harmless or redundant policy then what is the harm in passing it? This is pure deflection, because it does not address the desire to make a fundamental change to our founding document for something that is shown not to be needed. The fact that so many celebrities and politicians have to resort to lies and hysteria in order to sell this is all the reason to discount the effort entirely.

The post Celebrities Sell the Equal Rights Amendment with Lies, and with No Firm Reason for Passage appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Arquette-300x178 Celebrities Sell the Equal Rights Amendment with Lies, and with No Firm Reason for Passage Stupid statements from the left Popular Culture Patricia Arquette Human Rights Hollywood Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post ERA Equaal Rights Amenddment Entertainment democrats Culture Congress Celeebrity Activism Alyssa Milano Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

“A Really Cheap Shot”: Crenshaw Roasts Omar’s Blame-America-First Venezuela Response and Tiresome WOC Card-Playing

Westlake Legal Group a-really-cheap-shot-crenshaw-roasts-omars-blame-america-first-venezuela-response-and-tiresome-woc-card-playing “A Really Cheap Shot”: Crenshaw Roasts Omar’s Blame-America-First Venezuela Response and Tiresome WOC Card-Playing Venezuela Texas Social Media republicans Politics North Carolina Nicholas Maduro Minnesota Media Marco Rubio Ilhan Omar Human Rights Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Featured Story Featured Post democrats Dan Crenshaw Culture Congress Allow Media Exception
Westlake Legal Group DanCrenshawFoxNews “A Really Cheap Shot”: Crenshaw Roasts Omar’s Blame-America-First Venezuela Response and Tiresome WOC Card-Playing Venezuela Texas Social Media republicans Politics North Carolina Nicholas Maduro Minnesota Media Marco Rubio Ilhan Omar Human Rights Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Featured Story Featured Post democrats Dan Crenshaw Culture Congress Allow Media Exception

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX-2). Screen grab via Fox News.

On Saturday, my Red State colleague Bonchie wrote about Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN-5) response to VP Mike Pence’s and Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) criticisms of her attempts at blaming America for the crisis in Venezuela.

Omar, of course, boiled their remarks down to racism and sexism.

As I’ve written before, this is a common tactic she and her fellow freshman Democratic Congresswomen embarrassingly use when they’ve been called out and have nothing of substance to add to the debate.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX-2) has also responded to Omar trying to pin Venezuela’s issues on American policy. During a segment on Fox News Friday night, Crenshaw said that “her opinion is not one that is based on facts or reality” and explained why:

I’ve been going to Venezuela for a long time. My family actually used to live in Caracas, and I’ve traveled there a number of times.

I’ve watched these policies ruin the country. It’s not U.S. policy. Notice how [Omar] didn’t give an example because she doesn’t have any.

But what’s actually happened is through price controls and nationalization of private industry, you’ve ruined an economy. We have a hundred years of examples to show for this. When you put in these kinds of socialist policies, it destroys a country. It happens over and over again. People starve. That is what’s happening right now. These failed ideas that keep bubbling up.

As to Omar blaming America and her use of the woman of color card, Crenshaw again pushed back:

It’s a real shame to see that we have members of Congress actually defending them, and always going back to ‘it’s the U.S.’s fault. It’s always ‘America’s fault.’ And ‘if you’re disagreeing with me, you’re disagreeing with me because of my identity.’ That’s basically what she said in that tweet and that’s really cheap, that’s a really cheap shot to take.

Watch the interview with Crenshaw below:

This is not Crenshaw’s first dance with the Woman of Color card. He responded last month to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY-14) playing the card in defense of Rep. Omar’s controversial 9/11 remarks by saying:

So what they do is they’ll use identity to try and silence anyone else from saying anything. You’re not allowed to say that because of who I am. Sorry, no, that’s not how things work in a democracy, especially amongst members of Congress.

In an interview with CBS News this past weekend, Crenshaw again stood by his criticism of Omar’s “some people did something” 9/11 comments.

———————
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 “A Really Cheap Shot”: Crenshaw Roasts Omar’s Blame-America-First Venezuela Response and Tiresome WOC Card-Playing appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group DanCrenshawFoxNews-300x166 “A Really Cheap Shot”: Crenshaw Roasts Omar’s Blame-America-First Venezuela Response and Tiresome WOC Card-Playing Venezuela Texas Social Media republicans Politics North Carolina Nicholas Maduro Minnesota Media Marco Rubio Ilhan Omar Human Rights Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Featured Story Featured Post democrats Dan Crenshaw Culture Congress Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Energy: More Anti-Federalism State-Level Leftist Impediments to National Progress

Westlake Legal Group energy-more-anti-federalism-state-level-leftist-impediments-to-national-progress Energy: More Anti-Federalism State-Level Leftist Impediments to National Progress wind power Venezuela Tom Steyer Technology Spending solar power socialism Shutdown Science scam progressives Politics Policy Oil News natural gas Media Inconsistency hoax Government Shutdown Government Global Warming George Soros Front Page Stories Front Page Fraud Florida Governor ethanol environment Energy Economy donald trump democrats democratic socialism Cronyism crony socialism crony capitalism crony communism Coal climate cange Climate Business & Economy Bernie Sanders Andrew Gillum

We have repeatedly discussed federalism – and its rightful definition:

“A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units.”

In America, per our Constitution, that means the central authority (the federal government) does certain, specific, expressly enumerated things.

And the rest – comprised of MOST things – belongs elsewhere:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Leftists – really don’t like federalism.  Because it serves to limit government.

Of course the Left will ignore or cite federalism – whenever and wherever. So long as whatever they claim – increases the power of government somewhere.

The Left’s Warped, Ridiculously Fake Federalism

Sure, Leftists will cite federalism – when it is states and/or municipalities trying to expand government power beyond the nigh limitless bounds to which the federal government has already expanded.

And the Left will cite federalism incorrectly – when the states and municipalities are trying to expand government over which The Feds have actual, Constitutional control.

Of course, the Left will also flip the federalism script – if it impedes actual progress for America.

 

Westlake Legal Group Pipeline-620x388 Energy: More Anti-Federalism State-Level Leftist Impediments to National Progress wind power Venezuela Tom Steyer Technology Spending solar power socialism Shutdown Science scam progressives Politics Policy Oil News natural gas Media Inconsistency hoax Government Shutdown Government Global Warming George Soros Front Page Stories Front Page Fraud Florida Governor ethanol environment Energy Economy donald trump democrats democratic socialism Cronyism crony socialism crony capitalism crony communism Coal climate cange Climate Business & Economy Bernie Sanders Andrew Gillum

To wit: Energy policy.

America is a nation that runs on actual energy: coal, oil, natural gas and occasionally nuclear.

Unfortunately, we waste tons of time and money screwing around with fake energy: wind, solar, biofuel, etc.

Insane states like California and New York are trying to make a go of it with mostly fake energy – and it is killing their economies.

But the rest of us can do math – so we want to continue to enjoy the real energy revolution President Donald Trump has incepted.

The U.S. Just Became a Net Oil Exporter for the First Time in 75 Years

United States Has Been a Net Exporter of Natural Gas for More than 12 Consecutive Months

Energy policy – is quite obviously in the federal government’s purview.

Our sovereign nation should have one federal slate of energy policies – and our federal government should negotiate terms for international interaction with the rest of the planet.

Insane states – are messing with this obviousness.  And not only are they flipping federalism upside down – they are blatantly violating the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause:

“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.’”

To get our oil and gas around the nation – and to the world – we need pipelines.  They are the interstate highways of energy.

And some insane, anti-actual-energy state-level politicians – are unconstitutionally screwing with our pipelines.

Not just because they’re Leftists – but because they’re funded-by-the-Left Leftists.

One of the very many myths in politics – is ideas chase money.  It is almost always the other way round – money chases ideas.

Barack Obama wasn’t a free market conservative – until Leftist terrorist William Ayers threw him a fundraiser in his home.  At which point Obama flipped – and went on to be the most Leftist president in our history.

That flip happens – but very, very rarely.  What happened was:

Obama was a hardcore Leftist.  Leftist terrorist Ayers liked the cut of Obama’s jib (please pardon the sailing reference) – and hosted in his home a fundraiser for Obama.

Money chases ideas – not the other way round.

And sometimes – the political cash simply purchases wanton government cronyism.

Meet Democrat Pennsylvania state Senator Andy Dinniman.

Pennsylvania Lawmaker Opposed To Pipeline Took Money From Company Suing It:

“A Pennsylvania state senator opposing a pipeline project in his district has accepted nearly $80,000 in campaign donations from a developer suing the energy company behind the project.”

Let us pause to point out:

To those of us exclusively used to dealing with federal government dollars – $80,000 doesn’t sound like very much at all.  But at the state level – that is a LOT of campaign coin.  And state-level pols can get REALLY cozy with just one funder – WAY more than can federal pols.

The piece continues:

“Democratic state Sen. Andy Dinniman is one of the chief opponents to the Mariner East pipeline project by the energy company Sunoco….

“Dinniman’s campaign for years has been backed by the real estate developer Hankin Group, another principal party opposing the pipeline.

“The Hankin Group filed a lawsuit against Sunoco in February to force the energy company off four Hankin Group properties where the pipeline is being constructed.”

Did you get that?  “(W)here the pipeline is being constructed.”

That means – construction is already underway.  Which means – it has already been multi-government approved.

Any of us who have ever applied for a government permit for ANYTHING – know what a giant pain in the rear end that process is.

Imagine the heinous nightmare – that is applying for the very many permits required to build a petroleum pipeline.  And you must do it – with dozens of governments in multiple states.

This pipeline has run all-the-governments’-gauntlets – and been green lit.

And now this bought-off state-level hack Dinniman – is trying to retroactively stop it.

Leftists love lobbing ridiculous vitriol in opposition to actual energy – just as much as they loathe actual energy.

Behold – the Nazi card being played.  Meet Democrat Pennsylvania state Representative Danielle Friel Otten.

Pa. Lawmaker Faces Backlash for Bringing Nazis into Pipeline Debate

“On Saturday, Chester County Democrat Danielle Friel Otten got in a Twitter exchange with a pro-pipeline group.

“She’d been supporting protesters who were using cars to block pipeline work….

“During the protest, the Pennsylvania Energy Infrastructure Alliance tweeted that protesters were preventing workers from doing their jobs.

“In a now-deleted tweet, Friel Otten responded that ‘The Nazis were just doing their jobs too.’…”

Ahh, yes.  American citizen employees of American companies – trying to get to their gigs in America.  Which about fourteen different governments have given them permits and permission to do.

Which is JUST like the Nazis.

State Senator Dinniman is bought.

State Representative Otten is nuts.

They’re both championing the same Leftist nonsense.

They’re both anti-actual-energy, anti-sanity, anti-Reality and anti-Constitution.

Because they’re both anti-already-approved, national-energy-policy pipeline.

They both need to get out of the way.

And their Quaker State (SWIDT?) constituents – should un-elect them both at their next available opportunity.

The post Energy: More Anti-Federalism State-Level Leftist Impediments to National Progress appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Pipeline-300x188 Energy: More Anti-Federalism State-Level Leftist Impediments to National Progress wind power Venezuela Tom Steyer Technology Spending solar power socialism Shutdown Science scam progressives Politics Policy Oil News natural gas Media Inconsistency hoax Government Shutdown Government Global Warming George Soros Front Page Stories Front Page Fraud Florida Governor ethanol environment Energy Economy donald trump democrats democratic socialism Cronyism crony socialism crony capitalism crony communism Coal climate cange Climate Business & Economy Bernie Sanders Andrew Gillum   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Hillary Clinton Should Run in 2020

Westlake Legal Group hillary-clinton-should-run-in-2020 Hillary Clinton Should Run in 2020 stolen election Stacey Abrams Russia Politics Mueller report media bias irony Hypocrisy Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats 2016 Election

Westlake Legal Group 1-angry-hillary-SCREENSHOT-620x331 Hillary Clinton Should Run in 2020 stolen election Stacey Abrams Russia Politics Mueller report media bias irony Hypocrisy Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats 2016 Election

Hillary Clinton is back at it, claiming the 2016 election was “stolen” from her.

The irony of course being that Hillary Clinton once warned that questioning the electoral process was a grave threat to our democracy. The media dutifully followed and spent the better part of two weeks clutching their pearls over the idea that Trump might not respect the results of the 2016 election.

Since her defeat shortly after that tweet, Hillary has done her best to remain relevant by constantly not respecting the results of the 2016 election. Given that tickets to her latest speaking tour have collapsed to $2 per person, it’s not really going that well, but she’s still showing up and talking nonetheless.

Here’s her latest comments per The Daily Caller.

The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee spoke with her husband at “An Evening With The Clintons” event.

“You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you,” she said, according to CNN.

Oddly enough, not once I have heard a major media figure claim that Clinton is endangering democracy with her claims. Funny how the standards change, right?

The renewed push to claim the election was stolen from her is largely driven by the release of the Mueller report. In reality, the report does nothing to support her deflections about her loss. No one in the Trump campaign (or any American period) colluded with the Russians. The DNC emails had no real affect on her campaign either, as her polling actually improved after that episode.

Here’s the thing though. If she really believes this, then she should run in 2020. If she lost in 2016 on a technicality caused by the Russians, then there’s no reason for her not to get a do-over. I for one fully support her jumping into the race. I’m sure Democrats would welcome her with open arms, right?

Of course, Hillary knows they wouldn’t accept her because deep down, the Democrats know the election was not stolen. She really was just that bad of a candidate.

There’s essentially no actual case to be made that blue collar workers in PA, MI, and WI turned against Hillary over Russians putting memes on Facebook or John Podesta’s ho-hum musings being reported. She lost because she took for granted a part of the country she felt was locked up. The fact that her policies would harm many of those people also played a major role.

Instead of admitting her flaws, she continues to flail around on the public stage and claim the election was stolen. It’s sad and comical, especially given the rash of Democrat politicians who continue to claim elections were stolen from them, namely Stacey Abrams.

But again, if Hillary really believes everything she’s saying, then she has a duty to run in 2020. Let’s get this started.

————————————————-

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 Hillary Clinton Should Run in 2020 appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group hillary-thumbs-up-SCREENSHOT-300x153 Hillary Clinton Should Run in 2020 stolen election Stacey Abrams Russia Politics Mueller report media bias irony Hypocrisy Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats 2016 Election   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Rashida Tlaib’s Father Says She Committed Election Fraud

Westlake Legal Group rashida-tlaibs-father-says-she-committed-election-fraud Rashida Tlaib’s Father Says She Committed Election Fraud the daily wire ryan saavedra residency rashida tlaib Politics Israel Hamas Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story election fraud Elabed Detroit News democrats

Yesterday, I posted on Tlaib defending terrorists who were launching hundreds of rockets into Israel. Today, I ran across another interesting story involving her.

Rashida Tlaib’s father claimed in 2010 that she lied on her election affadavit about where she lived in order to qualify for the office she was seeking. Why is something that happened in 2010 just now coming to light? Because the comments were in a Detroit News article that was effectively scrubbed from the internet.

In a March 11, 2010 newspaper article in The Detroit News, Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s (D-MI) father accused her of lying “big-time to get elected” by falsifying her address on an election affidavit.

The details center around a house that Tlaib’s father was part owner of.

He said his daughter misrepresented her residency when she signed an election affidavit in 2008 with the Wayne County Clerk claiming she was a citizen of Detroit.

According to that affidavit, Tlaib claimed she lived at 9123 Rathbone in Detroit. That house is owned in part by her father, Harbi Elabed, and he now says she did not live there and he was only recently made aware that she had claimed so.

“She lied,” Elabed said. “She lied big-time to get elected. I never teach her that way. I teach her the right way. It’s my house. She didn’t live there. She lived in Dearborn in her house with her husband and boy.”

There was apparently a lot of bad blood in the relationship and Tlaib claimed that her father was lying to get back at her. Who’s telling the truth? We’ll probably never know because Tlaib was never made to prove residency despite claims she could. I’d guess any statute of limitations on something like this is long gone and no one in Detroit would prosecute anyway.

Fudging residency to run for office is a favorite pass-time of politicians everywhere. You may recall that AOC faced similar questions that have yet to be resolved (among many others about her campaign finance). Perhaps it’s time for those that run for office to be made to prove this stuff? Seems like a small fail safe to implement given the importance of elections.

Nothing will happen here, but it’s worth exposing nonetheless. A Republican would be grilled on this so we’ll see whether the media finds it even worth mentioning (spoiler: they won’t).

————————————————-

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 Rashida Tlaib’s Father Says She Committed Election Fraud appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group rashida-tlaib-channel-4-SCREENSHOT-300x160 Rashida Tlaib’s Father Says She Committed Election Fraud the daily wire ryan saavedra residency rashida tlaib Politics Israel Hamas Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story election fraud Elabed Detroit News democrats   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com