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)

Exactly Who is the Joe Walsh Candidacy Intended For?

Westlake Legal Group joe-walsh-620x414 Exactly Who is the Joe Walsh Candidacy Intended For? talk radio primary Joe Walsh Government gop Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump Campaigns 20220 election 2020

Joe Walsh speaking at CPAC by Gage Skidmore, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original

While he announced he is running for the GOP nomination Joe Walsh has stated most do not want him. So who does?

Current former-radio host Joe Walsh has made it official that he intends to challenge President Trump for the GOP nomination. To say his shot here is long is to imply the equator holds a similarly impressive length. While common sense alone would dictate that any challenge to the Trump hold on the White House, there is one revealing source declaring this to be true.

Joe Walsh himself.

While appearing on CNN’s AC 360 Walsh had some very curious comments, beginning with mention of his radio show.

“I just found out I lost my national radio show,” Walsh informed, sounding dismayed about a detail that he said he was just alerted to prior to going on the air. “So that’s gone. I don’t know why, I just got a notice before I came into the studio.” For him to be taken by surprise by this is — revealing. (For the sake of disclosure, Walsh’s radio program was owned by run by Salem Media, parent company of RedState.)

What is not detailed is that Walsh’s show was set to end as soon as he announced his intent to run for office. This is not some nefarious plot by pro-Trump acolytes to silence opposition — it is the law. Federal election laws stipulate that candidates cannot have their own broadcast platform, or else it would be regarded as an in-kind political contribution. These are known FEC standards and conditions. For Walsh to be oblivious to this detail is revealing itself.

But he then goes on to say things that call into question his reasons for running. “80-90% of my audience supports this President,” says Walsh. This tracks with current polling, which places GOP support of Donald Trump near 90%. He even gives anecdotal evidence in a prior interview that extends this challenging position. “The people I talk to privately tell me, ‘I can’t stand him but the Democrats are Socialists.’ Or, ‘I can’t stand him, Joe, but I like my tax cuts.’”

This means that even that small percentage sitting in opposition are not so eager to be swayed away, based on conditions that still favor Trump. So where exactly then is Walsh’s mandate to run coming from? It would have to be rooted in a personal animus because he is not entering to correct unfavorable conditions seen by voters. The only reason then is for him to serve as a poison pill in the primary, and negatively impact a popular GOP candidate.

In other words, it is in service to Democrats. The conservative base is not calling for an alternative, and many GOP opponents and even some never-Trumpers are still seeing cause to vote for him. Note how suddenly the news networks who freely referred to Walsh as a racist suddenly welcomed him on the air in a rush as soon as he came out as a Trump opponent. He sat with MSNBC today, and yesterday’s CNN visit was at least his third within a week. I guess the racist enemy of your racist enemy suddenly is no longer racist??

This can only mean that all that would be accomplished by a Walsh campaign would be to appease those on the left who need a weakened Trump to run against in the 2020 general election. It will be telling to see from where any of Walsh’s campaign funds derive. There just is not that much liberal-backed anti-Trump outlets flush enough to prop up a candidacy few “true conservatives” are looking to support.

The post Exactly Who is the Joe Walsh Candidacy Intended For? appeared first on RedState.

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

When Deregulation – Actually Makes Things Worse

Westlake Legal Group electrical-grid-620x409 When Deregulation – Actually Makes Things Worse Technology Talahasee republicans Politics Policy News law Inconsistency Government Front Page Stories Front Page Florida Energy electricty Economy Deregulation Cronyism crony cronies Conservatives competition Capitalism Business & Economy

The joint I run – is called Less Government.  Which means whenever possible – we want less government.

But Reality – is Reality.  Sometimes a little government is required.

Which is why the joint I run – isn’t called No Government.

We readily acknowledge – government is awful at everything.  But there are a few, very rare occasions – when there are things worse than government involvement.

A quick biggie?  Our nation’s borders.  A little government at our borders – is a VERY good thing.  (A little more – is even better.)

Sometimes the facts on the ground – necessitate a little government.

And so it is with our electricity service.

Shopping for electricity – isn’t like shopping for, say, a car.

There is a near limitless number of outlets from which to purchase your vehicle.

There is one – and only one – electricity line into your home.

So electricity deregulation creates an inexorable bottleneck – once the providers get to your house.

I love this analogy – provided for us by Frank Cirillo, an official with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) in Connecticut:

“It’s like a million people at a Stop N’ Shop (a convenience store) and there is one (expletive) cashier.”

Gotta love the colorful picture he’s painting.  As genius comedian Steve Hughes said about another brilliant choice of words:

“What it lacks in sophistication and depth – it makes up for wholeheartedly with a delightful clarity, don’t you think?”

This mass of providers – rushing to one choke point outside your house – also diffuses the customers’ ability to affix blame when something goes awry:

“While supporters claim this would introduce competition and could lower energy bills, similar measures in other states, including Texas, actually resulted in a spike in both household energy costs and consumer complaints.”

Complaints increased – because when something breaks multiple companies point at each other in an attempt to pass off blame…and nothing ever actually gets fixed.

And investment in the infrastructure drops – because everyone waits for everyone else to pony up.  Which means no one ever ponies up.

Again, we know this is a terrible idea – because it’s already been tried in places like Texas.

Ask Texas About Deregulated Electricity Markets. Prices Soared in Heat Wave:

“Just last week the Texas grid operator issued emergency warnings and called on all Texans to conserve energy so they could avoid blackouts.

“So what happened? In a surprise to no one, it got hot in Texas and wholesale electric prices soared 36,000 percent (that’s not a typo) to more than $9,000.”

Meanwhile in Florida:

“(I)t was also hot (it’s August), (but) there were no emergency declarations and wholesale electric prices at FPL hovered around a whopping $20.

“Adequate supply and steady prices at $20 or shortages and price spikes that go over $9,000, that’s one of the big differences between deregulated and rate-regulated markets.”

I live in southwest Florida. I lived in Austin, Texas.  Florida wins the Hot Contest.  Not because of the heat – but because of the swamp-imposed humidity.

And yet Florida is handling the August hotness – and Texas is not.

This bad idea has engendered the rarest of political occurrences – bipartisanship.  In fact – omni-partisanship.

Florida Energy Choice Ballot Initiative Attacked From All Corners

Florida League of Cities Officially Declares Energy Choice Initiative ‘Deceptive and Misleading’

Florida Urban Leagues Denounce ‘Deceptive’ Energy Choice Amendment

Florida Chamber of Commerce Sounds Alarm Bell Over Energy Choice Initiative

Florida Congressional Members Latest to Oppose ‘Energy Choice’ Amendment:

“A full 24 Florida members of (the US) Congress (12 Democrats and 12 Republicans), however, vigorously oppose the measure, as they wrote in a letter to (Florida) Attorney General Ashley Moody Friday.”

Unfortunately, we have not yet reached total unanimity on this.

One of the very many things of which to make fun when contemplating Leftists – is their steadfast imperviousness to facts and history.  To wit:

“Communism has only murdered 100 million people – let’s give it another shot.”

Unfortunately, sometimes the Free-Market-Uber-Alles types – too forget to remember history.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment Would Bring Competition to Florida’s Electricity Market

No, it would not.  See (amongst many other places): Texas.

You know who doesn’t seem to have missed history?  Florida’s ballot-eligible residents.

‘Energy Choice’ Amendment Unpopular with Florida Voters:

“Only two in five voters back the proposed amendment.”

Bravo, Floridians.

Let’s hope it stays that way.

Or gets even more one-sided against.

The post When Deregulation – Actually Makes Things Worse appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group electrical-grid-300x198 When Deregulation – Actually Makes Things Worse Technology Talahasee republicans Politics Policy News law Inconsistency Government Front Page Stories Front Page Florida Energy electricty Economy Deregulation Cronyism crony cronies Conservatives competition Capitalism Business & Economy   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Bret Stephens at the New York Times Freaks Out Over Silly ‘Bedbug’ Tweet

Modern journalism is rough, y’all. The industry is under constant financial pressure from the transition to the internet and our divisive current political climate means that your writing is likely to irritate people, who might track you down online and harass you with vicious, threatening words…like comparing you to a tiny insect.

Huh?

Yesterday, Dave Karpf, an associate professor at George Washington University, tweeted a little joke in response to a story about bedbugs infesting the New York Times newsroom, saying that the bedbugs were a metaphor for Bret Stephens, a conservative NYT columnist. Stephens has drawn ire from both sides of the aisle on occasion, with those on the right annoyed at his criticism of President Donald Trump and more moderate views on issues like gun control, and those on the left annoyed in general at the designated token conservative the NYT allows on their opinion pages.

Originally, the tweet was virtually unnoticed in the firehose of daily mayhem that is Twitter. As Karpf noted, it had zero retweets and nine likes…until Stephens got involved.

Stephens was apparently so incensed about Karpf’s bedbug joke that he emailed him and copied Karpf’s university provost (his boss) to complain.

“I’m often amazed about the things supposedly decent people are prepared to say about other people — people they’ve never met — on Twitter. I think you’ve set a new standard,” wrote Stephens.

This is all over one little joke comparing him to a bedbug.

Continued Stephens: “I would welcome the opportunity for you to come to my home, meet my wife and kids, talk to us for a few minutes, and then call me a ‘bedbug’ to my face. That would take some genuine courage and intellectual integrity on your part.”

Does he want to fight Karpf? So bizarre.

Karpf was understandably irritated that Stephens had tried to tattle to his boss, and posted the email on Twitter, where it quickly went viral. The original tweet has now been retweeted nearly four thousand times, with nearly twenty-five thousand likes, and Karpf’s tweet with Stephens’ email has been shared even more.

Stephens was on MSNBC this morning and attempted to defend his histrionics, calling Karpf’s tweet “dehumanizing and totally unacceptable,” and claiming he wasn’t actually trying to get him in professional trouble by tattling to his boss, he just felt that “managers should be aware of the way in which their people, their professors or journalists, interact with the rest of the world.”

Sure, buddy.

Bedbugs are a nuisance and difficult and expensive to eradicate, if you know anyone who’s had the misfortune of dealing with an infestation. But when viewed in comparison to the constant cesspool that is the online world these days, “bedbug” is just not something that should get any sort of response, certainly not a tattling email to one’s boss.

As many people pointed out, every single female journalist has to deal with far worse than getting called “bedbug” if they’re active on social media at all. I’m pretty sure someone called me worse than “bedbug” just today, and if I scrolled through the accounts I’ve blocked or muted, I could find stuff that would really light Stephens’ hair on fire. I haven’t tried to get any of those people fired, though.

The kerfuffle has proved to be too much for Stephens to handle, and he deactivated his Twitter account earlier today.

The whole incident is just exploding with irony, coming the same week as the Times complained about conservative activists highlighting controversial and racist tweets from their journalists in an attempt to cause professional consequences for them. Stephens had a meltdown over a silly and inconsequential joke that originally was seen by maybe a few dozen people, and tried to end a man’s career over it.

His excuses ring hollow — Stephens had no prior connection or interaction with Karpf or his provost before this incident and there was no reason to include the provost on the email except to hope that it would cause trouble for Karpf at work.

It’s time we rename the Streisand Effect in honor of Bret “Bedbug” Stephens. The Streisand Effect, as you probably know, is named for what happens when an attempt to silence a critic or censor information draws far more attention than if you had just left it alone. The term was coined after Barbra Streisand sued a photographer for publishing photos of her Malibu, California home.

But what Stephens has done here far surpasses Streisand on an exponential scale. Streisand is a rich celebrity and the fact she has a very expensive Malibu home isn’t exactly news. The specific location was public record and other photos were already available. Stephens, on the other hand, dug up a lonely little tweet that whispered by for a moment on Twitter, turned it into a still-trending topic, and probably earned himself a new nickname. He may end up getting called “Bedbug” for the rest of his life.

If we can take any lessons from this whole misadventure, perhaps it can highlight the absurdity and potential abuse of trying to get someone fired for their social media activity. If you have clear evidence someone is committing fraud or putting people in danger, by all means, contact their boss — or better yet, the police if it’s an actual crime! — but if it’s just a mean tweet, roll your eyes and move the heck on with your life.

I’m sure Bedbug Stephens wished he had.

Read my RedState article archive here.

Follow Sarah Rumpf on Twitter: @rumpfshaker.

The post Bret Stephens at the New York Times Freaks Out Over Silly ‘Bedbug’ Tweet appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group NewYorkTimes-300x167 Bret Stephens at the New York Times Freaks Out Over Silly ‘Bedbug’ Tweet twitter Social Media New York Times Media Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post bret stephens bedbug Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Media and Global Elites Are Lying to You About the Amazon Fires

Westlake Legal Group 281460a8-8b0a-4a9d-bb75-4a60d090268f-620x317 The Media and Global Elites Are Lying to You About the Amazon Fires Propaganda Politics political Marcon lying Hysteria Global Warming g7 Front Page Stories Front Page France Featured Story democrats Climate Change burning Brazil Amazon Fires

For the past decade, we’ve seen normal events become sensationalized to the point of hysteria. Take hurricanes for example.

In order to push climate change as a means for acquiring political power, the left have decided to present every hurricane as proof positive of the vast negative, deadly effects of the earth warming. It doesn’t matter that we are actually seeing less hurricanes in the current decade than the decade before or that 2019 has been incredibly quiet as far as hurricanes go. The moment a storm finally appears this year, it will be bandied about for political reasons.

We are seeing much the same tactics used in regards to the fires currently burning in the Amazon. Celebrities and politicians the world over are shouting on Twitter, sharing photos, and making wild claims about the severity of what is going on.

That’s not to say that the fires are good or that there aren’t more of them this year. It is to say the overall picture being painted is almost wholly false and sowing unnecessary fear to play politics.

Here’s Mike Shellenberger, someone who’s studied this for a long time and lived among the people of the area, writing in Forbes to try to bring some levity to the situation.

Singers and actors including Madonna and Jaden Smith shared photos on social media that were seen by tens of millions of people. “The lungs of the Earth are in flames,” saidactor Leonardo DiCaprio. “The Amazon Rainforest produces more than 20% of the world’s oxygen,” tweeted soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo. “The Amazon rain forest — the lungs which produce 20% of our planet’s oxygen — is on fire,” tweeted French President Emanuel Macron.

And yet the photos weren’t actually of the fires and many weren’t even of the Amazon. The photo Ronaldo shared was taken in southern Brazil, far from the Amazon, in 2013. The photo that DiCaprio and Macron shared is over 20 years old. The photo Madonna and Smith shared is over 30. Some celebrities shared photos from Montana, India, and Sweden.

It should surprise no one that same group of people who are always beating the drum that the earth is on the verge of calamity chose to purposely lie and share fake photos to push their narrative. Their lying, misleading, and misrepresentations are nothing new.

But let’s deal with the actual claims being made.

Is the Amazon really producing 20% of the world’s oxygen and is it the “lungs of the earth?” It sure sounds dire, but in reality it’s a mostly nonsensical claim.

I was curious to hear what one of the world’s leading Amazon forest experts, Dan Nepstad, had to say about the “lungs” claim.

“It’s bullshit,” he said. “There’s no science behind that. The Amazon produces a lot of oxygen but it uses the same amount of oxygen through respiration so it’s a wash.”

What about the assertion that the Amazon is burning at an 80% higher rate than 2018? As with many things, context matters and the media are purposely leaving it out.

But the “lungs” myth is just the tip of the iceberg. Consider that CNN ran a long segment with the banner, “Fires Burning at Record Rate in Amazon Forest” while a leading climate reporter claimed, “The current fires are without precedent in the past 20,000 years.”

While the number of fires in 2019 is indeed 80% higher than in 2018, it’s just 7% higher than the average over the last 10 years ago, Nepstad said.

One, the idea that anybody could possibly know with any actual authority that these fires haven’t happened for 20,000 years is ludicrous. Secondly, the reason the reason fires are 80% higher this year than last is because last year was an unusually low year for fires. There is no actual existential emergency here.

In fact, there were higher incidences of burning over the course of 2003-2008 than the current five years. The Amazon wasn’t “lost” or destroyed. Amazingly, trees grow back.

What is happening in the Amazon is not exceptional,” said Coutinho. “Take a look at Google web searches search for ‘Amazon’ and ‘Amazon Forest’ over time. Global public opinion was not as interested in the ‘Amazon tragedy’ when the situation was undeniably worse. The present moment does not justify global hysteria.”

And while fires in Brazil have increased, there is no evidence that Amazon forest fireshave.

Further, deforestation is down 70% from the early 2000s. Over half the Amazon is completely protected from deforestation by law and the increase in fires this year is not from climate change, but rather from farmers needing to burn land for crops and cattle.

In other words, what’s happening is completely preventable. It’s not an uncontrollable, environmental threat to the world due to global warming. You are not going to stop getting oxygen to your lungs because of a 7% increase in Amazon fires over the last decade.

Enough of the lying. It’s incredibly transparent that this is political given the same climate change hysterics who freak out about hurricanes and thunderstorms are latching onto this. Brazil doesn’t owe the rest of the world anything and they need to be allowed to manage the situation without the French president or Hollywood celebrities injecting false information into the debate. It only creates division and makes it harder to work with the farmers in question.

Marcon and others should stay in their lane. This isn’t it.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post The Media and Global Elites Are Lying to You About the Amazon Fires appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-08-27-at-11.39.59-AM-300x146 The Media and Global Elites Are Lying to You About the Amazon Fires Propaganda Politics political Marcon lying Hysteria Global Warming g7 Front Page Stories Front Page France Featured Story democrats Climate Change burning Brazil Amazon Fires   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Video: Beto Gives Ghoulish, Appalling Answer to Pro-Lifer’s Question About Whether Pre-Born Lives Matter

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeAPimage-620x317 Video: Beto Gives Ghoulish, Appalling Answer to Pro-Lifer’s Question About Whether Pre-Born Lives Matter south carolina Social Media Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post elections Education democrats Culture Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto Allow Media Exception Abortion 2020 Elections 2020

Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke talks to reporters after the first of two Democratic presidential primary debates hosted by CNN Tuesday, July 30, 2019, in the Fox Theatre in Detroit. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)

Democratic candidate Beto O’Rourke made a campaign stop in Charleston, South Carolina on Monday where he gave an answer to a pro-life voter’s question on abortion that was so appalling it honestly speaks for itself, and speaks volumes about the left’s ghoulish position on abortion.

Here’s what the voter asked and how O’Rourke answered (transcribed):

Voter: And someone asked you specifically, specifically about third trimester abortions, and you said that’s a decision left up to the mother. So, my question is this: I was born September 8th, 1989, and I want to know if you think on September 7th, 1989, my life had no value.

Beto: Of course I don’t think that. And of course I’m glad that you’re here. But you referenced my answer in Ohio, and it remains the same. This is a decision that neither you, nor I, nor the United States government should be making. That’s a decision for the woman to make. (the College of Charleston crowd uproariously applauds)

We want her to have the best possible access to care and to a medical provider, and I’ll tell you the consequence of this, this attack on a woman’s right to choose …

Voter interjects: But what about my right to life?

Beto: I listened to you and I heard your question. I’m answering it. And the attack on Roe v. Wade, which we thought was the settled law of the land, and lest we had any illusion that the achievements that we’ve made are protected forever, or that progress is inevitable, that has been shattered right now.

And I want to tell you some of the consequences of this. In my home state of Texas, thanks to these TRAP laws that make it harder for providers to offer the full spectrum of reproductive care, more than a quarter of our family planning clinics have closed. And it has made us one of the epicenters of this maternal mortality crisis because not only can you not get safe, legal access to an abortion, you cannot get access to a cervical cancer screening, or a family planning provider, or — in a state that refused to expand Medicaid — any provider at all, and we are losing the lives of women in our state as a result.

I don’t question the decisions that a woman makes. Only she knows what she knows, and I want to trust her with that. So, I appreciate the question. Thank you. (More applause from the crowd)

Watch video of Beto answering the question below:

What will be completely ignored by the mainstream media regarding his answer and largely ignored by pro-choice Democrats and commentators about it is that Beto basically told the voter, “yes, I’m glad you’re here but I’m also glad your mother had the right to abort you up to the moment of birth and it would have been ok if she did because it’s legal and we should respect her decision.”

Seriously. When you take out all the stock answers about so-called TRAP laws, etc., what he basically told this voter is he exists only because his mother chose to have him and furthermore, that that is completely ok, y’all.

Beto, like other Democrats, likes to paint himself as the moral authority when it comes to which lives matter. He’d have you believe that he thinks all lives matter and should be respected. But here’s the reality: That is not who he is, nor is it what his party is.

Because when it comes to life, they’ve made it clear that unborn lives are not as important as a woman’s “right” to terminate them even if she decides to do it moments before birth.

Think about it.

Related/Flashback –>> Video: Rep. Katie Porter Ghoulishly Explains to ‘Squishy’ Bill Maher His Mom Had the Right to Abort Him

——-
— 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 Video: Beto Gives Ghoulish, Appalling Answer to Pro-Lifer’s Question About Whether Pre-Born Lives Matter appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeAPimage-300x153 Video: Beto Gives Ghoulish, Appalling Answer to Pro-Lifer’s Question About Whether Pre-Born Lives Matter south carolina Social Media Pro-Life Politics North Carolina Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post elections Education democrats Culture Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto Allow Media Exception Abortion 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Congrats, You Now Have a Constitutional Right to Harbor Illegal Immigrants

Westlake Legal Group ap-illegal-minors-at-border-620x358 Congrats, You Now Have a Constitutional Right to Harbor Illegal Immigrants USC 1324 Politics ninth circuit law La Raza judge Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story democrats Conflicts of Interest border bias

A group of immigrants from Honduras and El Salvador who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally are loaded on to a van, Wednesday, June 25, 2014, in Granjeno, Texas. At least six local, state and federal law enforcement agencies patrol the five mile zone which is illegal immigration’s busiest corridor. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

The judiciary is out of control.

A judge in Kansas ruled 8 U.S.C. 1324 is unconstitutional because it supposedly infringes on the first amendment. This ruling is bonkers for a variety of reasons, namely because of what the statute actually says vs. why the judge claims to be invalidating it. It also means a single, lower court judge is once again dictating their whims on the entire country, something that was never imagined to be possible at our founding. With the stroke of a pen, 130 years of duly passed law and precedent is gone. As you’ll see, the conflicts of interests present with this judge leave real questions of whether this is purely political.

Here’s the details per Conservative Review.

KCUR-FM reports that on Wednesday, Judge Carlos Murguia of the U.S. District Court of Kansas ruled, based on a Ninth Circuit opinion, that 8 U.S.C. §1324, the law prohibiting someone from “encouraging” or “inducing” illegal immigration, is an unconstitutional infringement upon the First Amendment. In doing so, Murguia vacated the convictions of two illegal aliens, Jose Felipe Hernandez-Calvillo and Mauro Papalotzi, who were convicted in August 2018 by a jury for conspiring to encourage illegal aliens to remain here through employment at a drywall company in Lawrence, Kansas. Four others were originally indicted by a grand jury in 2015.

Let’s talk about the legal aspects first.

By this judge’s logic, you can go encourage and induce anyone to commit any crime and it’s not illegal. Want your husband killed? Just ask someone else to do it and you aren’t liable because it’s just free speech, right? I’m being overly broad though. In this case, this wasn’t just about free speech. The convictions that were vacated centered around two other illegal aliens who were encouraging illegal aliens to come work for their drywall company. The judge, based on no logic or legal standing whatsoever, decided that such direct actions to harbor and assist lawbreaking are the same as simply protesting ICE or railing against high taxes.

The truth is, 8 U.S.C. 1324 in noway stops activism and this judge projected his own ridiculous interpretation onto a law that clearly says otherwise.

Rather than rule based on the law, he decided to adopt the ruling of the Ninth Circuit (which doesn’t have jurisdiction in Kansas), which ruled last December that §1324 is “unconstitutionally overbroad” because it “criminalizes a substantial amount of protected expression.” “The court adopts (the 9th Circuit’s) analysis in full and agrees that (the law) on its face is overbroad under the First Amendment,” said Murguia in a brief bench ruling first reported by KCUR-FM.

This assertion is ridiculous, because the law clearly refers to engaging in subversive and fraudulent activities to encourage or enable actual individual aliens to remain in the country, not mere political advocacy for liberal immigration policies in the abstract. It’s like saying that someone who hates high taxes or gun control laws and advocates against them is the same as a person who actively assists tax cheats and gun felons in achieving the end goal of the criminalized behavior.

If I sell a gun to a felon who can’t own a gun, that’s not free speech. If I harbor an illegal immigrant by giving them a job knowing they are an illegal immigrant, that’s not free speech. It’s helping someone else perpetuate criminal behavior. In every other aspect of our criminal justice system, that’s a crime. This judge decided it’s not for the very specific case of illegal immigration. Why?

Well, we have a pretty good idea of why.

Yet one judge, who worked for an open-borders group named El Centro Inc. and whose sister Janet Murguia is president of La Raza (now called UnidosUS), suddenly thinks conspiring to harbor and encourage illegal immigration violates the First Amendment. Carlos’ sister Mary (who is an identical twin to Janet) is a federal judge on the very Ninth Circuit Court from which he drew this opinion. Judge Mary Murguia once recused herself from a trial involving pro-enforcement Sheriff Joe Arpaio because of her sister’s leadership of La Raza. Carlos should have done the same thing this week in this case, which involves a law that directly conflicts with the work with the open-borders groups his family is associated with.

It just so happens that this judge’s sister is the president of La Raza, a radical pro-illegal immigration outfit that pushes Hispanic supremacy in a variety of ways. They’ve since changed their name because being called “The Race” didn’t help them avoid criticism. This judge himself also worked for a pro-illegal immigration outfit in his past. All of this adds up to an easy decision for the judge to recuse himself, but he didn’t. Instead, he tortured the law and invented a new constitutional right to harbor and encourage illegal immigration.

No doubt, this case isn’t just about the two convictions being overturned either. This is a green light to sanctuary cities to keep doing what they are doing.

The DOJ needs to come down hard on this.

————————————————-

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 Congrats, You Now Have a Constitutional Right to Harbor Illegal Immigrants appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group MigrantFamilyBorder-300x153 Congrats, You Now Have a Constitutional Right to Harbor Illegal Immigrants USC 1324 Politics ninth circuit law La Raza judge Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story democrats Conflicts of Interest border bias   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

A Hong Kong Protestor Is Asked About China, His Answer Is Hilarious

Westlake Legal Group hong-kong-protesters-620x317 A Hong Kong Protestor Is Asked About China, His Answer Is Hilarious Protestors Politics LOL Hong Kong Front Page Stories Front Page freedom Featured Story communism China Is Asshole

A protester waves a U.S. flag as hundreds of protesters gather outside Kwai Chung police station in Hong Kong, Tuesday, July 30, 2019. Protesters clashed with police again in Hong Kong on Tuesday night after reports that some of their detained colleagues would be charged with the relatively serious charge of rioting. (AP Photo/Vincent Yu)

The unrest in Hong Kong continues as I write this, with the local authorities warning of consequences if the protesting continues. That hasn’t stopped millions of people from taking the streets, pushing back on the communist encroachment on what is supposed to be a free and democratic region.

One such protestor was seen holding a flag calling for Hong Kong’s independence. This prompted a reporter to go up and ask him if he thinks Donald Trump should step in.

The man’s response took the internet by storm.

The video is only six seconds, but it may be the greatest six seconds in political protest history.

Ok, maybe I’m exaggerating a bit, but it’s still hilarious. The shades, the facial expressions. It all just works.

I for one hope this guy and everyone in this movement with him succeeds. China’s government is a dumpster fire of communism and dictatorship. Any American should be able to sympathize with what these people are going through. The odds may be long, but I’m rooting for them.

————————————————-

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 A Hong Kong Protestor Is Asked About China, His Answer Is Hilarious appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-6-300x163 A Hong Kong Protestor Is Asked About China, His Answer Is Hilarious Protestors Politics LOL Hong Kong Front Page Stories Front Page freedom Featured Story communism China Is Asshole   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Video: Never Trumper Jennifer Rubin Says the Republican Party Must Be “Burned Down” in Order to Save It

Westlake Legal Group JenniferRubinMSNBC1-620x347 Video: Never Trumper Jennifer Rubin Says the Republican Party Must Be “Burned Down” in Order to Save It Washington Post Social Media republicans Politics North Carolina Never Trumpers never trump MSNBC Media Joy Reid journalism Jennifer Rubin Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture am joy Allow Media Exception

Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin speaks on AM Joy – 8/25/19. Screen grab via MSNBC.

There are unhinged Never Trumpers. And then there is Jennifer Rubin, who never passes up an opportunity to show off what she firmly believes are her “woke” creds when in the presence of like-minded commentators.

The faux “conservative” Washington Post columnist appeared on MSNBC’s AM Joy show on Sunday to discuss with a panel of fellow Trump-hating Democrats the absolute horror (sarcasm) of Sean Spicer getting a dancing gig on ABC’s Dancing with the Stars.

The entire segment, in fact, was devoted to discussing just how wrong it was for any former Trump administration official to be able to enjoy life in any capacity after working for the “racist” in the White House who, in the minds of the panelists, has done horrible things to the Latino community.

Host Joy Reid teed up Rubin’s unhinged rant by asserting that “this was an extreme administration that is dangerous.” Reid also stated that if you are Latino, you should always carry your birth certificate because you might be “scooped up and stolen” by ICE. “But yet it’s fine. Go and dance on TV. It’s just incredible,” concluded an outraged Reid.

Rubin then weighed in. Here’s what she said (as transcribed by The Blaze):

“What we should be doing in shunning these people,” Rubin said. “Shunning, shaming these people is a statement of moral indignation that these people are not fit for a polite society. I think it’s absolutely abhorrent that any institution of higher learning, any news organization or any entertainment organization that has a news outlet would hire these people.”

“It’s not only that Trump has to lose, but that all his enablers have to lose,” the columnist continued, as other panelists nodded in agreement. “We have to collectively, in essence, burn down the Republican Party. We have to level them, because if there are survivors, if there are people who weather this storm, they will do it again. They will take this as confirmation that, ‘hey, it just pays to ride the waves look at me I made it through.’”

“And so up and down the ticket, federal state and local offices, the country has to repudiate this,” Rubin added. “It is not a normal administration.”

Watch video of Rubin’s remarks below, courtesy of Newsbusters:

Rubin’s comments were an echo of statements she made in July 2018 on how all Trump administration officials should be shunned and harassed publicly as a “life sentence” of sorts for their role in the administration:

Ironically, it is fake Republicans like Rubin who are destroying the fabric of our society as we know it by siding with extremist Democrats like Reps. Maxine Waters and AOC in calling for shunning, ostracizing, harassment, and confrontation of Republicans they don’t like.

Rubin likes to talk about how this administration is supposedly not a “normal administration.” In actuality, what is not normal is that she sees fit to call for the current and former Trump administration officials to be trailed by protesters wherever they go.

Imagine how she’d react if her logic was applied to her? She’d go on Reid’s show to complain about how hateful and deranged Republicans have become.

Rubin has become a one-trick pony. It’s tiresome and sad, really. Maybe by 2020 she’ll finally do what she should have done a long time ago: Switch her party registration to Democrat.

——-
— 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 Video: Never Trumper Jennifer Rubin Says the Republican Party Must Be “Burned Down” in Order to Save It appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group JenniferRubinMSNBC1-300x168 Video: Never Trumper Jennifer Rubin Says the Republican Party Must Be “Burned Down” in Order to Save It Washington Post Social Media republicans Politics North Carolina Never Trumpers never trump MSNBC Media Joy Reid journalism Jennifer Rubin Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture am joy Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Stunning Hypocrisy Behind the Media’s Sudden Disapproval of Outrage Journalism

Westlake Legal Group new-york-times-builiding-620x413 The Stunning Hypocrisy Behind the Media’s Sudden Disapproval of Outrage Journalism Trump campaign The New York Times Politics New Rules media bias liberal kfile Joaquin Castro Hypocrisy Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Doxxing donald trump democrats CNN arthur schwartz

New York Times building by wsifrancis, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original

Self-awareness is important. It allows us to stay grounded and react to different situations with some basis of consistency in relation to our own actions.

Of course, our mainstream media have no self-awareness so you get ridiculous freak outs like this, which my colleague streiff covered yesterday.

Now, I’ve been reliably told by many leftists on Twitter that if you don’t want controversial things you’ve said to be exposed, you should not say controversial things in the first place. Context, age, and time passed since said comments doesn’t matter. This was the standard applied to Kyle Kashuv, who you may recall was booted from Harvard after private racist comments he made when he was 15 were leaked. At no point did the media say “this is out of bounds” nor push back on the idea that such kinds of journalism are toxic to society and unfair.

In fact, the media reaction has been the complete opposite. They’ve perpetuated outrage journalism and weaponized it to attack their perceived political enemies. Whether it’s trying to destroy a high school kid for smirking at someone that was harassing him or doxxing a fork lift driver from New York because he made a joke video of Nancy Pelosi, there have been no boundaries at all from the liberal media. Worse, many press outlets have their own departments dedicated to this kind of nonsense, with CNN’s “KFile” being one of the more prominent.

Now that a conservative group headed by Arthur Schwartz is using their own tactics against them, they are suddenly crying foul though. On what basis? Well, they can’t really explain that given their own actions, so they just cast aside all self-awareness and pretend that what they are doing is somehow different.

Read this hilarious take from The New York Times and try not to spit your drink out.

Fearless and fair coverage? What planet do these people live on? They’ve run literally thousands of anonymously sourced, slanderous stories over the past three years. Despite this, the Times feels it gets to be the moral arbiter of what does and doesn’t qualify as “reporting.” That’s laughable.

Essentially, every average citizen just trying to live their lives is fair game for outrage journalism and mobbing, but not journalists themselves because reasons.

Townhall’s Guy Benson made another good point about this. Namely, that just weeks ago, the media were out in force defending Joaquin Castro for doxxing Trump donors, claiming it was fair game and shrugging at complaints about the tactics.

What the media want to do is sit in their bubble and destroy everyone else while asserting some kind of made up special right by which they can’t be similarly attacked. Meanwhile, conservative media figures have been dealing with bad faith attacks from the mainstream press for decades. Heck, Media Matters exists expressly for this purpose and they are fluffed by outlets like CNN and MSNBC all the time.

Now, Trump and his campaign are preparing to fight back and the media want to change the rules again. Actually, to be clearer, they want two different set of rules of to be applied.

Take this “report” released just today, which is targeting In and Out Burger’s founders for giving the paltry sum of $15,000 to political causes the past few years.

This “journalist” can target a family for simply giving political donations, but according to the liberal media, Emily Cohn herself is off limits. Nah, that’s not how this works. They came up with these new rules and they will be made to play by them.

I hope we can one day exist as a society free from woke mobs, outrage journalism, and targeting of private citizens but today is not that day. Until the media back off, not once, but enough to show they’ve gotten the message, they are fair game. I hope the Trump campaign drops the hammer on these people. Expose all their secrets and give them a taste of the hell they’ve been applying to other people’s lives for decades. Perhaps then they’ll come to a realization that what they’ve been doing is wrong.

What the media won’t be allowed to do any longer is act out their hypocrisy without consequences.

————————————————-

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 The Stunning Hypocrisy Behind the Media’s Sudden Disapproval of Outrage Journalism appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group bert-and-ernie-on-cnn-300x168 The Stunning Hypocrisy Behind the Media’s Sudden Disapproval of Outrage Journalism Trump campaign The New York Times Politics New Rules media bias liberal kfile Joaquin Castro Hypocrisy Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Doxxing donald trump democrats CNN arthur schwartz   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

A New York Times Reporter Solicited 30K From Jeffrey Epstein While ABC Killed Stories From His Victims

Westlake Legal Group jeffrey-epstein-620x317 A New York Times Reporter Solicited 30K From Jeffrey Epstein While ABC Killed Stories From His Victims vanity fair The New York Times Stories Buried Politics perversion npr media bias Killed Stories Jeffrey Epstein Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump Disgusting democrats bribes ABC $30000

FILE- In this July 30, 2008 file photo, Jeffrey Epstein is shown in custody in West Palm Beach, Fla. Labor Secretary nominee Alexander Acosta is expected to face questions at his Senate confirmation hearing about an unusual plea deal he oversaw for Epstein, a Florida billionaire and sex offender, as U.S. attorney in Miami. (AP Photo/Palm Beach Post, Uma Sanghvi, File)/Palm Beach Post via AP)

Want to know why the Epstein story has no real legs when it comes to investigate reporting from the major networks and newspapers outside of trying to tie him to Donald Trump? You are about to find out why.

For decades, Epstein ran in crowds with some of the wealthiest and most influential people in the country. In terms of elected officials, that meant he had an unusually close relationship with Bill Clinton, even while he was president and to the point of having a painting of Clinton in a dress hanging on his mansion’s wall. It didn’t stop there though. Several other Democrat party politicians have been implicated as well, including accusations of being on his pedophile island and being given girls that we now know were basically sex slaves.

If it seems like I’m only focusing on his connections to Democrats, that’s because those are the only really pervasive connections (i.e. people who went to his island, etc.) we’ve found out about. Don’t be gaslit by the media, the circles Epstein ran in were not Republican circles. Even to the extent he knew Donald Trump, Trump was not palling around with Newt Gingrich at the time. There’s a reason he was going to dinners at the Clinton White House but never made it back when George W. Bush took over.

Because the circles he ran in were predominantly populated with rich, liberal Manhattan types, that meant he had many relationships within the mainstream media establishment as well. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos dined with Epstein as late as 2010, which was after his convictions. The former Clinton crony would claim he hadn’t done his due diligence on who Epstein was, which is a laughable assertion from a supposed news man.

Epstein’s perversion with the media didn’t stop there though. Much like Harvey Weinstein, he was able to wield his influence to affect coverage. NPR has a new report which details some of what went on. It’s very in depth, but I’ll try to summarize the findings here.

We’ll start with ABC News first.

In 2015, the ABC News team of Amy Robach and Jim Hill secured an interview with Giuffre. In a sequence of events confirmed by the network, producers paid for Giuffre and her family to fly from Colorado, where they lived, to New York City and put them up at the Ritz-Carlton hotel on Central Park South. Robach and her news crew interviewed Giuffre on tape for more than an hour about Epstein and his entourage.

“At the time, in 2015, Epstein was walking around a free man, comparing his criminal behavior to stealing a bagel,” Giuffre writes in an email to NPR. “I really wanted a spotlight shone on him and the others who acted with him and enabled his vile and shameless conduct against young girls and young women.”

“I viewed the ABC interview as a potential game-changer,” she writes. “Appearing on ABC with its wide viewership would have been the first time for me to speak out against the government for basically looking the other way and to describe the anger and betrayal victims felt.”

The story never aired. And Giuffre has said she was never directly told why.

ABC has still never given an explanation for why they burned the story, which would have exposed the depravity of Epstein’s actions long before he was charged again in 2019. Sources say that Epstein’s lawyers contacted ABC but when have threats from lawyers ever scared off a news operation the size of ABC from reporting on an interview with a witness? They would not be liable for anything she said in such a case and they would have known that. Yet, they killed the story anyway and Epstein went right back to abusing women for another four years.

The New York Times also is implicated.

Yet Stewart was not the editors’ first choice to interview Epstein further.

Initially, they had asked Landon Thomas Jr., a veteran financial correspondent who had been at the Times for 16 years.

Thomas knew Epstein fairly well — having first written about the financier, back in 2002, just before he joined the paper. Thomas had considered him a valued source ever since, even after Epstein’s release from jail for sex offenses. Just how valued turned out to be a problem for the reporter and the paper…

…But Thomas flagged a problem. He told his editors Epstein had been a great source for years and had become something of a friend as well. How close? Thomas had solicited a $30,000 contribution from Epstein for a Harlem cultural center, he told them.

This reporter had gotten so close to Epstein that he solicited a $30,000 donation from him. The safe assumption is that Epstein saw the money as a payoff for good coverage and good coverage he would receive. The man tasked with reporting on Epstein would pursue none of the sordid details of his sexual abuse scandals.

NPR also notes Vanity Fair’s killing of stories dealing with Epstein’s abuse of underage girls. One example involved a woman named Maria and her then 15 year old sister. They told Vanity Fair that Epstein had lured them to his ranch in New Mexico and sexually exploited them. That’s when Epstein showed up at the magazine’s offices.

And so that morning when Epstein had materialized at the magazine’s offices, he was there to press Carter not to devote any attention to Epstein’s apparent interest in very young women.

“He was torturing Graydon,” says John Connolly, then a Vanity Fair contributing editor, who reported on crime and scandal.

Epstein beseeched Carter and berated him, Connolly says, that morning and subsequently, in a flood of phone calls. Epstein denied to Carter any misconduct and wanted him to steer away from the subject.

In March 2003, Vanity Fair did publish Ward’s piece. Titled “The Talented Mr. Epstein,” it took a tough look at Epstein’s lavish lifestyle and questioned the origins of his fortune.

It did not report the Farmers’ accusations of abuse.

In the end, no mention of the allegations of sexual misconduct made the story. Epstein had successfully covered himself again.

It’s stories like these that make clear why Epstein was able to get away with what he did for so long. The relationships he had in social circles and media circles were unethical and completely improper. Even today, you see almost no investigative effort from the major media networks and papers to uncover just how deep this goes. Why? Because they know they’d likely be implicated. As much as the left wants this to just be about being at parties with Donald Trump almost 30 years ago, the most perverse connections hit way too close to home for the liberal New York elite.

 

 

 

 

The post A New York Times Reporter Solicited 30K From Jeffrey Epstein While ABC Killed Stories From His Victims appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group jeffrey-epstein-mugshot-300x153 A New York Times Reporter Solicited 30K From Jeffrey Epstein While ABC Killed Stories From His Victims vanity fair The New York Times Stories Buried Politics perversion npr media bias Killed Stories Jeffrey Epstein Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump Disgusting democrats bribes ABC $30000   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com