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 "Uncategorized" (Page 126)

Worse. Than. Watergate.

Westlake Legal Group worse-than-watergate Worse. Than. Watergate. Watergate Uncategorized republicans presidential coup Politics Nixon mueller Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Deep State comey Allow Media Exception

Westlake Legal Group nixon-620x415 Worse. Than. Watergate. Watergate Uncategorized republicans presidential coup Politics Nixon mueller Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Deep State comey Allow Media Exception

Worse Than Watergate. That’s the title of John Leonard’s piece in today’s edition of American Thinker. Full disclosure: I am a sometime contributor to AT. John makes a great case that the directed attempt by Obama Administration employees, both Appointed and Civil Service, diminishes Nixon’s coverup of a two-bit burglary to something akin to walking outside the crosswalk lines at an intersection at two in the morning with no traffic.

He does a great job comparing and contrasting the two events, using Attorney General Barr

In a delicious irony, this week Attorney General William Barr implied that a new bar might have been set (pun intended) during the 2016 election cycle when he announced that he believes President Trump’s political campaign was spied by the federal government.

Here’s the money paragraph (emphasis, mine)

At the heart of the Watergate scandal was a bungled burglary. No one got hurt. If Nixon hadn’t tried to obstruct justice, his presidency might have survived the scandal. Watergate is about to become ancient history because it pales in comparison to what the Obama administration just did. Innocent American citizens have had their lives destroyed in a criminal attempt to topple the Trump administration.

It’s a great read. Please take the time to look it over. Leonard is quite correct when he opines, “Heads need to roll.”

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

Follow him on Twitter: @MikeFor10394583

You can find his other Red State work here.

The post Worse. Than. Watergate. appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group nixon-300x201 Worse. Than. Watergate. Watergate Uncategorized republicans presidential coup Politics Nixon mueller Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Deep State comey Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Would Physical Evidence Strengthen Your Faith?

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

Westlake Legal Group Shroud-for-mailing-2 Would Physical Evidence Strengthen Your Faith? Uncategorized Front Page Stories

Left: Shroud body front image as seen by the naked eye. Right: Face of man in Shroud as a photo-positive. Credit: © 1978 Barrie M. Schwortz Collection, STERA. Inc. All Rights Reserved. Permission granted to the author.

Reposted from TOWNHALL  April 12, 2019

This weekend is Palm Sunday, celebrating Jesus Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem and the beginning of what Christians call Holy Week.

The best-known description of Palm Sunday is found in Luke (19:37-40):

When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:

“Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!”

“Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”

 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!”

“I tell you,” he replied, “If they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.”

The great irony of Palm Sunday is that many of the Jewish residents of Roman-occupied Jerusalem who waved palm branches cheering Christ’s entry turned against him only five days later shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” in response to Pontius Pilate the Roman prefect (Luke 23:20-22).

Hence, Jesus was crucified on what is known as Good Friday, followed by Resurrection Sunday — more commonly known as Easter. (Stop right here for 15 seconds because I must tell this deplorable Easter-candy tale.)

A few years ago during Eastertime at our neighborhood Kilwins — a national ice cream and candy chain — they were selling chocolate crosses alongside the bunnies and marshmallow eggs. My husband and I assume that Kilwins must have received complaints because never again have we seen this edible travesty — but we still check every year.

Enough with the cultural outrages and biblical background, here is what this piece is really about: exploring the question “Would physical evidence of Christ’s resurrection strengthen your faith?”

On a Sunday in Jerusalem over 2,000 years ago, there occurred what members of the world’s largest religion believe was a miracle that changed the course of human history — the resurrection of Jesus Christ. An event that was of such magnitude that it “divided time” between the ancient centuries and the modern era.

Now, considering Jesus Christ’s past and present impact on mankind, one would think that God could have left some physical evidence of His resurrection, especially geared to non-believers.

And, that is precisely why millions of Christians around the world, my husband and myself included, believe that the Shroud of Turin— purported to be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus — is that physical evidence.

Known for its numerous mysterious properties, the Shroud is a linen cloth measuring 14.5 feet by 3.5 feet, with an anatomically correct, front and back mirror image of a crucified man. It is also the world’s most studied, analyzed and revered artifact that continues to baffle scientists and religious leaders, Christians and non-Christians alike.

The first mention of Christ’s burial cloth in Luke (23:53) — “wrapped it in linen cloth,” — refers to his dead body. After the resurrection, the “linen” is found in the empty tomb, along with “the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head” and “separate from the linen” (John 20:6-7).

All of the above, predictably and annually, starting on Palm Sunday and throughout Holy Week, triggers a media rehashing of the question whether the Shroud is “authentic” or a “medieval forgery.”

The “forgery” argument stems from the controversial 1988 carbon-14 test that dated the Shroud to between 1260 and 1390.  However, over the ensuing decades, the test’s conclusion has been debunked by numerous scientists because the piece tested may have been subjected to a medieval reweave or repair, as determined by chemical analysis in 2005.

Among the Shroud’s most prominent and visual mysteries are the unexplained photographic properties that came to light in 1898. Such properties nullify the “medieval forgery” argument with just one look by providing believers with a real human face to contemplate.

It was May of 1898, and the Shroud of Turin was on a rare public display in Turin, Italy when a lawyer named Secondo Pia was granted permission by church authorities to apply the “new technology” of photography to the cloth.

After the photo session, Pia was astonished to discover in his darkroom that the faint yellowish Shroud image emerged from the negative plate as a much sharper life-like “positive” image.

We now know that the Shroud image seen on the cloth is actually a photographic negative which turns positive when reversed by the camera. And on that positive image, Pia first saw clear details of the infamous torture endured by Christ on Good Friday — over 100 scourge marks, blood from the crown of thorns pushed into his scalp and the nails of crucifixion.

Naturally, the church authorities were shocked and did not know what to make of Pia’s discovery. He was even accused of manufacturing the image!

Then, in 1931, the church granted a professional photographer Giuseppe Enrie access to the Shroud after another public exhibition. Enrie’s darkroom developed the same positive images as Pia, only sharper thanks to the progression of technology. (And Secondo Pia, still alive, was vindicated.)

Thus, the question: How could a “forger” between the years 1260 and 1390 produce an image of a crucified man on a cloth with such mystifying photographic results given that the world’s first photograph was not taken until 1827?

Also, keep in mind that the Shroud’s unexplained photographic properties are not even the most perplexing of the cloth’s many mysteries. The top award goes to the basic question “How was the image formed?” A front to back linear image that perfectly corresponds to all the Gospel’s accounts of Christ’s torture and death on the cross.

And since you have read this far, here is the ultimate question posed by the Shroud:

“Is your faith impacted or could it be impacted by physical evidence of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection?”

Contemplate your answer if your Sunday plans include waving a palm branch — and consider it even more if they don’t.

AUTHOR UPDATE: ShroudPhotos is a new website making news this weekend. It is the site of Vernon Miller’s 1978 photographs of the Shroud of Turin. Check it out!

 

The post Would Physical Evidence Strengthen Your Faith? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Shroud-for-mailing-2-300x198 Would Physical Evidence Strengthen Your Faith? Uncategorized Front Page Stories   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Sanctuary Cities and Alinsky Rule #4: Live by your own rules

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

Westlake Legal Group ccff5591-a6ca-43a2-a419-49b448d76c1f Sanctuary Cities and Alinsky Rule #4: Live by your own rules Uncategorized Front Page Stories

Americans are shocked, shocked that Democrats and the media are opposing President Trump’s proposal to send illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities; the liberals and media should be applauding and celebrating. Seriously. Consider:

1. Sanctuary cities actively invite illegals to come and stay. The president wants to send those cities more of what they want more than anything else. Go for it!

2. Sanctuary city leaders, and apparently indirectly city voters, are willing to provide the millions of dollars in tax resources for urgent housing, health care, food, schooling, crime control, and then endure the higher crime, disease rate, and homelessness that result.

3. The alternative is releasing illegals to areas unprepared to suddenly handle tens to hundreds of thousands of needy people annually–which would be inhumane because they would get far less care, less housing, less food, and less medical care than the sanctuary cities who proactively want and can afford the burdens. Sanctuary cities are indeed the most humane option for the million or so illegals that arrive each year, and their mayors should specifically request receiving illegals for humanitarian reasons and even compete with other sanctuary cities to take the most illegals.

If one illegal is good for a sanctuary city, a million should be a great thing.

All that said, President Trump scored a tremendous victory over the enemies of border security.

Trump brilliantly applied the fourth of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” And now we see liberals across the country suddenly decrying illegals. The laughter and memes echoed across the country as the liberals were caught opposing illegals for the very first time.

What’s wrong with illegals? The media and Democrats have been lecturing the public for years how illegals are the ideal citizen and no walls or other efforts should be made to stop or limit their crossing into the United States.

Did they change their mind? Say it ain’t so!

Mayors and governors are currently violating the law by harboring illegal immigrants and refusing–at the cost of the lives and property of their legal citizens–to report their presence to the federal government. They want open borders, no walls, and completely unlimited numbers of illegals. Yet when the President offers to send them more illegals, they object.

This would be a logical paradox or a function of insanity unless you look at the likely ideological goals and the real-world effects of welcoming hundreds of thousands of illegals into their cities.

Here’s one. Suppose the mayor of Oakland or San Francisco opened their doors and welcomed 100,000 illegals a year. Their progressive citizens might initially rejoice and embrace their new residents. But reality would sink in before very long, with massive hikes in taxes to pay for the massive financial burdens and massive hikes in crime, disease and homelessness, and residents would revolt and oust the hypocritical liberal mayors that harmed their city.

Or perhaps it’s strategic–they want to put illegals in ‘red states’ to eventually turn the electorate blue.

Or maybe the liberals love illegals but just don’t want “them” in THEIR neighborhood. Which makes them the greatest hypocrites of all time, and they deserve all possible ridicule and scorn from the American people.

——————————————————————

Read More Red State Articles by Art Harman

Art Harman is the President of the Coalition to Save Manned Space Exploration. He was the Legislative Director and foreign policy advisor for Rep. Stockman (R-Texas) in the 113th Congress, and is a veteran policy analyst and grass-roots political expert. His expertise includes foreign relations, border security/amnesty, national security, transportation, foreign broadcasting and NASA/space policy.

Mr. Harman developed the strategy to kill the 2013 Senate “gang of eight” amnesty bill as violating the Origination Clause, and provided policy advice to the Trump campaign, transition. and the White House. He wrote what became the ‘bible’ for post-Brexit trade relations which was introduced in 2016 by Sen. Mike Lee as S. 3123, the United Kingdom Trade Continuity Act. Harman is a frequent guest on radio shows on key policy issues, and is an expert photographer.

The post Sanctuary Cities and Alinsky Rule #4: Live by your own rules appeared first on RedState.

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

The 9th Circuit Makes an Absolutely Shocking Decision on Trump’s Asylum Policy

Westlake Legal Group the-9th-circuit-makes-an-absolutely-shocking-decision-on-trumps-asylum-policy The 9th Circuit Makes an Absolutely Shocking Decision on Trump’s Asylum Policy win Uncategorized San Franciso Mexico Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump border patrol Asylum Abuse asylum 9th circuit court of appeals

Westlake Legal Group Donald-Trump-thumbs-up-620x413 The 9th Circuit Makes an Absolutely Shocking Decision on Trump’s Asylum Policy win Uncategorized San Franciso Mexico Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump border patrol Asylum Abuse asylum 9th circuit court of appeals

What the heck? I love the 9th circuit now.

Ok, not really, but this is a pretty shocking decision. You may recall that a few days ago some Obama judge (yeah, they exist) in San Francisco decided to become dictator for a day and placed a nationwide injunction on the President’s agreement with Mexico to house asylum seekers there.

The Trump administration made an emergency appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where everyone expected them to lose. Instead, we got a surprise.

Common sense prevails for at least a short time.

The decision to stay the lower court injunction was unanimous pending a brief. The fact that they did this so quickly and so overwhelming should point to the court leaning at overruling the judge entirely, but this is the 9th circuit. Don’t put it past them to come up with some insane justification for why the President can’t exercise his constitutional authority over immigration.

Their brief starts on Tuesday, so we could theoretically see this stay lifted as early as next week. From there, the administration would no doubt head straight to the Supreme Court where his odds of winning are very large.

No judge has the supremacy to override the President’s constitutional power to regulate immigration. The latitude given is extremely wide and has never been questioned until Trump got elected. Judges deciding that Mexico is too dangerous or that Trump tweets show animus are ridiculous, a-constitutional rulings. Yet, we are having to deal with them because the Supreme Court won’t do it’s job and address the issue of nationwide injunctions and these crazy rulings being made on non-legal considerations. Chief Justice John Roberts choosing to purposely narrow the Supreme Court’s rulings while the lower courts are running wild is a completely nonsensical move.

In reality, the border is at a breaking point. Without the beds and resources, Trump’s negotiated plan to house some asylum seekers in Mexico was just common sense. For an unelected, local judge to stick his nose into it and rule for the entire nation based on nothing but political considerations twisted into legalese shows just how rogue the judicial system has gone. That doesn’t mean the system needs to be changed. The Supreme Court just needs to start doing its job.

————————————————-

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 9th Circuit Makes an Absolutely Shocking Decision on Trump’s Asylum Policy appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group trump-thumbs-up-620x358-copy-300x134 The 9th Circuit Makes an Absolutely Shocking Decision on Trump’s Asylum Policy win Uncategorized San Franciso Mexico Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump border patrol Asylum Abuse asylum 9th circuit court of appeals   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Pushing the Boundaries on Abortion

Westlake Legal Group pushing-the-boundaries-on-abortion Pushing the Boundaries on Abortion Uncategorized Front Page Stories

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

Westlake Legal Group Abortion-selling-body-parts-2-300x205 Pushing the Boundaries on Abortion Uncategorized Front Page Stories

First and foremost, let me state upfront that I am decidedly pro-life.  I arrived at this point in life quite some time ago after arguing in a paper, rather vehemently, in a Medical Ethics course at my alma mater, Rutgers University.  Although I suspected the teacher was a raving lunatic liberal, he nevertheless gave me an “A” on the paper and the course.  Yay for me…

Today in states throughout this land, we see two trends in the abortion debate.  At the national level, we have the Hyde Amendment and a partial birth abortion ban.  At the state level, there is a hodgepodge of abortion laws.  Some states like New York now basically allow and condone abortion up until almost the moment of birth.  Other states- Maryland, Virginia and New Mexico- are moving in a similar direction.  Conversely, on the the other side of the coin, we have states like Texas, Mississippi, Ohio and Georgia going the opposite route.

The problem, as this writer sees it, is the Roe vs. Wade decision.  In previous articles, I have described this decision as a very good thesis on the history of abortion, but devoid of sound constitutional argument, let alone law.  The decision itself rests on the so-called right to privacy.  Here, I believe, some within the conservative movement are somewhat disingenuous- especially those who deny a right to privacy exists at all.  If there is no such right, then there are no privacy rights when it comes to one’s medical records, gun ownership, or a host of other things.  The line of cases that led up to Roe assumed a right to privacy and the Constitution was specific in some instances as codified in the Bill of Rights.

However, one has to question how far that right extends in the context of the abortion discussion.  While it may very well be embryonically  true that a fetus soon after conception is basically a “blob” of undifferentiated cells, that conglomeration of cells, if left alone, WILL develop into a human being.  If not, the human body has ways of eliminating “bad eggs,” i.e., through spontaneous abortion, or miscarriages.  Spontaneous abortion is nature taking its course.  Artificial abortion interferes in that process.  In effect, it is anti-biological and not natural.

Further, in the context of privacy rights one has to question how far those rights extend once another human being is involved.  Harry Blackmun, in the Roe decision, delineated those “rights” into the trimester framework.  That is the second nail in the coffin of the decision.  The Supreme Court noted that the state had an interest in the unborn after the age of viability.  At the time, that was the third trimester of pregnancy.  But, with advances in medical technology and prenatal care, the age of viability has been pushed further and further earlier in pregnancy so that the trimester framework is, excuse the term, no longer viable.

Instead, the Court has essentially adopted Sandra Day O’Connor’s formulation where any act that places an undue burden on a pregnant woman is suspect.  The question then becomes what constitutes an “undue burden?”  According to the Left, requiring physicians to be licensed, to have adequate facilities, to have admitting privileges to local hospitals, etc. is now an undue burden.  It is laughable that the Left argues for “safe and legal abortions,” but when laws are proposed to ensure safe and legal abortions, they cry foul.  The Left cares less about “safe” abortions; their aim is to keep abortion legal without restrictions as evidenced by New York and legislation elsewhere.

They (the Left) are also apt to say that conservatives want to make abortion illegal by overturning Roe vs. Wade.  However, that is NOT what would happen.  Instead, the issue would simply become one for individual states to tackle through the legislative process, just as it was pre-Roe.  In the years leading up to that decision, many states were liberalizing their abortion laws through the legislative process.  One can almost guarantee that if that scenario was left alone, there would be less acrimony today as concerns abortion.

Furthermore, in all the legislation proposed on the conservative side, not a single woman is ever targeted for prosecution.  It is the doctors who perform these procedures who are the target of the legislation.  No woman would go to jail or pay a fine.  Strictly from a legal perspective, the arguments on the Left ring hollow and amount to nothing more than scare mongering.

But, what about the scientific and medical arguments?  Here, the pro-life side holds the cards.  We know that a fetus has a discernible heart beat at four weeks of gestation, that electrical activity in the brain starts at 5-6 weeks of gestation, that a developing fetus can experience pain at 8 weeks and that a “fetus” has distinguishable and unique fingerprints by 6 months.  Ask anyone who has ever held a government job or purchased a firearm the importance of fingerprints.  Ask any prospective mother who has seen a sonogram or heard a fetal heart beat that is an undifferentiated blob of cells the equivalent of a rotten tooth worthy of extraction.

In short, one is left with the impression that the arguments on the Left are devoid of not only logic, but also Constitutional validity, medical and scientific support, and are merely almost a knee-jerk acceptance into Leftism.  The “we should control our own bodies” seems to work only when it comes to abortion, but never the events leading up to unwanted pregnancy.  This writer has no problem with contraception per se.  If Planned Parenthood or any other abortion mill diverted money to this task in lieu of providing abortion services, perhaps funding that entity would be more palatable.  But, that is what the Left does not intend nor want.

Instead, they would rather abortion be yet another form of contraception, albeit later in the game.  In the end, it all boils down to a question of inconvenience.  When we as a society are at a point where we consider and condone human life an inconvenience, then we have truly hit a new low.  We are on a slow and slippery path to considering any non-productive life, despite their previous contributions, an inconvenience.  To accept the pro-choice arguments, when they even try to argue logically, naturally leads to an acceptance of euthanasia of the old, the infirm, the non-productive, the disabled and others.

And is not that what Hitler did in Germany?  Did he not kill not only 6 million Jews, but others he deemed unproductive or a drain on the state- gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally disabled, the physically disabled, etc.?  Hitler’s motivation was the genetic creation of a master race. Today’s pro-choice advocate does not even have that dubious goal to fall back upon.  All they have is some falsely believed “right to an abortion,” or some amorphous privacy right extended to a non-private reality.

During the Holocaust, Hitler murdered an estimated 250,000 disabled and 16,000 homosexuals, as well as 6 million Jews, and others he deemed inferior to his master race .  Since 1973, there have been an estimated 54 million abortions performed in the United States.  That is many times the number of humans killed by Hitler.  Today, we abhor the legacy of Hitler and rightfully so.  Sadly, today we give about $500 million annually to an organization that has killed more humans than Hitler ever did.  Something is wrong with that picture and it is not the pro-life movement or state legislation that affirms human life.

 

The post Pushing the Boundaries on Abortion appeared first on RedState.

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

‘Vogue’ Admits: There’ll Be No Melania on the Cover. Melania: ‘Been There, Done That.’

Westlake Legal Group vogue-admits-therell-be-no-melania-on-the-cover-melania-been-there-done-that ‘Vogue’ Admits: There’ll Be No Melania on the Cover. Melania: ‘Been There, Done That.’ white house Vogue Uncategorized michelle obama Melania Trump media bias Media Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories first lady Featured Story democrats Christiane Amanpour anna wintour Allow Media Exception

Westlake Legal Group 6melania-modeling-SCREENSHOT ‘Vogue’ Admits: There’ll Be No Melania on the Cover. Melania: ‘Been There, Done That.’ white house Vogue Uncategorized michelle obama Melania Trump media bias Media Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories first lady Featured Story democrats Christiane Amanpour anna wintour Allow Media Exception

 

 

On April 5th, Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour made it clear: Putting aside fashion, style, and a diverse audience, the magazine is settled on left-wing politics.

Speaking with Christiane Amanpour, she explained the periodcal’s penchant for Democratic women on the cover, saying Vogue takes a political “point of view.”

Christiane asked:

“You are political. You were a major fundraiser for Barack Obama. Your magazine — the most important fashion bible in the world — does profile some very important women who are in politics. Tell me about that. You are overtly political in your profiles and what you stand for. What is it you are trying to say by profiling a Michelle Obama or a Kamala Harris or even a Stormy Daniels?”

Anna — who’s been in charge of the magazine for over 30 years — laid it out:

“If you’re talking about the First Lady or Senator Harris, obviously these are women that we feel are icons and inspiring to women from a global perspective. … I think you can’t be everything to everybody … I believe, as those of us who work at (parent company) Condé Nast believe, you have to stand up for what you believe in and you have to take a point of view.”

And what’s her POV?

“We profile women in the magazine that we believe in the stand that they’re taking on issues. We support them, we feel that they are leaders. Particularly after the defeat of Secretary Clinton in the 2016 election, we believe that women should have a leadership position. We intend to support them.”

Women, of course, so long as they conform to a particular political bent.

So if you’d like to see Melania front and center at your grocery checkout stand, don’t hold your breath.

FLOTUS herself is breathing easy — a spokesperson for the First Lady told Fox News Friday that Mrs. Trump has other things on which to focus:

“To be on the cover of Vogue doesn’t define Mrs. Trump. She’s been there, done that long before she was First Lady. Her role as First Lady of the United States and all that she does is much more important than some superficial photo shoot and cover. This just further demonstrates how biased the fashion magazine industry is, and shows how insecure and small-minded Anna Wintour really is. Unfortunately, Mrs. Trump is used to this kind of divisive behavior.”

Small-minded!

“Been there,” indeed: Conspicuously, of course, of all the First Ladies in recent history, Melania Trump is the only actual fashion model to occupy the White House.

But no cover.

As reported by The Daily Wire, Hillary Clinton became the first First Lady to make Vogue’s cover in 1998. Michelle Obama appeared as many as three times.

-Alex

 

The post ‘Vogue’ Admits: There’ll Be No Melania on the Cover. Melania: ‘Been There, Done That.’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 6melania-modeling-SCREENSHOT-300x177 ‘Vogue’ Admits: There’ll Be No Melania on the Cover. Melania: ‘Been There, Done That.’ white house Vogue Uncategorized michelle obama Melania Trump media bias Media Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories first lady Featured Story democrats Christiane Amanpour anna wintour Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

University of Missouri-Kansas City Chancellor Responds to Michael Knowles Assault, & It’s Pathetic

Westlake Legal Group university-of-missouri-kansas-city-chancellor-responds-to-michael-knowles-assault-its-pathetic University of Missouri-Kansas City Chancellor Responds to Michael Knowles Assault, & It’s Pathetic Uncategorized Front Page Stories Featured Story

Westlake Legal Group michael-knowles-umkc-speech-SCREENSHOT University of Missouri-Kansas City Chancellor Responds to Michael Knowles Assault, & It’s Pathetic Uncategorized Front Page Stories Featured Story

 

 

Earlier today, I covered the disgraceful culturally-reflective incident Thursday night at the University of Missouri-Kansas City involving Daily Wire host Michael Knowles.

If you haven’t yet experienced it for yourself, please see here.

Hecklers perpetually disrupted Michael’s speech, and he was ultimately sprayed in the face with a mysterious substance that smelled like bleach.

Law enforcement took down the culprit as — in the words of TDW — “all hell broke loose.”

In light of the uncivil assault on free speech and evolved societal decorum — as well as the Super Soaker attack on Michael — the head of the school has released a statement.

Chancellor C. Mauli Agrawal’s letter is mindnumbing.

He begins by acknowledging a conflict:

“Last night, our campus witnessed a collision of two principles that we steadfastly support: the right to free expression and the right to civil protest in response to views we disagree with.”

Okay…

He then says education is key:

“The evening’s events laid bare deep divisions that exist in our society today — divisions that UMKC works diligently to address through education, support and commitment to our values.”

So how “diligent” is he? This much:

“A student group brought a speaker to campus – a speaker whose professed opinions do not align with our commitment to diversity and inclusion and our goal of providing a welcoming environment to all people, particularly to our LGBT community.”

UMKC is a public university; what determines its values? The student body? The taxpayers who support it? Or Agrawal’s own personal politics?

Secondly, since when does a school itself have a political or social identification? Its purpose is to provide academic education and allow students to expand themselves intellectually.

Furthermore, being that Michael is conservative, how is that less “diverse” than if he were of a more liberal mind? What does that say to all the conservative students, including those in the group sponsoring Michael’s appearance?

How is a statement of misalignment against Michael in line with being “inclusive?”

This is the idiocy of the baloney version of the word. “Inclusion” must…get ready for it…INCLUDE. You cannot exclude someone in the name of inclusion.

For more on real diversity, please see my article here.

Agrawal, continuing:

“Upon learning of this speaker’s visit, members of our UMKC community responded in the best way – by organizing and conducting a counter-event across campus Thursday afternoon focused on positive messages about diversity and inclusion.”

So the “best” way to respond to a conservative is protest?

It clearly ain’t agreement, Jack!

“And even during the speech, some peaceful protesters stood and expressed disagreement with the speaker’s views.”

Uhhh…no they didn’t.

Listen for yourself:







Agrawal admits it wasn’t all hunky-dory:

“An individual who has been identified as a UMKC student attacked the speaker and others by spraying what was then an unknown substance, but police had no choice but to react as if the substance was an immediate danger,” he writes. “Tests later revealed the substance to be lavender oil and some other non-toxic household liquids. The individual was arrested and has been charged with assault and other violations. A campus disciplinary investigation is under way.”

Agrawal has three takeaways from the pitiful incident:

  • “We remain absolutely committed to the rights and well-being of all members of our university community, especially our students. Our absolute commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion and the equal rights of members of the LGBTQ community remains one of our highest priorities.
  • UMKC is a university, which by definition must allow the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions, including controversial and unpopular ones. As a taxpayer-funded public university, UMKC is also required by law to strictly enforce the First Amendment right to free speech for all.
  • Our expectations for students, faculty, staff and visitors is that we each express ourselves in ways that are respectful of others and faithful to the Statement of Values that guides our learning community.”

So primarily important: LGBTQ — which, it seems to me, is a confused grouping; there are many, many gay people who agree that a man is not a woman. How is the “well-being” of gays — or people identifying as the opposite sex — “harmed” by someone speaking their view that men and women are different?

What the university “must” do, though: allow free speech.

Shouldn’t the statement be that the university’s leader is appalled by the pathetic treatment — including the assault — of an on-campus speaker, and that free speech is the foundation of our country?

Everyone who attends the school — whatever their sexuality or identity — should feel welcome. That is true. What’s also true is that true diversity must actually include all. Including Michael Knowles, who believes — as the title of his speech suggests — that “Men Aren’t Women.”

We’re seeing our educational system sink into the mire of ideological singularity, enforced upon those who wish to broaden their horizons. Rather than expansion, public schools seem to be functioning as a vice, squeezing its students into adherence — or, if you will, “alignment.” The most valuable form of diversity at an institution of higher learning — it should always be understood — is diversity of thought.

In this regard, Chancellor Mauli Agrawal seems thoughtless.

What do you think of Agrawal’s statement? Let us all know in the Comments section below.

Find the full letter below, along with Michael Knowles’s response.

-Alex

  • To Our Campus Community:Last night, our campus witnessed a collision of two principles that we steadfastly support: the right to free expression and the right to civil protest in response to views we disagree with. The evening’s events laid bare deep divisions that exist in our society today – divisions that UMKC works diligently to address through education, support and commitment to our values.A student group brought a speaker to campus – a speaker whose professed opinions do not align with our commitment to diversity and inclusion and our goal of providing a welcoming environment to all people, particularly to our LGBT community.Upon learning of this speaker’s visit, members of our UMKC community responded in the best way – by organizing and conducting a counter-event across campus Thursday afternoon focused on positive messages about diversity and inclusion. And even during the speech, some peaceful protesters stood and expressed disagreement with the speaker’s views.Then, unfortunately, some others crossed a line. UMKC must maintain a safe environment in which all points of view, even extreme ones, are allowed to be heard.An individual who has been identified as a UMKC student attacked the speaker and others by spraying what was then an unknown substance, but police had no choice but to react as if the substance was an immediate danger. Tests later revealed the substance to be lavender oil and some other non-toxic household liquids. The individual was arrested and has been charged with assault and other violations. A campus disciplinary investigation is under way.Here is where we stand as we move forward after this incident:
  • We remain absolutely committed to the rights and well-being of all members of our university community, especially our students. Our absolute commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion and the equal rights of members of the LGBTQ community remains one of our highest priorities.
  • UMKC is a university, which by definition must allow the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions, including controversial and unpopular ones. As a taxpayer-funded public university, UMKC is also required by law to strictly enforce the First Amendment right to free speech for all.
  • Our expectations for students, faculty, staff and visitors is that we each express ourselves in ways that are respectful of others and faithful to the Statement of Values that guides our learning community.

 

The post University of Missouri-Kansas City Chancellor Responds to Michael Knowles Assault, & It’s Pathetic appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group michael-knowles-umkc-speech-SCREENSHOT-300x175 University of Missouri-Kansas City Chancellor Responds to Michael Knowles Assault, & It’s Pathetic Uncategorized Front Page Stories Featured Story   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Stupidity of Roger Scruton and Victor Davis Hanson i.e. Bring Your Own D**n Camera.

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

Westlake Legal Group Lies-Header The Stupidity of Roger Scruton and Victor Davis Hanson i.e. Bring Your Own D**n Camera. Uncategorized Front Page Stories
From across the pond comes the news that Roger Scruton – one of the English speaking world’s most brilliant and accomplished Conservative philosophers, has been booted in disgrace from his unpaid advisory position to the British government as Chairman of the ‘Building Better Building Beautiful Commission.’

The proximate cause is that he gave an interview to a Left-Wing journalist for a Left-Wing publication (the New Statesman) that he used to write for as a wine critic, in which he supposedly made some bigoted comments. He says he was taken out of context … and given that his interviewer George Eaton was photographed swigging a bottle of champagne celebrating his sacking, it’s fairly obvious it was a deliberate hit job.

Which means that, for such a brilliant man, Roger Scruton was remarkably stupid.

The same applies to Victor Davis Hanson – VDH – who was recently left impotently demanding a transcription of his interview with another Left-Wing journalist, Isaac Chotiner, of the Left-Wing New Yorker. After the interview was published, VDH had this to say on his site;

For the record, I recently spoke with @NewYorker’s @IChotiner per his request for a discussion on my recent book. The published piece was “edited and condensed for clarity”; however, the editing was done … in a way that omits the chronological accuracy of our conversation and the vast majority of what was said, which I think is important for purposes of context, tone, and intent—both Mr. Chotiner’s and my own. There are also introductory false accusations of “a history of hostility to undocumented Mexican and Central American immigrants…and to African-Americans who speak about the persistence of racism.” Neither charge is remotely true. If Mr. Chotiner would release an accurate transcription of our “long conversation,” there will appear wide discrepancies in tone, intent, and content from the published interview.

At this point in time, who is surprised that Left-Wing journalists would hack, chop and distort words spoken by conservatives to make them look like bigoted monsters? We saw Charlie Gibson do this to Sarah Palin ten years ago. We saw Katie Couric hack and chop her interview with Second Amendment supporters.

Inspired by Palin’s complaints about what got left on the cutting room floor in 2008, Glenn Reynolds has been saying “Bring your own camera” for more than a decade.

Yet, Conservatives keep giving interviews with no backup plan, trusting journalists who loathe them to be honest and not to misrepresent them, and they keep getting burned. And still they persist, and I simply do not understand why.

How could Scruton possibly have thought any interview given to a Left-Wing journalist working for a Left-Wing publication without his own device recording every second of the interview would be anything but a hit job?

Sadly, today, less than 1 in 10 journalists are honest brokers, and when it comes to Left-Wing journalists, that number falls to about 3 in a 100. So what could have made Scruton think George Eaton was trustworthy?

What could possibly have led Dr. Hanson to think it a safe bet to assume that anyone who writes for the New Yorker is not a slanderer and liar like 99% of them from the editor on down?

I’m not saying one should not speak to liberal journalists – they have the largest microphones.

But if you are a conservative, you need to understand that the overwhelming majority are out to sandbag you and cause material harm to you and your family. They come to your home, smile, shake your hand, and exchange compliments, but in reality, most of them hope to see you ruined and in penury for the rest of your life.

At this point in time, there’s absolutely no reason any Conservative public figure, whether politician, author, academic, blogger or pundit, should agree to any interaction (live, phone, email, etc.) with a Left-Wing journalist without having his own device there to record the whole thing.

Every single smartphone can do this. Witness Avi Yemini capturing Comedy Central’s Jim Jeffries’ mendacity on camera – it’s that simple. So why is this so difficult for folks like Hanson and Scruton? Why would Hanson put himself in a position where he is begging for a transcript from someone who would deliberately slander him?

If the aim is to avoid giving offense, then my advice is to get over it. There’s no cost-benefit analysis that will come out in favor of taking such a huge risk to your reputation simply so as not to be thought rude. Besides, no honest journalist would mind you having your own recording of your conversation.

TLDR: Bring Your Own Damn Camera. Anything less and whatever happens to you is your own damn fault.

The post The Stupidity of Roger Scruton and Victor Davis Hanson i.e. Bring Your Own D**n Camera. appeared first on RedState.

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

Leave Assange Alone

Westlake Legal Group WatchLiveAssange-620x325 Leave Assange Alone Uncategorized republicans Rapist Julian Assange Politics Julian Assange Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Assange Allow Media Exception
Unless Julian Assange personally hacked into, or directed others to hack into classified Defense systems to steal classified information, the U.S. Government should leave him alone. I was privileged to have a great conversation this morning with Alex Marlow during his morning Sirius broadcast to discuss just that.

We discussed how Julian Assange, Lord High Master of Wikileaks, had been arrested and will likely face extradition to the United States. As could be predicted, the leftists press is going bonkers, spiking the football and generally making fools of themselves. Totally opposite of their reaction to Bradley Manning’s arrest and conviction. My good friend Elizabeth Vaughn has a good article here, with all the details.

Another Red Stater and good friend, Sarah Lee points out the likely reason for the Left’s shadenfreude; from her article,

Wikileaks played a huge role in revealing just how and why Hillary Clinton’s emails may have gone missing back in 2015.

Mr Marlow started out his show as almost ambivalent about Assange. By the time he was able to take my call, I believe he had moved a bit in Assange’s direction. I tried to nudge him some more that way. I explained to him that I’m no Assange fan and I’m certainly not of a mind to cut him any slack just because he helped publicize the open and notorious criminal conduct of the Crone from Chappaqua; conduct I’ve previously noted here, here and here. However, like several of the DOJ’s operations lately, their efforts to extradite and ultimately prosecute Assange appear to be politically driven and as my colleague Sarah points out, driven by deep state anger that his actions likely torpedoed the all-but-certain coronation of their Queen.

As a retired Field Grade Army Officer, I have some experience with the requirements to safeguard classified information. Although I’m not a lawyer (and haven’t recently stayed in a Holiday Inn Express) from my foxhole, I can’t see any reason (of substance) why Assange should be prosecuted in a U.S. Courtroom.

First of all, Assange was a foreign national residing outside the United States when he came into possession of and further distributed the classified material he obtained from Private Bradley Manning. Unless the country he was residing in has a mutual intelligence sharing and safeguarding agreement with the United States, then not only is there no legal reason for the U.S. to prosecute him, there is also no legal reason for his country of residence to do so.

Second, there was a similar case back in June, 1971–The Pentagon Papers. There was a Pentagon analyst named Daniel Ellsberg who was disgruntled regarding the U.S. prosecution of the war in Vietnam. He leaked a highly classified study that he (and others) had been working on, to the New York Times. The Times and later the Washington Post published portions of the study over a multi-week period.

The Nixon administration attempted to prosecute Ellsberg and attempted to get an injunction against the Times against further publication. The charges against Ellsberg were eventually dropped, but the action against the Times went all the way to the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Nixon administration had failed to meet the burden of proof they viewed as required for such an injunction.

Although all nine justices wrote separate opinions, speaking as a Veteran with 6 combat tours, I believe Justice Hugo Black’s is the one on point.

Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.

Finally, after pardoning Private Bradley Manning, convicted on several felony counts of actually violating U.S. Law by willfully violating procedures to safeguard classified information, we have no business prosecuting Julian Assange. He is a foreign national in another country, not subject to U.S Law, and has no legal responsibility to safeguard U. S. classified information.

My prediction? The leftist Clinton supporters remaining at the DOJ, will try and prosecute Assange. They will get convictions, but not on the major crime. They will however, as they’ve previously demonstrated, get Assange on one or more “process crimes.” And, we all know what Mike Ford thinks about that.

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

Follow him on Twitter: @MikeFor10394583

You can find his other Red State work here.

The post Leave Assange Alone appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group WatchLiveAssange-300x157 Leave Assange Alone Uncategorized republicans Rapist Julian Assange Politics Julian Assange Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Assange Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

BREAKING: President Trump Trolls Democrats on Sanctuary Cities

Westlake Legal Group breaking-president-trump-trolls-democrats-on-sanctuary-cities BREAKING: President Trump Trolls Democrats on Sanctuary Cities Uncategorized Trump sanctuary cities republicans Politics Front Page Stories Front Page elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception

Westlake Legal Group 75FB9C6C-3270-4CC0-B215-596733E24710-620x355 BREAKING: President Trump Trolls Democrats on Sanctuary Cities Uncategorized Trump sanctuary cities republicans Politics Front Page Stories Front Page elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception
My buddy Bonchie just posted a great piece about all the Leftist hate and discontent regarding President Trump allegedly pressuring DHS to send captured illegal aliens to Sanctuary Cities. He focused on how the Democrats are upset about that.

Here’s Bonchie’s money quote

Given that, how is it consistent to now complain that the President wanted to send them exactly what they claim they want? I also think it’s silly for The Washington Post to describe this as “targeting foes,” as Democrats constantly proclaim illegal immigration is a general good. If I give you a something you say is good, no one would say I’m “targeting” you.

Just now, President Trump, ever the master at sliding in the stiletto and deftly twisting it, tweeted out just about that very thing. I predict an epidemic of nervous breakdowns among the leftist press.

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

Follow him on Twitter: @MikeFor10394583

You can find his other Red State work here.

The post BREAKING: President Trump Trolls Democrats on Sanctuary Cities appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 75FB9C6C-3270-4CC0-B215-596733E24710-300x172 BREAKING: President Trump Trolls Democrats on Sanctuary Cities Uncategorized Trump sanctuary cities republicans Politics Front Page Stories Front Page elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com