westernjournal--2020-07-10--GOP Senator Brutally Shreds Squad Members’ Defund Police Bill

I suppose it ’ s a sign we ’ re getting entering the New Normal™ that we ’ re back talking about legislation from the Democrat-controlled House that has zero chance of passing the Senate — assuming , of course , it passes the House .
This time , it ’ s a bill to defund police , among other radical proposals , that is supported by “ squad ” members Reps. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan .
And , according to Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana , there ’ s only one place for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shredder.
” Kennedy made the remarks Wednesday during an appearance on Fox News to talk about the BREATHE Act , announced by “ squad ” members Tuesday on a Zoom call .
“ We can start to envision through this bill a new version for public safety — a new vision for public safety , one that protects and affirms black lives , ” Tlaib said of the legislation , according to the New York Post .
The legislation is yet to be introduced — and also unlikely to be picked up by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its own police reform bill .
That bill contains enough bad ideas about law enforcement to make it nigh impossible to pass .
The BREATHE Act , predictably , goes well beyond that .
TRENDING : James Woods on Latest Biden Gaffe : ‘ It ’ s Outright Cruelty ’ To Leave Him in Front of Camera Remember when abolishing ICE was a thing ?
Well , this is abolish ICE times 2,356 .
According to a description of the bill posted online , the bill would “ [ e ] liminate federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expand the U.S. criminal-legal system , such as the Department of Defense 1033 program [ which sells military surplus to police departments ] , the Edward Byrne-Justice Assistance Grant Program , Community Oriented Policing Services , the Drug Enforcement Administration , and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
” All of this would involve eliminating or defunding law enforcement at a federal level .
The bill would still retain certain “ non-punitive , non-carceral elements of these programs … so that they can be transferred to another funding source.
” Among the other elements of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no electronic monitoring via devices like ankle bracelets , no more federal prisons and no more federal laws criminalizing “ human movement and border entry.
” So , in other words , this has zero chance of passing .
It hasn ’ t been introduced yet , but best of luck getting anyone willing to sign onto this thing .
Maybe that ’ s not the point , though — as Kennedy noted during his appearance on Fox News .
The BREATHE Act , Kennedy said , “ is clearly a serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ I ’ d give it , I don ’ t know , 9.7 , ” he said .
“ As an American who feels gratitude , not hatred , for my country , though , the only way I know how to improve their bill is with the shredder.
” RELATED : BLM Leader Turns Sights from Abolishing Police to US Military Bases All Over World “ I think it ’ s great that we live in the country where the two congresswomen have the right to say what they want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to disagree with them , ” Kennedy said .
“ I believe in free enterprise .
They ’ re Marxists , ” he continued .
“ I believe in equal opportunity .
They believe in government-guaranteed equal outcome .
They don ’ t believe in the Second Amendment .
I believe that love is the answer , but I also own a handgun just in case.
” Kennedy also said the representatives “ hate cops just because they ’ re cops .
I don ’ t .
They think most Americans are racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m proud of the fact that we ’ ve passed 20 civil rights bills and amendments .
“ It ’ s just a fundamental disagreement , and I don ’ t think their bill will go very far .
But as I said , it ’ s a serious effort to compete in the woke Olympics.
” Where the woke Olympiad goes is anyone ’ s guess .
While the time is certainly ripe for bills like the BREATHE Act , given the unrest in the wake of the May 25 death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bill is problematic for Democrats on a number of levels .
It ’ s big on the verbiage of the new left : We need to invest in community alternatives to policing and “ carceral ” penalties .
Those alternatives can ’ t involve electronic monitoring , though .
What ’ s the alternative ?
Who knows ?
This ’ ll all sort itself out , I ’ m sure .
Some senior Democrats have also been vocal about their opposition to defunding police .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called defunding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a June conference call , Politico reported House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina said “ some people tried to hijack ” the protest movement and that they shouldn ’ t “ let yourselves be drawn into the debate about defunding police forces.
” Thus , even before it ’ s fully written , the bill is already dead , with no prospect of Republican support and only partial Democrat support .
Beyond that , Kennedy made a succinct case of why the bill shouldn ’ t pass , aside from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the left .
“ A civilization , in order to be civilized , has to have a set of rules and someone to enforce them , ” he said .
“ In terms of the bill , that the two congresswomen are offering , I don ’ t think anybody in the Senate is taking it very seriously.
” We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

I suppose it’s a sign we’re getting entering the New Normal™ that we’re back talking about legislation from the Democrat-controlled House that has zero chance of passing the Senate — assuming, of course, it passes the House. This time, it’s a bill to defund police, among other radical proposals, that is supported by “squad” members Reps. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.
And, according to Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, there’s only one place for it to go: “in the shredder.”
Kennedy made the remarks Wednesday during an appearance on Fox News to talk about the BREATHE Act, announced by “squad” members Tuesday on a Zoom call.
“We can start to envision through this bill a new version for public safety — a new vision for public safety, one that protects and affirms black lives,” Tlaib said of the legislation, according to the New York Post.
The legislation is yet to be introduced — and also unlikely to be picked up by a House that’s already passed its own police reform bill. That bill contains enough bad ideas about law enforcement to make it nigh impossible to pass. The BREATHE Act, predictably, goes well beyond that.
Remember when abolishing ICE was a thing? Well, this is abolish ICE times 2,356.
According to a description of the bill posted online, the bill would “[e]liminate federal programs and agencies used to finance and expand the U.S. criminal-legal system, such as the Department of Defense 1033 program [which sells military surplus to police departments], the Edward Byrne-Justice Assistance Grant Program, Community Oriented Policing Services, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”
All of this would involve eliminating or defunding law enforcement at a federal level. The bill would still retain certain “non-punitive, non-carceral elements of these programs … so that they can be transferred to another funding source.”
Among the other elements of the program: no more life sentences, no electronic monitoring via devices like ankle bracelets, no more federal prisons and no more federal laws criminalizing “human movement and border entry.”
Should we pass the BREATHE Act? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 1% (20 Votes) No: 99% (2599 Votes)
So, in other words, this has zero chance of passing.
It hasn’t been introduced yet, but best of luck getting anyone willing to sign onto this thing. Maybe that’s not the point, though — as Kennedy noted during his appearance on Fox News.
The BREATHE Act, Kennedy said, “is clearly a serious effort to compete in the woke Olympics.”
“I’d give it, I don’t know, 9.7,” he said. “As an American who feels gratitude, not hatred, for my country, though, the only way I know how to improve their bill is with the shredder.”
“I think it’s great that we live in the country where the two congresswomen have the right to say what they want, but we also have the right to disagree with them,” Kennedy said.
“I believe in free enterprise. They’re Marxists,” he continued. “I believe in equal opportunity. They believe in government-guaranteed equal outcome. They don’t believe in the Second Amendment. I believe that love is the answer, but I also own a handgun just in case.”
Kennedy also said the representatives “hate cops just because they’re cops. I don’t. They think most Americans are racist. I don’t. I’m proud of the fact that we’ve passed 20 civil rights bills and amendments.
“It’s just a fundamental disagreement, and I don’t think their bill will go very far. But as I said, it’s a serious effort to compete in the woke Olympics.”
Where the woke Olympiad goes is anyone’s guess. While the time is certainly ripe for bills like the BREATHE Act, given the unrest in the wake of the May 25 death of George Floyd in police custody, the bill is problematic for Democrats on a number of levels.
It’s big on the verbiage of the new left: We need to invest in community alternatives to policing and “carceral” penalties. Those alternatives can’t involve electronic monitoring, though. What’s the alternative? Who knows? This’ll all sort itself out, I’m sure.
Some senior Democrats have also been vocal about their opposition to defunding police.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called defunding a decision for local governments. On a June conference call, Politico reported House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina said “some people tried to hijack” the protest movement and that they shouldn’t “let yourselves be drawn into the debate about defunding police forces.”
Thus, even before it’s fully written, the bill is already dead, with no prospect of Republican support and only partial Democrat support.
Beyond that, Kennedy made a succinct case of why the bill shouldn’t pass, aside from it being a self-inflicted poison pill on the left.
“A civilization, in order to be civilized, has to have a set of rules and someone to enforce them,” he said. “In terms of the bill, that the two congresswomen are offering, I don’t think anybody in the Senate is taking it very seriously.”
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-07-10--Lady A Tries To Be Racially Aware, Sues Black Singer for Rights to New Name

An attempt at self-imposed political correctness has landed country music group Lady A in legal limbo .
Court papers filed Wednesday in Nashville ’ s U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee reveal the group has decided to sue black Seattle-based musician Anita White for the right to perform and commercially release content under a new name .
Formerly known as Lady Antebellum , the group made headlines this past June when it signaled support for a resurgent Black Lives Matter movement with an overnight rebrand , distancing itself from previous allusions to the slave-holding South after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taylor .
The surprise name change , however , ran the group afoul of White , who has performed blues music under the Lady A moniker for many years .
“ This is my life .
Lady A is my brand , I ’ ve used it for over 20 years , and I ’ m proud of what I ’ ve done , ” White told Rolling Stone last month .
“ Lady A is my brand , I ’ ve used it for over 20 years , and I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” TRENDING : James Woods on Latest Biden Gaffe : ‘ It ’ s Outright Cruelty ’ To Leave Him in Front of Camera “ This is too much right now .
They ’ re using the name because of a Black Lives Matter incident that , for them , is just a moment in time .
If it mattered , it would have mattered to them before .
It shouldn ’ t have taken George Floyd to die for them to realize that their name had a slave reference to it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s an opportunity for them to pretend they ’ re not racist or pretend this means something to them , ” White said .
“ If it did , they would ’ ve done some research.
” Despite the strong rhetoric , a virtual meeting conducted in hopes of fostering good will and open dialogue between White and the band shortly after the controversy arose was said to have gone well .
Images from that meeting posted to Lady A ’ s official Twitter page on June 15 showed the involved parties to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , prayed with one another and attempted to come to an understanding .
“ Today , we connected privately with the artist Lady A , ” the country music group wrote .
“ Transparent , honest , and authentic conversations were had .
We are excited to share we are moving forward with positive solutions and common ground .
The hurt is turning into hope .
More to come.
” When more did come , however , good will was allegedly in short supply — and Lady A lawyered up .
Behind the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a range of concessions offered as talks commenced , including a binding agreement to professional collaboration , continued support of the blues singer ’ s career and shared use of the Lady A brand .
RELATED : Anti-Trump Actor De Niro Will 'Be Lucky ' To Make $ 7.5M This Year Due to COVID : Lawyer Attempts by band members Hillary Scott , Dave Haywood and Charles Kelley to make peace were met with a new version of the original settlement agreement , edited to feature “ an exorbitant monetary demand ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s lawsuit said .
Specifically , White wanted $ 10 million , according to a statement from the band .
Already in possession of the trademarks for both Lady Antebellum and the fan-assigned nickname Lady A since as early as July 2011 , the popular country group was unwilling to make such concessions , opting to sue for affirmation of its trademark right to the name .
“ Today we are sad to share that our sincere hope to join together with Anita White in unity and common purpose has ended , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ She and her team have demanded a $ 10 million payment , so reluctantly we have come to the conclusion that we need to ask a court to affirm our right to continue to use the name Lady A , a trademark we have held for many years.
” “ It was a stirring in our hearts and reflection on our own blindspots that led us to announce a few weeks ago that we were dropping the word ‘ Antebellum ’ from our name and moving forward using only the name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us by , ” the band added , referencing an earlier rebranding announcement in which the group described itself as “ regretful and embarrassed ” over its original name .
“ We ’ re still committed to educating ourselves , our children and doing our part to fight for the racial justice so desperately needed in our country and around the world , ” they added .
“ We hope Anita and the advisers she is now listening to will change their minds about their approach .
We can do so much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for her part , has indicated she has little intention of taking a different tone or tenor going forward .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

An attempt at self-imposed political correctness has landed country music group Lady A in legal limbo.
Court papers filed Wednesday in Nashville’s U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee reveal the group has decided to sue black Seattle-based musician Anita White for the right to perform and commercially release content under a new name.
Formerly known as Lady Antebellum, the group made headlines this past June when it signaled support for a resurgent Black Lives Matter movement with an overnight rebrand, distancing itself from previous allusions to the slave-holding South after the officer-involved deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.
The surprise name change, however, ran the group afoul of White, who has performed blues music under the Lady A moniker for many years.
“This is my life. Lady A is my brand, I’ve used it for over 20 years, and I’m proud of what I’ve done,” White told Rolling Stone last month. “Lady A is my brand, I’ve used it for over 20 years, and I’m proud of what I’ve done.”
“This is too much right now. They’re using the name because of a Black Lives Matter incident that, for them, is just a moment in time. If it mattered, it would have mattered to them before. It shouldn’t have taken George Floyd to die for them to realize that their name had a slave reference to it,” she added.
“It’s an opportunity for them to pretend they’re not racist or pretend this means something to them,” White said. “If it did, they would’ve done some research.”
Despite the strong rhetoric, a virtual meeting conducted in hopes of fostering good will and open dialogue between White and the band shortly after the controversy arose was said to have gone well.
Do you think the band formerly known as Lady Antebellum should have left White her stage name? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 96% (351 Votes) No: 4% (16 Votes)
Images from that meeting posted to Lady A’s official Twitter page on June 15 showed the involved parties to be all smiles as they shared stories, prayed with one another and attempted to come to an understanding.
“Today, we connected privately with the artist Lady A,” the country music group wrote. “Transparent, honest, and authentic conversations were had. We are excited to share we are moving forward with positive solutions and common ground. The hurt is turning into hope. More to come.”
Today, we connected privately with the artist Lady A. Transparent, honest, and authentic conversations were had. We are excited to share we are moving forward with positive solutions and common ground. The hurt is turning into hope. More to come.#LadyABluesSoulFunkGospelArtist pic.twitter.com/P3uyhfO3gX — Lady A (@ladya) June 15, 2020
When more did come, however, good will was allegedly in short supply — and Lady A lawyered up.
Behind the scenes, White had reportedly turned down a range of concessions offered as talks commenced, including a binding agreement to professional collaboration, continued support of the blues singer’s career and shared use of the Lady A brand.
Attempts by band members Hillary Scott, Dave Haywood and Charles Kelley to make peace were met with a new version of the original settlement agreement, edited to feature “an exorbitant monetary demand” in exchange for the moniker, Lady A’s lawsuit said.
Specifically, White wanted $10 million, according to a statement from the band.
Already in possession of the trademarks for both Lady Antebellum and the fan-assigned nickname Lady A since as early as July 2011, the popular country group was unwilling to make such concessions, opting to sue for affirmation of its trademark right to the name.
“Today we are sad to share that our sincere hope to join together with Anita White in unity and common purpose has ended,” Lady A’s statement said. “She and her team have demanded a $10 million payment, so reluctantly we have come to the conclusion that we need to ask a court to affirm our right to continue to use the name Lady A, a trademark we have held for many years.”
“It was a stirring in our hearts and reflection on our own blindspots that led us to announce a few weeks ago that we were dropping the word ‘Antebellum’ from our name and moving forward using only the name so many of our fans already knew us by,” the band added, referencing an earlier rebranding announcement in which the group described itself as “regretful and embarrassed” over its original name.
“We’re still committed to educating ourselves, our children and doing our part to fight for the racial justice so desperately needed in our country and around the world,” they added. “We hope Anita and the advisers she is now listening to will change their minds about their approach. We can do so much more together than in this dispute.”
White, for her part, has indicated she has little intention of taking a different tone or tenor going forward.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-07-10--Trump Rages Against Supreme Court’s Tax Records Decision: ‘A Political Prosecution’

After losing a Supreme Court decision that rejected President Donald Trump ’ s claim of immunity from a New York prosecutor ’ s request to provide his tax returns and financial records , Trump on Thursday fired off tweets alleging “ PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT ” and “ PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT.
” Trump had argued that his tax records and personal and corporate financial information could not be disclosed because he was immune from prosecution while in office .
The court rejected that argument , according to The New York Times .
In a companion ruling Thursday , the court said Congress can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sending the duel between Trump and Congress back to a lower court .
Although the practical effect of the court ’ s action is such that the records are unlikely to be released before the November election , Trump lashed out at the ruling .
“ The Supreme Court sends case back to Lower Court , arguments to continue .
This is all a political prosecution .
I won the Mueller Witch Hunt , and others , and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York .
Not fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he tweeted .
“ Courts in the past have given ‘ broad deference ’ .
BUT NOT ME !
” TRENDING : James Woods on Latest Biden Gaffe : ‘ It ’ s Outright Cruelty ’ To Leave Him in Front of Camera Trump fired off a series of tweets about the investigations of his campaign that took place during the waning days of the Obama administration .
“ We have a totally corrupt previous Administration , including a President and Vice President who spied on my campaign , AND GOT CAUGHT and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was taking place even before my election , everyone knows it , and yet all are frozen stiff with fear .
No Republican Senate Judiciary response , NO ‘ JUSTICE ’ , NO FBI , NO NOTHING .
Major horror show REPORTS on Comey & McCabe , guilty as hell , nothing happens .
Catch Obama & Biden cold , nothing .
A 3 year , $ 45,000,000 Mueller HOAX , failed – investigated everything , ” Trump tweeted .
“ Won all against the Federal Government and the Democrats send everything to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ falling apart with everyone leaving , to give it a second , third and fourth try .
Now the Supreme Court gives a delay ruling that they would never have given for another President .
This is about PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT .
We catch the other side SPYING on my campaign , the biggest political crime and scandal in U.S. history , and NOTHING HAPPENS .
But despite this , I have done more than any President in history in first 3 1/2 years , ” he tweeted .
RELATED : Biden Vows To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court 's 'Disappointing ' Religious Liberty Ruling The Supreme Court decision said a president does not have the absolute right to block the release of the documents sought by Democratic Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance .
“ No citizen , not even the president , is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding , ” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote .
However , the ruling means Trump can still fight the release of the documents by objecting to the scope of what is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roberts and supported by a 7-2 court , with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting in both cases .
Vance has said he wanted the records in connection with payments the Trump Organization made before the 2016 election .
“ This is a tremendous victory for our nation ’ s system of justice and its founding principle that no one — not even a president — is above the law , ” Vance said after the ruling .
“ Our investigation , which was delayed for almost a year by this lawsuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the grand jury ’ s solemn obligation to follow the law and the facts , wherever they may lead.
” Jay Sekulow , a lawyer for Trump , saw the glass as half full .
“ We are pleased that in the decisions issued today , the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked both Congress and New York prosecutors from obtaining the president ’ s financial records , ” he said in a statement .
“ We will now proceed to raise additional constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts.
” We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

After losing a Supreme Court decision that rejected President Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from a New York prosecutor’s request to provide his tax returns and financial records, Trump on Thursday fired off tweets alleging “PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT” and “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT.”
Trump had argued that his tax records and personal and corporate financial information could not be disclosed because he was immune from prosecution while in office. The court rejected that argument, according to The New York Times.
In a companion ruling Thursday, the court said Congress cannot see records it has requested, sending the duel between Trump and Congress back to a lower court.
Although the practical effect of the court’s action is such that the records are unlikely to be released before the November election, Trump lashed out at the ruling.
“The Supreme Court sends case back to Lower Court, arguments to continue. This is all a political prosecution. I won the Mueller Witch Hunt, and others, and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration!” he tweeted. “Courts in the past have given ‘broad deference’. BUT NOT ME!”
The Supreme Court sends case back to Lower Court, arguments to continue. This is all a political prosecution. I won the Mueller Witch Hunt, and others, and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2020
Courts in the past have given “broad deference”. BUT NOT ME! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2020
Should the president release his tax records? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 3% (101 Votes) No: 97% (2979 Votes)
Trump fired off a series of tweets about the investigations of his campaign that took place during the waning days of the Obama administration.
“We have a totally corrupt previous Administration, including a President and Vice President who spied on my campaign, AND GOT CAUGHT and nothing happens to them. This crime was taking place even before my election, everyone knows it, and yet all are frozen stiff with fear. No Republican Senate Judiciary response, NO ‘JUSTICE’, NO FBI, NO NOTHING. Major horror show REPORTS on Comey & McCabe, guilty as hell, nothing happens. Catch Obama & Biden cold, nothing. A 3 year, $45,000,000 Mueller HOAX, failed – investigated everything,” Trump tweeted.
….No Republican Senate Judiciary response, NO “JUSTICE”, NO FBI, NO NOTHING. Major horror show REPORTS on Comey & McCabe, guilty as hell, nothing happens. Catch Obama & Biden cold, nothing. A 3 year, $45,000,000 Mueller HOAX, failed – investigated everything…. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2020
“Won all against the Federal Government and the Democrats send everything to politically corrupt New York, which is falling apart with everyone leaving, to give it a second, third and fourth try. Now the Supreme Court gives a delay ruling that they would never have given for another President. This is about PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT. We catch the other side SPYING on my campaign, the biggest political crime and scandal in U.S. history, and NOTHING HAPPENS. But despite this, I have done more than any President in history in first 3 1/2 years,” he tweeted.
….for another President. This is about PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT. We catch the other side SPYING on my campaign, the biggest political crime and scandal in U.S. history, and NOTHING HAPPENS. But despite this, I have done more than any President in history in first 3 1/2 years! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2020
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2020
PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2020
The Supreme Court decision said a president does not have the absolute right to block the release of the documents sought by Democratic Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance.
“No citizen, not even the president, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote.
However, the ruling means Trump can still fight the release of the documents by objecting to the scope of what is requested.
Both opinions were written by Roberts and supported by a 7-2 court, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting in both cases.
Vance has said he wanted the records in connection with payments the Trump Organization made before the 2016 election.
“This is a tremendous victory for our nation’s system of justice and its founding principle that no one — not even a president — is above the law,” Vance said after the ruling. “Our investigation, which was delayed for almost a year by this lawsuit, will resume, guided as always by the grand jury’s solemn obligation to follow the law and the facts, wherever they may lead.”
We are pleased that in the decisions issued today, the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked both Congress and New York prosecutors from obtaining the President’s financial records. We will now proceed to raise additional Constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts. — Jay Sekulow (@JaySekulow) July 9, 2020
Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for Trump, saw the glass as half full.
“We are pleased that in the decisions issued today, the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked both Congress and New York prosecutors from obtaining the president’s financial records,” he said in a statement. “We will now proceed to raise additional constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts.”
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-07-11--Trump Wears Mask During Visit to Military Hospital

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump wore a mask during a visit to a military hospital on Saturday , one of the only times the president has been seen wearing a face covering .
Trump flew by helicopter to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in suburban Washington , D.C. , to meet wounded service members and health-care providers caring for COVID-19 patients .
As he left the White House , he told reporters : “ When you ’ re in a hospital , especially … I think it ’ s a great thing to wear a mask.
” Trump was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off the helicopter at the facility , but he donned one as he began his visit .
Some prominent Republicans , including Vice President Mike Pence , endorsed wearing masks this summer .
Trump also was photographed wearing a mask during a tour of a Michigan Ford factory in May .
Republican governors have been moving toward requiring or encouraging the use of masks as the coronavirus pandemic has grown in some states in the South and West .
Trump , however , has declined to wear a mask at news conferences , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other public events .
While not wearing a mask himself , Trump has acknowledged that face coverings would be appropriate if worn in an indoor setting where people were close together .
But he has accused reporters of wearing them to be politically correct and has retweeted messages making fun of Democrat Joe Biden for wearing a mask and implying that Biden looks weak .
It is not known whether Trump will wear a mask with any regularity .
The wearing of masks became another political dividing line , with Republicans more opposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks were seen at recent Trump campaign events in Tulsa , Oklahoma ; Phoenix ; and South Dakota ’ s Mount Rushmore .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump wore a mask during a visit to a military hospital on Saturday, one of the only times the president has been seen wearing a face covering.
Trump flew by helicopter to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in suburban Washington, D.C., to meet wounded service members and health-care providers caring for COVID-19 patients.
As he left the White House, he told reporters: “When you’re in a hospital, especially … I think it’s a great thing to wear a mask.”
Trump was not wearing a mask when he stepped off the helicopter at the facility, but he donned one as he began his visit.
Some prominent Republicans, including Vice President Mike Pence, endorsed wearing masks this summer.
Trump also was photographed wearing a mask during a tour of a Michigan Ford factory in May.
Republican governors have been moving toward requiring or encouraging the use of masks as the coronavirus pandemic has grown in some states in the South and West.
Trump, however, has declined to wear a mask at news conferences, coronavirus task force updates, rallies and other public events.
While not wearing a mask himself, Trump has acknowledged that face coverings would be appropriate if worn in an indoor setting where people were close together. But he has accused reporters of wearing them to be politically correct and has retweeted messages making fun of Democrat Joe Biden for wearing a mask and implying that Biden looks weak.
It is not known whether Trump will wear a mask with any regularity.
The wearing of masks became another political dividing line, with Republicans more opposed to wearing them than Democrats.
Few masks were seen at recent Trump campaign events in Tulsa, Oklahoma; Phoenix; and South Dakota’s Mount Rushmore.
[jwplayer 70VfQpkQ]
The Western Journal has reviewed this Associated Press story and may have altered it prior to publication to ensure that it meets our editorial standards.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-07-11--NFL Legend Joins Las Vegas Raiders in Amazing Role: ‘It’s Pretty Special’

Even the most ardent supporters of the NFL have to admit that the news cycle surrounding the league can be polarizing at the very least , if not downright depressing .
The 2020 version of the NFL has been rife with politics , two separate national anthems , Black Lives Matter paraphernalia and a disgusting amount of anti-Semitism .
That ’ s to say nothing of players getting into legal troubles or being attacked by the outrage mob for daring to support the American flag .
Given all of that , being able to report on a bit of hopefulness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ’ s eminent professional sports league is like a breath of fresh air .
And it doesn ’ t get much more hopeful or good than when Jesus Christ and faith enter the fray , particularly at a time when Christianity seems to be under absurd scrutiny .
Former NFL MVP and First-Team All-Pro Randall Cunningham is back in the NFL , and it couldn ’ t have come at a better time .
Obviously , the 57-year-old former quarterback isn ’ t playing , but he has taken up arguably an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The four-time Pro Bowler told ESPN that he has accepted a position as team chaplain with the newly minted Las Vegas Raiders , and his excitement seemed palpable .
“ I ’ m elated , flabbergasted , ” Cunningham said Friday .
“ I ’ ve already been in on some [ Zoom ] meetings with the team .
I plan on spending a lot of time with the guys when it ’ s OK.
I ’ ve talked with [ quarterback ] Marcus Mariota , [ wide receiver ] Nelson Agholor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ team owner ] Mark Davis and [ head coach ] Jon Gruden have put together.
” Although Cunningham is best known for his time as the quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles and Minnesota Vikings , as well as his short stints with the Dallas Cowboys and Baltimore Ravens , his ties to Las Vegas actually run fairly deep .
The retired quarterback played three seasons — from 1982 to 1984 — for the UNLV Rebels , increasing his completion percentage and number of passing touchdowns each season .
Cunningham , who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don the school ’ s jersey , even punted for the team .
Cunningham ’ s collegiate exploits garnered him College Football Hall of Fame honors in 2016 .
But it ’ s not just his football accomplishments that tie him deeply to Las Vegas .
RELATED : Ahead of Big Fight , UFC Star Defends Goya Foods : Actions 'Speak Louder Than the # Woke Mob' Cunningham eventually made Las Vegas his permanent residence late in his NFL career and even established his own church , Remnant Ministries , there .
Remnant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beliefs clear : [ T ] here is one living and true GOD , eternally existing in three persons : The Father , the Son , and the Holy Spirit , equal in power and glory ; that this triune God created all , upholds all and governs all.
” It ’ s Cunningham ’ s bedrock of faith that had Davis describing him as “ pretty special.
” “ He ’ s going to take care of the guys in Las Vegas , ” Davis told ESPN .
“ Jon had him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ recently ] and he did a really good job of setting the stage for the team in Las Vegas .
“ When you talk to anyone in the community , everybody always talks about Randall .
It ’ s pretty special.
” According to Cunningham , Gruden personally asked him to take on team chaplain responsibilities .
“ Gruden asked me to be the team chaplain , ” Cunningham said .
“ I have a responsibility to look after these guys in this town .
And I accept that responsibility.
” Cunningham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figure who proudly espouses his faith .
Hall of Fame former NFL coach Tony Dungy recently had to set the record straight after CNN ’ s Don Lemon contended that Jesus did not live a perfect life .
Whether it ’ s Dungy or Cunningham , it ’ s good to know that even amid controversy , faith can still be prevalent in the NFL .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Even the most ardent supporters of the NFL have to admit that the news cycle surrounding the league can be polarizing at the very least, if not downright depressing.
The 2020 version of the NFL has been rife with politics, two separate national anthems, Black Lives Matter paraphernalia and a disgusting amount of anti-Semitism.
That’s to say nothing of players getting into legal troubles or being attacked by the outrage mob for daring to support the American flag.
Given all of that, being able to report on a bit of hopefulness or good news when it comes to America’s eminent professional sports league is like a breath of fresh air.
And it doesn’t get much more hopeful or good than when Jesus Christ and faith enter the fray, particularly at a time when Christianity seems to be under absurd scrutiny.
Former NFL MVP and First-Team All-Pro Randall Cunningham is back in the NFL, and it couldn’t have come at a better time.
Obviously, the 57-year-old former quarterback isn’t playing, but he has taken up arguably an even more important role — team chaplain.
The four-time Pro Bowler told ESPN that he has accepted a position as team chaplain with the newly minted Las Vegas Raiders, and his excitement seemed palpable.
“I’m elated, flabbergasted,” Cunningham said Friday. “I’ve already been in on some [Zoom] meetings with the team. I plan on spending a lot of time with the guys when it’s OK. I’ve talked with [quarterback] Marcus Mariota, [wide receiver] Nelson Agholor. What an amazing group of people [team owner] Mark Davis and [head coach] Jon Gruden have put together.”
Do you want to see more athletes be openly proud about their faith? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 99% (537 Votes) No: 1% (4 Votes)
Although Cunningham is best known for his time as the quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles and Minnesota Vikings, as well as his short stints with the Dallas Cowboys and Baltimore Ravens, his ties to Las Vegas actually run fairly deep.
The retired quarterback played three seasons — from 1982 to 1984 — for the UNLV Rebels, increasing his completion percentage and number of passing touchdowns each season. Cunningham, who is widely considered the best football player to don the school’s jersey, even punted for the team.
Cunningham’s collegiate exploits garnered him College Football Hall of Fame honors in 2016.
But it’s not just his football accomplishments that tie him deeply to Las Vegas.
Cunningham eventually made Las Vegas his permanent residence late in his NFL career and even established his own church, Remnant Ministries, there.
Remnant Ministries’ statement of faith makes its beliefs clear: [T]here is one living and true GOD, eternally existing in three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, equal in power and glory; that this triune God created all, upholds all and governs all.”
It’s Cunningham’s bedrock of faith that had Davis describing him as “pretty special.”
“He’s going to take care of the guys in Las Vegas,” Davis told ESPN. “Jon had him address the team in a team Zoom [recently] and he did a really good job of setting the stage for the team in Las Vegas.
“When you talk to anyone in the community, everybody always talks about Randall. It’s pretty special.”
According to Cunningham, Gruden personally asked him to take on team chaplain responsibilities.
“Gruden asked me to be the team chaplain,” Cunningham said. “I have a responsibility to look after these guys in this town. And I accept that responsibility.”
Cunningham is far from the only legendary NFL figure who proudly espouses his faith.
Hall of Fame former NFL coach Tony Dungy recently had to set the record straight after CNN’s Don Lemon contended that Jesus did not live a perfect life.
I’m sorry Mr Lemon but just who “admitted” that Jesus Christ was not perfect here on earth? Not anyone who believes the Bible. Not anyone who trusts in Jesus as their savior. I’m not sure the point you’re making but your premise is dead wrong. That was the point in Jesus coming! https://t.co/KXUS9Z0GLA — Tony Dungy (@TonyDungy) July 9, 2020
Whether it’s Dungy or Cunningham, it’s good to know that even amid controversy, faith can still be prevalent in the NFL.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-07-11--Protesters Demand Cops Answer for ‘Injustice’ of Shooting Death, Police Release Footage Showing Susp

Protesters Demand Cops Answer for ‘Injustice’ of Shooting Death, Police Release Footage Showing Suspect Fired First

Detroit ’ s police chief and mayor stood behind police officers Friday after a young black man was killed by police , triggering massive protests .
“ Rapid response call to action : DPD shot and killed a 19 year old today .
Our plans have changed so that the movement can respond to this injustice .
Get to 7446 w McNichols rd as soon as you can , ” the activist group Detroit Will Breathe tweeted .
But within hours of the shooting , Detroit Police Chief James Craig released a video of the incident in which Hakim Littleton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The video below contains violent images that some viewers may find disturbing .
As Craig explained it , officers were in the area investigating a previous shooting that was determined to be gang-related , The Detroit News reported .
Police prepared to arrest a man who was with Littleton , Craig said , but had no plans to interact with Littleton , he said .
The video shows that the man police wanted to detain , later identified as Darnell Sylvester , drops to his knees to comply , while Littleton reaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When his hand emerges , it appears to be holding a handgun .
The video shows smoke coming from the gun .
The police returned fire , and Littleton appears to be trying to shoot back as he falls .
Craig said police and Littleton were about three feet apart when the shooting started .
It was “ simply a miracle ” that the nearest officer was not shot in the head , he added , according to Fox News .
RELATED : Before and After Photos Show Just How Much Broken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Craig , Littleton said : “ You are not going to take my man , in other words , take him into custody , ” before he opened fire .
“ He was using a .25 caliber blue steel automatic pistol .
This comes from body cameras as well as an in dash camera from one of our scouts , ” Craig said .
“ There were eight shots fired in five seconds .
Four fired by three officers , one officer fired two shots , and then four shots fired by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun in his left hand he was aiming at the head of the officer , ” Craig said .
He did not identify the officer he was speaking of by name .
“ This officer is a hero even though he did not have his gun out .
He put his own life in jeopardy when he was being fired upon , ” Craig said .
Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan tweeted his support for police ’ s actions in this incident , saying that the “ video is clear that the officer was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public confidence requires citizens to be able to judge for themselves the actions of our officers .
I commend Chief Craig for moving so quickly to release the video publicly , ” he added .
Despite the video , witnesses insisted that Littleton did not have a gun , according to WJBK-TV .
Protesters grew “ very violent , ” Craig said , noting that rocks and bottles were thrown at 12th precinct police officers .
Democratic state Rep. LaTanya Garrett demanded “ an independent and transparent investigation ” into the shooting .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ James Craig for releasing the dashcam and bodycam video for the public to review , there is no need for a rush to judgment , for a life has been lost and ( lives ) will be forever changed from this tragic event , ” she said .
“ I call upon the Mayor and the Chief of Police to ensure this matter is properly investigated in a fair and impartial manner , ” Garrett added .
“ If outside law enforcement agencies are needed to oversee this matter to ensure an independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our city leaders to ensure this is done expeditiously .
The family of the deceased deserves answers , as well as our community.
” We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Detroit’s police chief and mayor stood behind police officers Friday after a young black man was killed by police, triggering massive protests.
“Rapid response call to action: DPD shot and killed a 19 year old today. Our plans have changed so that the movement can respond to this injustice. Get to 7446 w McNichols rd as soon as you can,” the activist group Detroit Will Breathe tweeted.
Rapid response call to action: DPD shot and killed a 19 year old today. Our plans have changed so that the movement can respond to this injustice. Get to 7446 w McNichols rd as soon as you can. — DETROITWILLBREATHE (@DETWILLBREATHE) July 10, 2020
But within hours of the shooting, Detroit Police Chief James Craig released a video of the incident in which Hakim Littleton, 20, was killed.
Warning: The video below contains violent images that some viewers may find disturbing.
As Craig explained it, officers were in the area investigating a previous shooting that was determined to be gang-related, The Detroit News reported.
Police prepared to arrest a man who was with Littleton, Craig said, but had no plans to interact with Littleton, he said.
The video shows that the man police wanted to detain, later identified as Darnell Sylvester, drops to his knees to comply, while Littleton reaches his left arm into his pants pocket.
When his hand emerges, it appears to be holding a handgun.
The video shows smoke coming from the gun.
The police returned fire, and Littleton appears to be trying to shoot back as he falls.
Craig said police and Littleton were about three feet apart when the shooting started.
It was “simply a miracle” that the nearest officer was not shot in the head, he added, according to Fox News.
Do you think this shooting was justified? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 99% (3202 Votes) No: 1% (19 Votes)
According to Craig, Littleton said: “You are not going to take my man, in other words, take him into custody,” before he opened fire.
“He was using a .25 caliber blue steel automatic pistol. This comes from body cameras as well as an in dash camera from one of our scouts,” Craig said. “There were eight shots fired in five seconds. Four fired by three officers, one officer fired two shots, and then four shots fired by the suspect.
“As Littleton raised the gun in his left hand he was aiming at the head of the officer,” Craig said.
He did not identify the officer he was speaking of by name.
“This officer is a hero even though he did not have his gun out. He put his own life in jeopardy when he was being fired upon,” Craig said.
Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan tweeted his support for police’s actions in this incident, saying that the “video is clear that the officer was suddenly and unexpectedly fired upon.
“Public confidence requires citizens to be able to judge for themselves the actions of our officers. I commend Chief Craig for moving so quickly to release the video publicly,” he added.
The City of Detroit was one of the first in America to outfit its police cars and officers with cameras for this type of incident. The video is clear that the officer was suddenly and unexpectedly fired upon. — Mayor Mike Duggan (@MayorMikeDuggan) July 11, 2020
Public confidence requires citizens to be able to judge for themselves the actions of our officers. I commend Chief Craig for moving so quickly to release the video publicly. — Mayor Mike Duggan (@MayorMikeDuggan) July 11, 2020
Despite the video, witnesses insisted that Littleton did not have a gun, according to WJBK-TV.
Protesters grew “very violent,” Craig said, noting that rocks and bottles were thrown at 12th precinct police officers.
Democratic state Rep. LaTanya Garrett demanded “an independent and transparent investigation” into the shooting.
“Although I applaud Detroit Police Chief James Craig for releasing the dashcam and bodycam video for the public to review, there is no need for a rush to judgment, for a life has been lost and (lives) will be forever changed from this tragic event,” she said.
“I call upon the Mayor and the Chief of Police to ensure this matter is properly investigated in a fair and impartial manner,” Garrett added.
“If outside law enforcement agencies are needed to oversee this matter to ensure an independent and transparent investigation, I call upon our city leaders to ensure this is done expeditiously. The family of the deceased deserves answers, as well as our community.”
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-07-11--State Senator Shatters Mainstream Media Narrative with Visit to Armed Black Protesters

When Virginia state Sen. Amanda Chase announced her 2021 gubernatorial run back in February , she touched on how her tendency to attract controversy might affect her chances .
“ I don ’ t care about controversies , ” she said , according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch .
“ Bring it.
” It ’ d be impossible to sum up the controversies Chase has involved herself in .
She left the Republican caucus because , after losing the statehouse in 2019 , they continued with the same state Senate leadership as before .
She ’ s been accused of spreading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The first paragraph of the Times-Dispatch story described her as “ the gun-carrying Republican state senator from Chesterfield County , ” which should tell you her feelings on the Second Amendment .
And now , she can be described as the state senator who met with rifle-toting Black Lives Matter activists .
According to the Times-Dispatch , the meeting occurred at a Second Amendment rally near the Virginia state capitol in Richmond on July 4 .
“ We need to do more LOVING rather than hate , ” Chase wrote in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event .
“ I ’ m tired of this fighting !
!
!
We are Americans !
!
We need to do more listening and talk to one-another .
We may disagree but we can respect and love each other.
” If Chase likes controversy , she certainly got it at the Independence Day rally , which featured armed Black Lives Matter protesters and figures from the far , far right .
It was a strange melange of characters attending , and the less said about the far-right weirdos , the better .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ extensive detail elsewhere .
Chase ’ s meeting with the Black Lives Matter activists hasn ’ t gotten much oxygen , however .
No matter what your feelings about her , it should have .
For an encounter between a firebrand state senator and a group of armed protesters , there was a surprising show of public comity .
WARNING : The following video contains vulgar language that some viewers will find offensive : “ Look at all this peace , ” one of the protesters said .
“ We ’ re supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ I know , but we don ’ t , ” Chase said .
“ Do we refuse to let the media to pit us against each other ?
” “ I walked away from the media , ” one of the protesters responded .
RELATED : As the Anti-Police Movement Intensifies , Gun and Ammo Sales Soar Unsurprisingly , everyone in attendance was a fan of the Second Amendment .
As for Virginia Democratic Gov .
Ralph Northam , who signed a number of sweeping gun control regulations into law earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he does not get it.
” “ We believe in a Second Amendment because we believe in our basic ability to protect ourselves , ” she said .
“ I hate to say it , [ but ] it ’ s not just black people who are bullied .
I got bullied , too .
I have people who don ’ t like my politics who want take me out , I get threats , too .
And when you get threats … you ’ ll learn [ just how ] important that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given the event , plenty of talk about guns .
There was also talk about abortion and the alleged mistreatment of Black Lives Matter protesters .
It made for an interesting 10 minutes of footage .
And , best of all , there wasn ’ t any of the shouty exchanges which pass for debate in these dour times .
Chase may not be your cup of tea .
That said , I don ’ t know many other lawmakers who ’ d have waded into this event with a rifle of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lives Matter contingent to hear what they had to say .
Perhaps it ’ s all just an Amanda Chase campaign advertisement for the 2021 gubernatorial race .
If so , it ’ s an awfully good one .
Also notice the fact that , at an event where nearly everyone was armed , there wasn ’ t any violence .
Nor was there any violence during a massive Second Amendment rally in January ; Gov .
Northam went apoplectic about the event , saying that “ armed militia groups planned to storm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 22,000 people , according to the Times-Dispatch .
No one did any storming , much less any shooting .
Guns aren ’ t machines of death .
People can talk to each other civilly about race .
Firebrand conservative politicians can get along with Black Lives Matter protesters .
And everyone can agree the media is a slanted , narrative-making machine no one can or should trust .
The odds of Chase becoming the Old Dominion ’ s next governor are pretty low .
That said , you can ’ t deny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2021 race interesting , whether you like her or not .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

When Virginia state Sen. Amanda Chase announced her 2021 gubernatorial run back in February, she touched on how her tendency to attract controversy might affect her chances.
“I don’t care about controversies,” she said, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch. “Bring it.”
It’d be impossible to sum up the controversies Chase has involved herself in. She left the Republican caucus because, after losing the statehouse in 2019, they continued with the same state Senate leadership as before. She’s been accused of spreading hoaxes about Black Lives Matter and antifa.
The first paragraph of the Times-Dispatch story described her as “the gun-carrying Republican state senator from Chesterfield County,” which should tell you her feelings on the Second Amendment. And now, she can be described as the state senator who met with rifle-toting Black Lives Matter activists.
According to the Times-Dispatch, the meeting occurred at a Second Amendment rally near the Virginia state capitol in Richmond on July 4.
“We need to do more LOVING rather than hate,” Chase wrote in a Facebook post that attached pictures from the event.
“I’m tired of this fighting!!! We are Americans!! We need to do more listening and talk to one-another. We may disagree but we can respect and love each other.”
If Chase likes controversy, she certainly got it at the Independence Day rally, which featured armed Black Lives Matter protesters and figures from the far, far right. It was a strange melange of characters attending, and the less said about the far-right weirdos, the better. That’s been covered in pretty extensive detail elsewhere.
Chase’s meeting with the Black Lives Matter activists hasn’t gotten much oxygen, however. No matter what your feelings about her, it should have. For an encounter between a firebrand state senator and a group of armed protesters, there was a surprising show of public comity.
WARNING: The following video contains vulgar language that some viewers will find offensive:
“Look at all this peace,” one of the protesters said. “We’re supposed to hate each other, right?”
“I know, but we don’t,” Chase said. “Do we refuse to let the media to pit us against each other?”
“I walked away from the media,” one of the protesters responded.
Should more politicians do what Amanda Chase did? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 92% (1571 Votes) No: 8% (132 Votes)
Unsurprisingly, everyone in attendance was a fan of the Second Amendment. As for Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, who signed a number of sweeping gun control regulations into law earlier this year, Chase said that “he does not get it.”
“We believe in a Second Amendment because we believe in our basic ability to protect ourselves,” she said. “I hate to say it, [but] it’s not just black people who are bullied. I got bullied, too. I have people who don’t like my politics who want take me out, I get threats, too. And when you get threats … you’ll learn [just how] important that Second Amendment is.”
There was, given the event, plenty of talk about guns. There was also talk about abortion and the alleged mistreatment of Black Lives Matter protesters.
It made for an interesting 10 minutes of footage. And, best of all, there wasn’t any of the shouty exchanges which pass for debate in these dour times.
Chase may not be your cup of tea. That said, I don’t know many other lawmakers who’d have waded into this event with a rifle of their own and then sought out the Black Lives Matter contingent to hear what they had to say.
Perhaps it’s all just an Amanda Chase campaign advertisement for the 2021 gubernatorial race. If so, it’s an awfully good one.
Also notice the fact that, at an event where nearly everyone was armed, there wasn’t any violence. Nor was there any violence during a massive Second Amendment rally in January; Gov. Northam went apoplectic about the event, saying that “armed militia groups planned to storm the capitol.”
That rally drew more than 22,000 people, according to the Times-Dispatch. No one did any storming, much less any shooting.
Guns aren’t machines of death. People can talk to each other civilly about race. Firebrand conservative politicians can get along with Black Lives Matter protesters. And everyone can agree the media is a slanted, narrative-making machine no one can or should trust.
The odds of Chase becoming the Old Dominion’s next governor are pretty low. That said, you can’t deny she’s going to make the 2021 race interesting, whether you like her or not.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-07-11--Fire Ravages 250-Year-Old California Church

A fire early Saturday destroyed the rooftop and most of the interior of a California church that was undergoing renovation to mark its upcoming 250th anniversary celebration .
Fire alarms at the San Gabriel Mission rang around 4 a.m. , and when firefighters arrived at the historic church they saw smoke rising from the wooden rooftop , San Gabriel Fire Capt .
Paul Negrete said .
He said firefighters entered the church and tried to beat back the flames , but they had to retreat when roofing and other structural materials began to fall , Negrete said .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inside .
We weren ’ t able to because it became unsafe , ” he said .
After evacuating the church , the crew was joined by up to 50 firefighters who tried to douse water on the 50-foot-high structure from ladder trucks , he said .
TRENDING : Golf Pro and His Three Children Tragically Killed in Plane Crash “ The roof is completely gone , ” the captain said .
“ The fire traversed the wood rapidly , the interior is pretty much destroyed up into the altar area.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Negrete said .
The interior wall was redone a week ago and crews had just finished installing pews as part of a larger renovation of the property to mark the anniversary of the founding of the mission in 1771 , said Terri Huerta , a spokeswoman for San Gabriel Mission .
She said the firefighters ’ aggressive action and “ a little bit of a miracle ” kept the flames from reaching the altar .
The church had been preparing to reopen next weekend following a four-month closure .
Selena Casada , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drove to the mission after she heard about the fire .
She said she grew up in the parish and attended the elementary school on the church ’ s grounds .
“ I was baptized here , I had my first communion here … I was getting ready to get married here next year so this hurts , ” Casada said .
“ It ’ s just really sad to see such a historic place burned down because this place means a lot to us.
” The church , built of stone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaulted ceiling that was damaged by two earthquakes in the early 1800s , she said .
Franciscan fathers replaced the ceiling with a wood-paneled ceiling and the roof was last repaired following some damage caused by the 1994 Northridge earthquake , Huerta said .
The church was the fourth in a string of missions established across California by the Franciscan priest and saint , Junipero Serra .
Statues of him in San Francisco and Sacramento were toppled by protesters during recent demonstrations .
In response to the toppling of Serra ’ s statues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moved a bronze statue of Serra from the church entrance to “ a more appropriate location , out of public view , ” without specifying where .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

A fire early Saturday destroyed the rooftop and most of the interior of a California church that was undergoing renovation to mark its upcoming 250th anniversary celebration.
Fire alarms at the San Gabriel Mission rang around 4 a.m., and when firefighters arrived at the historic church they saw smoke rising from the wooden rooftop, San Gabriel Fire Capt. Paul Negrete said.
He said firefighters entered the church and tried to beat back the flames, but they had to retreat when roofing and other structural materials began to fall, Negrete said.
“We were trying to fight it from the inside. We weren’t able to because it became unsafe,” he said.
After evacuating the church, the crew was joined by up to 50 firefighters who tried to douse water on the 50-foot-high structure from ladder trucks, he said.
“The roof is completely gone,” the captain said. “The fire traversed the wood rapidly, the interior is pretty much destroyed up into the altar area.”
The cause of the fire was under investigation, Negrete said.
The interior wall was redone a week ago and crews had just finished installing pews as part of a larger renovation of the property to mark the anniversary of the founding of the mission in 1771, said Terri Huerta, a spokeswoman for San Gabriel Mission.
She said the firefighters’ aggressive action and “a little bit of a miracle” kept the flames from reaching the altar.
The church had been preparing to reopen next weekend following a four-month closure.
Selena Casada, 26, was in tears when she drove to the mission after she heard about the fire. She said she grew up in the parish and attended the elementary school on the church’s grounds.
“I was baptized here, I had my first communion here … I was getting ready to get married here next year so this hurts,” Casada said.
“It’s just really sad to see such a historic place burned down because this place means a lot to us.”
The church, built of stone, brick and mortar, originally had a vaulted ceiling that was damaged by two earthquakes in the early 1800s, she said.
Franciscan fathers replaced the ceiling with a wood-paneled ceiling and the roof was last repaired following some damage caused by the 1994 Northridge earthquake, Huerta said.
The church was the fourth in a string of missions established across California by the Franciscan priest and saint, Junipero Serra.
Do you think the statues of Junipero Serra should have been destroyed? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 2% (5 Votes) No: 98% (257 Votes)
Statues of him in San Francisco and Sacramento were toppled by protesters during recent demonstrations.
In response to the toppling of Serra’s statues, the San Gabriel Mission said it moved a bronze statue of Serra from the church entrance to “a more appropriate location, out of public view,” without specifying where.
[jwplayer uGGbjstv]
The Western Journal has reviewed this Associated Press story and may have altered it prior to publication to ensure that it meets our editorial standards.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-07-11--Academics Try To Get Own Study Canned After It Finds Inconvenient Truth About Race & Police Shooting

Academics Try To Get Own Study Canned After It Finds Inconvenient Truth About Race & Police Shootings

Being the authors of a widely cited academic study ordinarily would be a good thing .
But not for Joseph Cesario and David Johnson , apparently .
They ’ ve asked for that widely cited paper to be retracted — not because of any errors in it , mind you , but because of who ’ s citing it .
You probably would be less surprised if I told you the study was called “ Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings.
” Cesario and Johnson — from Michigan State University and the University of Maryland , respectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study that looked at whether there were any distinct patterns of racial bias in fatal police shootings .
Their conclusion , as reported by Retraction Watch , was that originally there was “ no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings , and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers.
” Well , whoops .
That ’ s impolitic .
The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2019 and been a political football once conservatives started using it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authors already had issued a correction in April dealing with that sentence .
Based on their calculations , they said “ this sentence should read : ‘ As the proportion of White officers in a fatal officer-involved shooting increased , a person fatally shot was not more likely to be of a racial minority.
’ This is consistent with our framing of the results in the abstract and main text.
” Then came a new wave of attention when the study was cited in a controversial June Wall Street Journal Op-Ed written by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute .
Titled “ The Myth of Systemic Police Racism , ” Mac Donald argued that “ [ c ] rime and suspect behavior , not race , determine most police actions.
” The paragraph that cited the study read thusly : “ The latest in a series of studies undercutting the claim of systemic police bias was published in August 2019 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences .
The researchers found that the more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group , the greater the chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be fatally shot by a police officer .
There is ‘ no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police , ’ they concluded.
” Earlier this week , Cesario and Johnson requested a retraction on the article .
The reason wasn ’ t based on errors in their research , however .
Instead , it was partially because they were unhappy with who was using it and partially because they felt people were extrapolating their data to all police shootings , not just fatal ones , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Our article estimated the role of officer characteristics in predicting the race of civilians fatally shot by police .
A critique pointed out we had erroneously made statements about racial differences in the probability of being shot ( 1 ) , and we issued a correction to rectify the statement ( 2 ) , ” the retraction read .
“ Despite this correction , our work has continued to be cited as providing support for the idea that there are no racial biases in fatal shootings , or policing in general .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not speak to these issues and should not be used to support such statements .
We take full responsibility for not being careful enough with the inferences made in our original report , as this directly led to the misunderstanding of our research.
” “ While our data and statistical approach were appropriate for investigating whether officer characteristics are related to the race of civilians fatally shot by police , they are inadequate to address racial disparities in the probability of being shot.
” It ’ s impossible to overstate the pusillanimity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sound because you think people are misusing that data or that it doesn ’ t cover a wide enough spectrum .
As George Mason University Law School professor David Bernstein pointed out , this isn ’ t actually a reason for retraction : RELATED : Politician Receives Racist Letter - Then Police Discover He Sent It Himself If you want to say the study is different than some writers and pundits seem to take it for , fine .
At the National Review , Robert VerBruggen broke down the limitations of the paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question we want to answer about this topic is this : If a black person and a white person behave the same way in the same situation , is the black person more likely to be shot by a cop ?
The biggest criticism of the study is that it doesn ’ t directly answer this question , ” he wrote in a September 2019 piece .
The study , VerBruggen notes , deals only with interactions with people who are shot , meaning it doesn ’ t look at differences in behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who weren ’ t .
“ The study addresses this by statistically controlling for the demographics of homicide victims in each county where a shooting happened — and the correlation between officer and suspect race disappears , ” he wrote .
“ In other words , someone shot by the police is more likely to be black if the area has a lot of black homicide , but not if the police officer involved happened to be white .
This is inconsistent with the idea that white cops are killing black suspects out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the biggest limitations to this approach , however , is that black cops might disproportionately patrol black neighborhoods even within counties .
If this is the case , black suspects and black officers might encounter each other more — above and beyond what ’ s accounted for in the statistical controls — which could cancel out the effects of white cops ’ racism .
To put it differently , black cops could shoot black suspects simply because they encounter a lot of black suspects , while white cops could shoot black suspects out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phenomena occurred to roughly the same degree , the study would indicate that black and white cops are about equally likely to shoot black suspects.
” Still , VerBruggen doesn ’ t think either that or the political kerfuffle around the paper merits a retraction .
“ I ’ m all for using precise language and correcting the record when you fail to , but retracting the entire study is a bad decision , ” he wrote .
“ The lack of a correlation between officer and suspect race is noteworthy and deserves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But it ’ s not because , well , nobody wants to talk about that conclusion .
Now Cesario and Johnson have to talk about their retraction and convince everyone this wasn ’ t done because of the cultural gun being held to their heads .
They also have to explain why their first statement invoked Mac Donald ’ s article as part of their reason for retraction — something that made their decision look very political , which they say it ’ s not .
“ The [ first statement ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slightly amended it because people were incorrectly concluding that we retracted due to either political pressure or the political views of those citing the paper , ” Cesario told Retraction Watch .
“ Neither is correct , and so this version makes the reason more clear.
” In that amended statement , they still stand behind their data .
In one paragraph , they acknowledge that they ’ re retracting it because they don ’ t think it ’ s being used correctly .
In another , they say this had nothing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who were using it .
“ Although our data and statistical approach were valid to estimate the question we actually tested ( the race of civilians fatally shot by police ) , given continued misuse of the article we felt the right decision was to retract the article rather than publish further corrections .
We take full responsibility for not being careful enough with the inferences made in our original article , as this directly led to the misunderstanding of our research , ” the statement read .
“ This was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the article ; this decision had nothing to do with political considerations , ‘ mob ’ pressure , threats to the authors , or distaste for the political views of people citing the work approvingly.
” Nothing in what they ’ ve said invalidates any of their research .
It also doesn ’ t dispel the obvious notion that this absolutely had to do with the “ mob ” and the inconvenient , if incomplete , conclusion they reached .
For anyone looking at this from afar , I ’ d like to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with on a daily basis .
Cesario and Johnson reached one impolitic conclusion and ended up retracting for reasons that look as if they arose from political pressure .
If you ’ re in academia and you ’ ve reached more than a few of these taboo conclusions on your own , you won ’ t be in academia very long .
However , the truth matters .
Yes , this study often is used in a way that isn ’ t wholly accurate .
The authors still reached an important conclusion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to abandon because it ’ s frowned upon by The People That Matter .
To say this is a dangerous portent for the future of academia is a grave understatement .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Being the authors of a widely cited academic study ordinarily would be a good thing. But not for Joseph Cesario and David Johnson, apparently. They’ve asked for that widely cited paper to be retracted — not because of any errors in it, mind you, but because of who’s citing it.
You probably would be less surprised if I told you the study was called “Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings.” Cesario and Johnson — from Michigan State University and the University of Maryland, respectively — were among the authors of a study that looked at whether there were any distinct patterns of racial bias in fatal police shootings.
Their conclusion, as reported by Retraction Watch, was that originally there was “no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers.”
Well, whoops. That’s impolitic. The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2019 and been a political football once conservatives started using it to hit back on anti-police rhetoric.
The authors already had issued a correction in April dealing with that sentence. Based on their calculations, they said “this sentence should read: ‘As the proportion of White officers in a fatal officer-involved shooting increased, a person fatally shot was not more likely to be of a racial minority.’ This is consistent with our framing of the results in the abstract and main text.”
Then came a new wave of attention when the study was cited in a controversial June Wall Street Journal Op-Ed written by Heather Mac Donald of the right-leaning Manhattan Institute. Titled “The Myth of Systemic Police Racism,” Mac Donald argued that “[c]rime and suspect behavior, not race, determine most police actions.”
The paragraph that cited the study read thusly: “The latest in a series of studies undercutting the claim of systemic police bias was published in August 2019 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers found that the more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that a member of that group will be fatally shot by a police officer. There is ‘no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police,’ they concluded.”
Earlier this week, Cesario and Johnson requested a retraction on the article. The reason wasn’t based on errors in their research, however. Instead, it was partially because they were unhappy with who was using it and partially because they felt people were extrapolating their data to all police shootings, not just fatal ones, or to “policing in general.”
“Our article estimated the role of officer characteristics in predicting the race of civilians fatally shot by police. A critique pointed out we had erroneously made statements about racial differences in the probability of being shot (1), and we issued a correction to rectify the statement (2),” the retraction read.
Should these researchers have retracted their paper? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 7% (36 Votes) No: 93% (480 Votes)
“Despite this correction, our work has continued to be cited as providing support for the idea that there are no racial biases in fatal shootings, or policing in general. To be clear, our work does not speak to these issues and should not be used to support such statements. We take full responsibility for not being careful enough with the inferences made in our original report, as this directly led to the misunderstanding of our research.”
“While our data and statistical approach were appropriate for investigating whether officer characteristics are related to the race of civilians fatally shot by police, they are inadequate to address racial disparities in the probability of being shot.”
It’s impossible to overstate the pusillanimity of retracting a paper where the data is sound because you think people are misusing that data or that it doesn’t cover a wide enough spectrum. As George Mason University Law School professor David Bernstein pointed out, this isn’t actually a reason for retraction:
It’s absurd to ask that a valid study be retracted b/c you think others are “misusing” it. A study says what it says, and so long as it wasn’t actually flawed it shouldn’t be retracted for political reasons except perhaps under truly extreme circumstances, which this isn’t. https://t.co/R14jS9x1e8 — David Bernstein (@ProfDBernstein) July 7, 2020
If you want to say the study is different than some writers and pundits seem to take it for, fine. At the National Review, Robert VerBruggen broke down the limitations of the paper’s conclusions.
“The main question we want to answer about this topic is this: If a black person and a white person behave the same way in the same situation, is the black person more likely to be shot by a cop? The biggest criticism of the study is that it doesn’t directly answer this question,” he wrote in a September 2019 piece.
The study, VerBruggen notes, deals only with interactions with people who are shot, meaning it doesn’t look at differences in behavior between those who were shot and those who weren’t.
“The study addresses this by statistically controlling for the demographics of homicide victims in each county where a shooting happened — and the correlation between officer and suspect race disappears,” he wrote. “In other words, someone shot by the police is more likely to be black if the area has a lot of black homicide, but not if the police officer involved happened to be white. This is inconsistent with the idea that white cops are killing black suspects out of anti-black racism.”
“One of the biggest limitations to this approach, however, is that black cops might disproportionately patrol black neighborhoods even within counties. If this is the case, black suspects and black officers might encounter each other more — above and beyond what’s accounted for in the statistical controls — which could cancel out the effects of white cops’ racism. To put it differently, black cops could shoot black suspects simply because they encounter a lot of black suspects, while white cops could shoot black suspects out of racism. And if these two phenomena occurred to roughly the same degree, the study would indicate that black and white cops are about equally likely to shoot black suspects.”
Still, VerBruggen doesn’t think either that or the political kerfuffle around the paper merits a retraction.
“I’m all for using precise language and correcting the record when you fail to, but retracting the entire study is a bad decision,” he wrote. “The lack of a correlation between officer and suspect race is noteworthy and deserves to be a part of the discussion.”
But it’s not because, well, nobody wants to talk about that conclusion. Now Cesario and Johnson have to talk about their retraction and convince everyone this wasn’t done because of the cultural gun being held to their heads. They also have to explain why their first statement invoked Mac Donald’s article as part of their reason for retraction — something that made their decision look very political, which they say it’s not.
“The [first statement] was an earlier version, and we slightly amended it because people were incorrectly concluding that we retracted due to either political pressure or the political views of those citing the paper,” Cesario told Retraction Watch. “Neither is correct, and so this version makes the reason more clear.”
In that amended statement, they still stand behind their data. In one paragraph, they acknowledge that they’re retracting it because they don’t think it’s being used correctly. In another, they say this had nothing to do with their “distaste” with those who were using it.
“Although our data and statistical approach were valid to estimate the question we actually tested (the race of civilians fatally shot by police), given continued misuse of the article we felt the right decision was to retract the article rather than publish further corrections. We take full responsibility for not being careful enough with the inferences made in our original article, as this directly led to the misunderstanding of our research,” the statement read.
“This was the sole reason for our decision to retract the article; this decision had nothing to do with political considerations, ‘mob’ pressure, threats to the authors, or distaste for the political views of people citing the work approvingly.”
Nothing in what they’ve said invalidates any of their research. It also doesn’t dispel the obvious notion that this absolutely had to do with the “mob” and the inconvenient, if incomplete, conclusion they reached.
For anyone looking at this from afar, I’d like to note that this is what conservatives deal with on a daily basis. Cesario and Johnson reached one impolitic conclusion and ended up retracting for reasons that look as if they arose from political pressure. If you’re in academia and you’ve reached more than a few of these taboo conclusions on your own, you won’t be in academia very long.
However, the truth matters. Yes, this study often is used in a way that isn’t wholly accurate. The authors still reached an important conclusion, however — one they’re apparently willing to abandon because it’s frowned upon by The People That Matter.
To say this is a dangerous portent for the future of academia is a grave understatement.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-07-11--Espionage Fears as China Buys Up US Land Just a Stone’s Throw from Major Air Base

A China-based company ’ s proposal to build a wind farm a few dozen miles away from Laughlin Air Force Base in Texas is raising red flags about national security concerns and potential espionage .
The Blue Hills Wind development project , located not far from America ’ s border with Mexico , is being proposed by GH America Energy , a subsidiary of Guanghui Energy Company , which is owned by a former Chinese army officer , according to Foreign Policy .
The federal government has so far not blocked the project , which is currently undergoing a review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact pilot training at the base .
However , voices are being raised in concern .
“ Why this location and why this project ?
” Republican Rep. Will Hurd of Texas , a former CIA officer whose district includes the project , told Foreign Policy .
TRENDING : Golf Pro and His Three Children Tragically Killed in Plane Crash “ Why are we allowing a Chinese company to do that in the U.S. ?
A former U.S. general would not be able to do this kind of project in China.
” Retired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has national security concerns about the project .
“ It triggered alarms the first time that we got evidence of Chinese money , ” he said .
“ If the electricity stops or the water stops flowing , those bases stop operating.
” Local officials , meanwhile , have shared their concerns with the Trump administration .
“ Our greatest concern is the long-term implications this will have on the Air Force ’ s mission of pilot training not with a single application , but rather a cumulative strategy that can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” County Judge Lewis G. Owens Jr. and Del Rio Mayor Bruno Lozano wrote in February to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin .
“ We believe that this project and all future projects of a similar nature will result in unacceptable risk to national security of the United States.
” Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas also has issues with the project .
‘ “ Sen .
Cruz is particularly concerned by the threat of a Chinese-owned company erecting wind farms near Laughlin .
China has demonstrated a willingness to invest billions of dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private companies to expand the global reach of their security and espionage capabilities , ” a Cruz spokesperson told Foreign Policy .
“ Not only will these wind farms near Laughlin affect training routes , they could also risk our national security.
” RELATED : Chinese Official : We Will 'Definitely Fight Back ' Against US Sanctions But in Texas , the rules are on the side of development , one expert said .
“ On the state and federal level there are no regulations regarding the development of these wind farms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president at Madison Government Affairs , a lobbying group that is supporting community opposition to the project , told Foreign Policy .
“ There ’ s no way to deny it as it was purchased .
The proposal to do a wind farm was a viable option for the owner.
” Local officials started paying attention to the issue in early 2018 , “ after Guanghui purchased properties including nine ranches under the name of Brazos Highland Properties LP , environmentalists say , a holding company controlled by the firm , ” according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposed building 50 to 130 wind turbines that could reach up to 700 feet above ground level , according to estimates that local officials provided to the Trump administration.
” Hurd likened concerns about a Chinese firm connecting to the power grid to similar concerns about Chinese firms hooking into America ’ s 5G telecommunications network .
“ We don ’ t want to have that same concern when it comes to our grid , right ?
” Hurd said .
“ So should another foreign-owned entity be able to put power on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controlling some of that power right now ?
I think the answer is no.
” “ Would they be able to manipulate the industrial control systems on their side ?
Obviously , because they would they would own that , ” he said .
“ Is there a way that by being connected to [ the ] electrical grid , that you would be able to overload that grid ?
” Asked if he feared a foreign company could trigger a statewide power outage , Hurd replied : “ 100 percent.
” One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese firms if they are businesses or arms of the government .
“ This gets to a larger debate about China ’ s economic system itself , about the division between the state and private sector , ” Ashley Feng of the Center for a New American Security told Foreign Policy .
“ Are Chinese private firms that are going abroad and acquiring technology and companies and land , are they actually acting independently from the state ?
That ’ s a blurred line.
” Kwast , however , made it clear he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a common strategy .
“ This is an economic war , ” he said .
“ China is looking to invest in anything that can give them a competitive advantage on anything .
They want to win this economic war without firing a shot.
” We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

A China-based company’s proposal to build a wind farm a few dozen miles away from Laughlin Air Force Base in Texas is raising red flags about national security concerns and potential espionage.
The Blue Hills Wind development project, located not far from America’s border with Mexico, is being proposed by GH America Energy, a subsidiary of Guanghui Energy Company, which is owned by a former Chinese army officer, according to Foreign Policy.
The federal government has so far not blocked the project, which is currently undergoing a review to ensure that wind turbines do not impact pilot training at the base.
However, voices are being raised in concern.
“Why this location and why this project?” Republican Rep. Will Hurd of Texas, a former CIA officer whose district includes the project, told Foreign Policy.
“Why are we allowing a Chinese company to do that in the U.S.? A former U.S. general would not be able to do this kind of project in China.”
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Steven Kwast said he has national security concerns about the project.
“It triggered alarms the first time that we got evidence of Chinese money,” he said. “If the electricity stops or the water stops flowing, those bases stop operating.”
Local officials, meanwhile, have shared their concerns with the Trump administration.
Should Chinese firms be banned from pursuing this type of project? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 98% (996 Votes) No: 2% (16 Votes)
“Our greatest concern is the long-term implications this will have on the Air Force’s mission of pilot training not with a single application, but rather a cumulative strategy that cannot be evaluated in the first filing,” County Judge Lewis G. Owens Jr. and Del Rio Mayor Bruno Lozano wrote in February to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.
“We believe that this project and all future projects of a similar nature will result in unacceptable risk to national security of the United States.”
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas also has issues with the project.
‘“Sen. Cruz is particularly concerned by the threat of a Chinese-owned company erecting wind farms near Laughlin. China has demonstrated a willingness to invest billions of dollars in specific, targeted economic initiatives through private companies to expand the global reach of their security and espionage capabilities,” a Cruz spokesperson told Foreign Policy.
“Not only will these wind farms near Laughlin affect training routes, they could also risk our national security.”
New: Sens. Cornyn & Cruz & Rep. Hurd have asked Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin for a classified briefing into a Texas wind farm near Air Force’s largest training base whose owner is linked to Chinese Communist Party. @ForeignPolicy covered the case:https://t.co/tDkso6NwjY — Jack Detsch (@JackDetsch) July 10, 2020
But in Texas, the rules are on the side of development, one expert said.
“On the state and federal level there are no regulations regarding the development of these wind farms,” Jack Hession, a senior vice president at Madison Government Affairs, a lobbying group that is supporting community opposition to the project, told Foreign Policy. “There’s no way to deny it as it was purchased. The proposal to do a wind farm was a viable option for the owner.”
Local officials started paying attention to the issue in early 2018, “after Guanghui purchased properties including nine ranches under the name of Brazos Highland Properties LP, environmentalists say, a holding company controlled by the firm,” according to Foreign Policy.
“The company proposed building 50 to 130 wind turbines that could reach up to 700 feet above ground level, according to estimates that local officials provided to the Trump administration.”
Hurd likened concerns about a Chinese firm connecting to the power grid to similar concerns about Chinese firms hooking into America’s 5G telecommunications network.
“We don’t want to have that same concern when it comes to our grid, right?” Hurd said. “So should another foreign-owned entity be able to put power on the grid which means they’re controlling some of that power right now? I think the answer is no.”
The potential for mischief worries Hurd.
“Would they be able to manipulate the industrial control systems on their side? Obviously, because they would they would own that,” he said. “Is there a way that by being connected to [the] electrical grid, that you would be able to overload that grid?”
Asked if he feared a foreign company could trigger a statewide power outage, Hurd replied: “100 percent.”
One commentator said it is never clear with Chinese firms if they are businesses or arms of the government.
“This gets to a larger debate about China’s economic system itself, about the division between the state and private sector,” Ashley Feng of the Center for a New American Security told Foreign Policy. “Are Chinese private firms that are going abroad and acquiring technology and companies and land, are they actually acting independently from the state? That’s a blurred line.”
Kwast, however, made it clear he believes that everything China does flows from a common strategy.
“This is an economic war,” he said.
“China is looking to invest in anything that can give them a competitive advantage on anything. They want to win this economic war without firing a shot.”
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.