Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

Sarah Just Made Scorching Announcement About Being Kicked Out And Makes Red Hen Regret It

Hell yeah, Sarah!

Published

on

Are we really heading to a place as a nation where people of opposing views cannot have a conversation? Share a meal? Share a table or even a restaurant? In order for a republic to function properly a diversity of thoughts, ideas, and expression is necessary. This is only possible with freedom and civility. When it becomes more profitable to simply make fun of someone or berate them for beliefs different than your own rather than offer constructive alternative, intellectual discourse is threatened. When civil discourse can no longer be relied upon, society will fall.

Such is the case with what is happening across the United States currently and was epitomized recently when White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her family were asked to leave the Red Hen in Lexington, Virginia because she works for President Donald Trump.

Sanders opened Monday’s press briefing by addressing the restaurant she was asked to leave on Friday. In Sarah’s typical inimitable style, she was direct and to the point and she did not attempt to sugarcoat anything.

Sarah stated bluntly –

Trending: Judge Who Let Compound Muslims Walk Free Before Trial Exposed For What Else She Did

“Many by now have heard that I was asked to leave a restaurant this weekend where I attempted to have dinner with my family. My husband and I politely left and went home. I was asked to leave because I work for President Trump. We are allowed to disagree, but should we be able to do so freely and without fear of harm. And this goes for all people, regardless of politics.”

Then she turned her attention to vile, disgusting words of has-been actor Peter Fonda and chose this opportunity to publically address his tweets in which he advocated her children be kidnapped along with Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) calling on supporters to harass members of the Trump administration wherever they go.

“Some have chosen hate and vandalism toward the restaurant that I was asked to leave from,” she said. “A Hollywood actor publicly encouraged people to kidnap my children, and this weekend a member of Congress called for people to push back and make clear to those serving their country in this administration that they are not welcome anywhere, any time, for anything.”

Sarah then went on to offer a blistering critique of the state of political discourse in America, hammering her point home with an undeniable truth – “Healthy debate on ideas and political philosophy is important, but the calls for harassment and push for any Trump supporter to avoid the public is unacceptable. America is a great country, and our ability to find solutions despite those disagreements is what makes us unique.”

Sarah even received a public apology from Rep. Bob Goodlatte (VA-R) and Del. Ben Cline (VA-R) as they took to Twitter to rebuke the Red Hen. Goodlatte represents the sixth congressional district which includes Lexington, stated the rude reception she received at the Red Hen restaurant didn’t reflect the “kind and caring people” of his district.

“What @PressSec experienced in Lexington last night is very unfortunate and doesn’t reflect accurately upon the kind and caring people of Lexington that I know. There are many great and innovative businesses in that I hope you’ll come back to visit.”

Cline is a Virginia state delegate and a Republican who also is running for the U.S. House this November. He criticized Stephanie Wilkinson, co-owner of the Red Hen, and dropped the bombshell that Wilkinson is related to Hollywood actress Meryl Streep.

“On behalf of my hometown of Lexington, I want to apologize for the rudeness of one liberal New York transplant (who also happens to be Meryl Streep’s cousin). We hope you will come back and enjoy our area’s true southern hospitality.”

Fox News reports  –

“Virginia is for lovers of political correctness, as we learned this weekend when White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was thrown out of The Red Hen in Lexington, Virginia, on Friday night. The restaurant’s owner sanctimoniously declared the establishment has to uphold “certain standards.”

Evidently she means the standard of resisting President Trump, by refusing to serve steak or french fries, or a hen that’s red – or whatever it is that they serve – to an employee of the man they loathe because they’re “tolerant,” or something like that.

This political correctness is quickly approaching dangerous and irrational levels the likes of which we’ve never witnessed before. In the age of social media anyone can seize an opportunity to publicly take a stand against President Trump, and know that it could easily become national news and give them their 15 minutes of fame in the process.

The staff at The Red Hen knew if they asked Sanders to leave they’d get national news coverage. Shortly afterward employees were lighting up Twitter with tales of how their boss gave Sarah the boot, on moral grounds of course.

This quest for media attention is becoming all too common, and as it does, we continue to see people cross the line in potentially dangerous ways.

Make no mistake, this isn’t just about President Trump. Even if Vice President Mike Pence was president, this would still happen.

The PC liberals in this country increasingly seem to believe that they can bully their way to public policy goals. Celebrities instigate the behavior, the far left mimics the behavior, and the media enables it all.

The result is the public now thinks this is the new normal. It is not normal. It is dangerous.

Peter Fonda sent out a series of tweets this week, calling for Barron Trump to be ripped from his mother and put in a cage with pedophiles, then he went after Sarah Sanders and Kirstjen Nielsen tweeting that Sanders’ kids should be taken from her and Nielsen should be put in a cage, stripped naked, and whipped publicly with it filmed for posterity.

Paging #MeToo.

Just curious, if Peter Fonda walked into The Red Hen would he be asked to leave because his tweets don’t meet the “certain standards” they have to uphold as a restaurant? Asking for a friend.”

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Colorado Christian Cake Shop Owner Exonerated By Supreme Court Just Got Really Bad News

This is outrageous!

Published

on

Here we go again. I’m sure you are familiar with the Colorado Christian cake shop owner who just won a huge case in front of the Supreme Court this last June. Jack Phillips is the Christian baker who made history by prevailing in front of the High Court after he refused to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple on the basis of religious beliefs. Most of America celebrated with Phillips when he won the case and it provided a glimmer of hope for religious freedom once again here in the United States.

At the time of Phillips case, the Supreme Court admonished the state’s attorney who was standing against the baker for religious intolerance. He allegedly made a number of comments that gave the court pause on First Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court issued a powerful rebuke to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for its “religious hostility” toward Christian baker Jack Phillips. They were right to think that and it has been proven even more to be true this week as this baker just got really bad news. Phillips just filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. From what I am seeing he is being set up to be taken down in a different legalistic move… this time it involves gender issues.

Phillips and his attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom contend that the Commission has revived its campaign against him following June’s High Court decision, singling Masterpiece Cakeshop out for disparate treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs. It’s like deja vu all over again.

“The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs,” said Kristen Waggoner, who is an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney that represents Phillips. “Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him — something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do.”

The person allegedly behind all of this is an attorney named Autumn Scardina. She reportedly called Phillips’ shop the day the decision in his favor was rendered and asked him to make a cake celebrating a gender transition. The caller asked that the cake be blue on the outside and pink on the inside. Over several months after that, Phillips received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, s******y explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. He’s convinced that Scardina was the one who made all of the requests to set him up for legal action.

From PJ Media:

“To forestall a second round of litigation, ADF filed suit against the commission in federal court. Jeremy Tedesco, ADF’s senior counsel and vice president of U.S. Advocacy and Administration, told PJ Media his firm would “preemptively file a lawsuit in federal court to try to stop what the commission is doing.”

“‘We think the circumstances are uniquely aligned to do that,” Tedesco explained.

“Especially since the Supreme Court ruled that the commission had treated Phillips unfairly on the basis of his religion, thus violating his right to free exercise, this follow-up round seems particularly noxious. “It seems like another round of targeting him and putting him through this very difficult process simply because he wants to be faithful in his business in what he creates through his art,” Tedesco said.

“The commission could have decided not to pursue this second case against Phillips. The ADF lawyer explained that, when a Colorado citizen thinks he or she has been discriminated against, they file a complaint with the Civil Rights Division, which then conducts an investigation and determines probable cause.

“When Autumn Scardina filed this complaint, Tedesco would have expected the civil rights commission to reject it. “After Masterpiece came down from the Supreme Court, we expected Colorado to take that into account and realize that it was a bad decision to keep targeting Jack for his religious convictions,” the lawyer explained. “Instead, they found probable cause.”

“‘He’s going to be fully investigated again, there will be hearings from an administrative law judge,” Tedesco said. “It’s restarting the entire scenario.”

“‘It’s appalling,” the lawyer declared. “It’s unconscionable that they would go after him again right on the heels of losing a case because they were openly hostile to his religious beliefs.'”

Scardina has now filed a complaint with the civil rights commission. She is alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The complaint was held aside while the Supreme Court ruled in Phillips’ other case. Just three weeks after Phillips won his case, the commission issued a probable cause determination, finding there was sufficient evidence to support Scardina’s claim of discrimination. This sure looks as though it was all planned out this way. “Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him, in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in his favor,” Phillips’ lawsuit states. “This lawsuit is necessary to stop Colorado’s continuing persecution of Phillips.”

The freedom of religion is sacrosanct in this nation as a First Amendment right. Weaponizing lawfare to take it apart is not only unconstitutional but unconscionable. I sincerely hope that Phillips prevails once more and that a more solid ruling by the Supreme Court puts an end to this form of religious bigotry.

Continue Reading

News

Judge Who Let Compound Muslims Walk Free Before Trial Exposed For What Else She Did

She supported Obama of course!

Published

on

The New Mexico judge who on Monday set a ridiculous $20,000 bail for five defendants arrested at a remote New Mexico compound where authorities say children were being trained to conduct school shootings seems to have a history of issuing low bail to violent offenders, especially when it comes to crimes against children.

Judge Sarah Backus (let’s remember the name), who is an elected Democrat is the judge who ordered the two men and three women to wear ankle monitors, have weekly contact with their attorneys and not consume alcohol or own firearms while on bail, after paying the 20k. And what’s possibly the worst part of all this is she actually said that although she was concerned by the “troubling facts” in this case, prosecutors failed to make the case for any specific threats to the community. What????

Here is more on this case via NBC News:

“A 3-year-old boy died — allegedly during a religious ritual. Children said they were being trained to commit mass shootings. A large weapons cache was found, with practice targets.

On Monday, prosecutors detailed horrifying allegations against five adults who were found with 11 starving children in a makeshift compound in Taos County, New Mexico — but the judge said they weren’t backed by enough evidence to keep the defendants behind bars as they await their trial.

“The state alleges that there was a big plan afoot,” state District Judge Sarah Backus said in court. “But the state hasn’t shown to my satisfaction, in clear and convincing evidence, what that plan was.”

The decision stunned many, and prompted threats against Backus. But experts say the move is the result of a series of recent changes to how the state treats defendants before their trials, with “clear and convincing evidence” of being a danger to the community a legal requirement for pre-trial detention with no bail.

“These people have been charged. They have not been convicted,” said Leo Romero, a law professor emeritus at the University of New Mexico and the chairman of a committee that made recommendations on reforming cash bail in the state, which were adopted by the state Supreme Court in 2017.

“So you’re balancing individual rights versus safety of the community, and the judge is weighing that when she is determining the evidence presented by the prosecutor,” he said.

New Mexico is part of a wave of a states that, in recent years, have re-examined how they handle bail and pretrial detention.

In 2014, the state Supreme Court, in New Mexico vs. Walter Ernest Brown, deemed that even if someone is charged with a serious offense, a judge has to make an individual determination on whether to detain the defendant before trial.

“Just because someone is charged with first-degree m****r or first-degree sexual assault, that by itself is insufficient,” Romero said. “The court’s got to consider other evidence of whether the person might be a danger or a flight risk, such as the nature and circumstances, which is different than the charge itself.”

Authorities have “no excuse,” said Jason Badger, who reported seeing missing boy months ago.
And in 2016, an overwhelming number of voters agreed to a constitutional amendment that moved the state away from the traditional money-based bail system to an evidence-of-risk-based system of release and detention, in an effort to bring more fairness. The new system took effect last year.

Backus would not comment on the case because it is still pending. Barry Massey, a spokesman for the New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts, said that “what she said in court yesterday is as much explanation for her decisions as she can provide.”

“Prosecutors have to file a motion, and then they have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no other conditions of release will reasonably protect the public’s safety,” he said. “What the judge said yesterday is that they didn’t meet that burden.”

While Backus agreed to release the defendants from jail to house arrest, she required them to wear GPS ankle monitors and to check in weekly with their attorneys, plus cooperate with the New Mexico Children Youth and Families Division.

The decision not to hold the defendants spurred a backlash on social media, with some calling for Backus to resign. The New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts said the judge had also received threatening phone calls and emails.

State Rep. Bill Rehm, R-Albuquerque, a former law enforcement officer, said he felt Backus had not been tough enough.

“There’s the remains of a young child found here,” he said. “Someone should be charged with some kind of homicide or m****r. Whoever did that clearly is a violent person, and so they should be detained.”

Bail was set at $20,000 for each defendant, but Backus said she would allow the defendants to walk out on what’s called a signature bond — in which case they don’t have to post any cash.

The case has yet another twist: While the five were released to house arrest, because they were living on a makeshift compound on someone else’s property, they don’t technically have a house to go to.

Massey said that had been solved by offers from residents in Taos County to let them stay with them.

Marie Legrand Miller, a public defender for one of the defendants, Hujrah Wahhaj, confirmed her client had received such offers, but would not say from whom, other than to say the residents didn’t have any criminal problems and were in good standing.

“My client would like to obviously get out of jail and she has no desire to go back to the compound property,” Legrand Miller said. “The judge has ordered that they not return there, and she has no desire to return there.”

Fox News has reported that this isn’t the first time judge Backus has pulled a stunt like this. Just last month, she set a $10,000 bond for 24-year-old Rafael Orozco from Taos who was accused of beating his girlfriend, his newborn child and even a healthcare worker at Holy Cross Hospital in September 2016. He then prompted a lockdown at Holy Cross Hospital after allegedly attacking those 3 individuals.

Police later confirmed that Orozco prompted the lockdown at the hospital after punching his girlfriend as she breastfed their newborn in front of a male doctor, grabbing the mother by the throat and slapping the baby. Orozco then fled the hospital and was arrested in Rio Arriba County a few months later.

During his time in prison, Orozco was accused of other crimes, including obtaining Suboxone, an opioid medication, and pulling a fire alarm. A year later, he and his brother, Cristian Orozco, were charged with assaulting and threatening a guard. In September, Backus approved an order to incarcerate Orozco at the Lea County Correctional Facility until his trial.

Orozco’s defense attorney recently filed a motion arguing for his release and last month, Backus ruled in his favor.

Of course, with a little research, we here at RWN found that Judge Backus apparently gave money to Barack Obama for his 2008 campaign for president.

Figures.

Continue Reading

Thanks for sharing!

We'd like to invite you to become a RWN insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend