Bobby Beto's campaign sued over unwanted text messages

Photo: AP

A Texas man was livid over receiving text messages from the U.S. Senate campaign of U.S. Rep. Robert [aka: Beto] O'Rourke (D-TX), and now he's taking the campaign to court.

The plaintiff Sameer Syeed filed a class-action lawsuit against the "Beto for Texas" campaign on behalf of all Texans alleging the group sent text messages to voters without obtaining permission to contact them, and thus violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

The TCPA bans the use of automated telephone equipment to send calls or texts to a person's cellphone without their permission, except for emergencies.

The suit demands the campaign pay no less than $500 per text message to Syeed and other members in the suit, which was filed in Northern District of Texas Court, naming Collin County Sameer Syeed as the plaintiff.

Photo: AP

Syeed alleges he received nine texts from O'Rourke's "Beto for Texas" campaign in 2018 and he came across a series of error messages and disconnected dial tones when he attempted calling the numbers from where the texts originated. He also tried to stop the messages by texting back but that didn't stop them from continuing.

Communications director for the "Beto for Texas" campaign Chris Evans, said the program is legal.

"Our grassroots volunteer program with thousands of Texans canvassing, phone banking, texting, and organizing is the largest this state has seen. It is fully compliant with the law," Evans claimed.

In a recent debate between O'Rourke and his rival, incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz, O'Rourke [who keeps his real name, Robert, under wraps in order to attract the Hispanic vote] used President Trump's nickname for Cruz, callng him "Lyin' Ted."

Of course, Cruz was able to provide facts to challenge O'Rourke's feelings.


Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.



Tweet

Pork banned from federal prisons: Inshallah

Pigs and pork products are forbidden in Islam. Of course, they've been unkosher for thousands more years by Jewish law, but that didn't count. Now we have a so-called president who is removing pig products from federal prison menus because suddenly, inmates don't like bacon etc.

And if you believe inmates don't like pork or bacon, you probably also believe that pigs can fly.

Naturally, the pork industry is upset over this move by a president whose sympathies seem more in line with his father's religion than the one he claims to follow, but I won't "Alex Jones" you with any of that--believe what you want.

The ham ban began at the beginning of the month, imposed by the federal Bureau of Prisons that handles over 200,000 inmates. According to a probable phony survey, prisoners have not listed pork products as a preference. I suspect we're going to see more lobster, caviar and steak being served if prisons are out to cater to the tastes of inmates.

"Why keep pushing food that people don't want to eat?" asked Ed Ross, a spokesman for the prison bureau, speaking to The Washington Post. He claims that "Pork has been the lowest-rated food by inmates for several years."

He may be correct, but my stomach tells me differently. Even the pork industry couldn't believe the survey as they responded: Seriously, who doesn't like bacon?"

I'll tell you who doesn't like bacon. People who never tried it, those whose religion forbids it, and vegetarians who love animals but believe that abortion has something to do with women's health.

In an interesting article in Wikipedia, the issue of religion in prison is discussed and while the number of incarcerated Muslims is relatively small, it is significant when considering the relative size of the Islamic population is in the United States. The other religious group that bans pork, the Jews, is tiny compared to the Catholics, Protestants and Muslims.

A spokeperson for the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) said "We find it hard to believe that a survey would have found a majority of any population saying, 'No thanks, I don't want any bacon." 

And they are not ruling out legal action. 

There are 547,800 jobs at stake, $22.3 billion in wages, and a $39 billion contribution to the GDP.

Celebrating the ban

The Fort Worth Star Telegram claims that there have been some concerns from the families of inmates and the move had to do with Muslim and Jewish dietary restrictions. 

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist organizations (that enjoy White House visits) said they are not behind the pork ban, but they are glad it has been imposed.

So while CAIR denies their involvement in the new pork ban, it might be someone higher up the political ladder that had the ban imposed.

Any guesses?


Tweet