Visit Counter

Sunday, September 23, 2018

The Daily Mail...this is their M.O.



To twist the news to fit their agenda.


Two prime examples:

You remember these two?



A female cop shot Botham Jean mistakenly thinking he was in her apartment.

This was the headline including link. 



As you can see they presented this in the worse possible light.

The Daily Mail mission is to incite and inflame the dimwits in our society.

And they fall for it every time.







This is Wendy Martinez. Martinez (newly engaged) was senselessly stabbed to death while she was out for an evening run in Washington, D.C.







Anthony Crawford a black male murdered her. I would show you his mug shot but so far I haven't been able to find one???




This was the headline:



What's fair is fair right? The female cop at least had a plausible explanation. Crawford stabbed Martinez for no apparent reason. So what I want to know is where was this headline?


Police arrest black 23-year-old man in random fatal stabbing of newly-engaged white tech company executive, 35, who was attacked on a jog in DC

One other thing. If it wasn't for America The Daily Mail wouldn't have a website. They write about Trump sooo much (all negative) you wouldn't even know they had a Prime Minister.

Don't know what they like better. Hating Trump...or kissing the Royal Family's ass.








Share/Bookmark

A little reflection


















Share/Bookmark

Saturday, September 22, 2018

Beto O'Rourke denies fleeing scene of 1998 DUI crash, contradicting police report







 O’Rourke must be extremely naive. He didn't know lying about a DWI is only reserved for royalty like the Kennedy's?


---------------------------------



U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke, the Texas Democrat vying to replace U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, contradicted police reports Friday by denying he tried to flee the scene of a 1998 drunken car crash.

O'Rourke was asked about the incident during a debate against Cruz at Southern Methodist University.

“I did not try to leave the scene of the accident, though driving drunk, which I did, is a terrible mistake for which there is no excuse or justification or defense,” O’Rourke said. “I can only tell you that I was able to have a second chance in my life.”

But O’Rourke’s comments appear to contradict the police reports published by the Houston Chronicle last month that claimed O’Rourke “attempted to leave the scene” after he lost control of his car and hit another vehicle in 1998.

“The driver attempted to leave the accident but was stopped by the [witness],” a police officer wrote, according to the police report.

The officer went on to state that O’Rourke was visibly intoxicated and “unable to be understood due to slurred speech.”

O’Rourke recorded 0.136 and 0.134 blood alcohol levels on Breathalyzer tests, the records said. The state legal limit at the time was 0.10. 






Share/Bookmark

Friday, September 21, 2018

Police arrest nearly two dozen Kavanaugh protesters




Before or after they got paid?




---------------------------------------




Nearly two dozen protesters opposing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh were arrested on Thursday, as activists occupied the offices of key Republican senators. 

















Twenty-three protesters were removed from the Dirksen Senate Office Building, where they were protesting at Sen. Bob Corker's (R-Tenn.) office, for unlawful demonstration activities. They are being charged under a D.C. law that forbids protesters from crowding and obstructing hallways and passageways, according to a spokeswoman for the Capitol Police. 


The protesters chanted "we believe women" as they lined the hallway outside of Corker's office.


Yes...pure as the driven snow.



 Many of them wore buttons that read "I Believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford," referring to the woman who has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her in the early 1980s when they were both in high school. 

The protesters include activists from a coalition of outside groups, including the Center for Popular Democracy Action and the Women's March.
The protesters also demonstrated in offices for Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, and Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is considered a pivotal vote on the Trump nominee.

In each of the offices, the demonstrators shared stories of sexual assault and urged Republican senators to oppose Kavanaugh. 

After occupying Collins's offices, the group of protesters went to Sen. Jeff Flake's (R-Ariz.) office. Like Collins, Flake is considered a potential GOP swing vote on Kavanaugh's nomination. 

Flake, a member of the Judiciary Committee, initially described himself as "inclined" to vote for Kavanaugh but warned leadership this week that he would vote against Kavanaugh if Ford wasn't given the chance to testify. 

Grassley has set a hearing for Monday and invited both Ford and Kavanaugh to testify over her accusations against him. But Ford's lawyer is calling for the FBI to investigate the incident as a precursor to Kavanaugh testifying.

------------------------


This much is known. Either Ford or Kavanaugh is lying. After all this time it's going to be next to impossible to decipher who's telling the truth. But this one thing bugs me. On May 30th 2006 Kavanaugh was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitA prestigious position to say the least. Yet, during this Bush appointment Ford chose to remain silent. My gut tells me this has little to do with Kavanaugh and everything to do with Trump.






Share/Bookmark

Thursday, September 20, 2018

The Saga of Christine Blasey Ford








Since this story broke she deleted all her social media accounts.
Why would you do that unless you were trying to hide something?



Let's backtrack a little bit.



 Feinstein has known about the letter from Ford since July but just dropped the bomb recently. Ford (a college professor) had to know she could not make these accusations without being challenged. Now Ford claims she is being rushed into testifying, even though Feinstein sat on this disclosure since July (intended), and now wants a full-blown FBI investigation before she testifies. Full-Blown as in 
R-U-S-S-I-A-N  C-O-L-L-U-S-I-O-N which should take to the end of Trump's second term. Again that's the real objective. Delay, delay, delay.

I think Grassley and his pal Grahamnesty have been more than fair. They said, "OK fine will listen to what you have to say." Grassley stated she could testify either publically or privately before the Judiciary Committee. If she wasn't comfortable with that they would fly to her home state (CA) to take her testimony. Something I never heard of before. Talk about bending over backwards!

But for Ford, that's not good enough.

-----------------------------------


Excerpts from an ABC article no less:

Ford made her choice. Now she needs to tell her story to the Senate



Christine Blasey Ford has either developed a case of cold feet or she’s playing footsie with the Democrats. Neither one of those options is useful if she wants to stop Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

But she made the choice to reveal her identity, knowing that it would upend her life. Now, she needs to tell her story to the people who will decide whether Brett Kavanaugh ascends to the Supreme Court -- the members of the United States Senate.

Absent that, she has put herself and her family in harm’s way to no end.

If Ford’s lawyers are insisting on an FBI investigation in the hopes of finding some corroborating evidence of a decades-old alleged crime, that’s again understandable, but highly unlikely to happen.

And if they are taking that tack because the Democrats want to delay the confirmation process in the hopes of jettisoning Kavanaugh and energizing female voters, that’s likely to backfire.

As it is, some Republicans who had said they needed to hear from the accuser before they would vote, are now getting restless, saying that she’s been invited to testify in any way that’s comfortable for her -- in private or public, with senators or staff—and that she should do so.

The Democrats’ insistence that the Kavanaugh nomination is being railroaded sounds like politics as usual, rather than concern for a wronged woman. Perhaps they hope that the longer they string this out, the more unlikely it will be for the president to restrain his Twitter finger and that he will say something to outrage women voters.

Some Republicans in the Senate are already stepping onto treacherous terrain by suggesting that Ford is “mixed up” or “confused.” Give them a few more days and who knows what they might say.

But so far, they and the White House have, by and large, played it smart. They have repeatedly stated that Ford be respected and heard. They have focused their fire on Democrats -- not her. And as the week has progressed, and no other woman or fellow high-school partygoer has come forward, they have renewed their support for Kavanaugh, who has unblinkingly denied the allegations.

If Ford took this life-altering step because she believes that Brett Kavanaugh should not serve on the Supreme Court, then she must come forward to tell that to the Senate. And then it will be up to the members to decide what to do.

As it is now, without her testimony, it is almost certain that Judge Kavanaugh will soon become Justice Kavanaugh.


                           
                               The Capper:








Share/Bookmark