Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Oriana Farrell Is A Liar



Good Morning America and ABC are a bunch of idiots.

Oriana Farrell who stopped in new Mexico for going 100 MPH on a New Mexico highway back in October 2003 was not treated abusively by police.  There is the full video of the police encounter on Live Leaks.

Her comments on GMA about how she felt like Trayvon Martin is complete nonsense.  Like Skittles Martin who had drugs in his system, guess what?  So did Oriana, I know big surprise, right?

Full Unedited Video Here at Live Leaks

If you watch the actual full video and not some edited version to paint cops as the bad guys, you can clearly see this lady not only endangered the lives of her family, but of other people on the road. The cop was only going to give her a ticket for speeding. He was very professional, and never once tried to yank her out of the car, he definitely should have.

After the first time she ran, then pulled over, once she finally did get out so he could speak with her, she tried to run back to drivers seat, when he stopped her that is when her son got out and started punching the officer.

FYI, it was a responding officer that shot at the van, and if you watch the video closely, he was shooting at the tires. The van was never actually hit, you can see the bullet hitting the ground near the tires as she drives away. Never once did he fire INTO the van.
And that officer lost his job for shooting at her tires trying to slow her down.

The blame is totally on her and the media for spinning a very large lie due to race.

If it was a white woman and family, not a thing would have been said, except, wow look how dumb this lady is, boy they should have tased her.

Any one who watches the entire video and still supports here, are complete morons. Think about it, she could have hit you and your family on your way to the store, or to the movies, or maybe taking your kid to a special birthday dinner, and for what??? Because she didn't want a speeding ticket? Then felt it was okay to drive 100+ miles an hour through town to get her kids to a hotel, when she had an adult passenger and an adult son that could drive her van.

The American public wants to know how much Trayvon Martins mother, Sybrina Fulton, paid you to bring up Trayvons name on GMA this morning?  Every chance she gets she brings up the drug dealing thug and well known local thief. The school police found stolen goods in his locker that he stole from houses around his school they also found bags of pot he was selling!  His mother along with her attorney Benjamin Crump along with Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, all four of them are race baiters. And Crump is trying to make a big name for him self.  Always has his hands out for money from law suits from dead kids.      

Now the truth does not fit with the Marxist secular progressive humanist cry baby myth that white cops are evil because Montoya is Hispanic not Caucasian, so now what?  Well lets hope the judge in the new trial will now have the ACTUAL video to go by and not the edited media version.            


Monday, September 1, 2014

What Obama Can Do When He Doesn't Give A Damn

Obama
What? Me Worry.












Hat tip JD Tuccille

Ah, to be unencumbered by worries or responsibilities. It's that feeling of open horizons known by twenty-somethings with an apartment and a first paycheck, by healthy retirees with topped-off 401Ks—and by second-term presidents who have stopped giving a shit about their own political party's prospects. In an era of expanding executive power, President Obama looks like a guy contemplating a world of interesting possibilities. Even his fellow Democrats seem a bit jittery about just what the man in the Oval Office has in mind.

Timothy Cama at The Hill writes, "President Obama’s election-year plan to win a new international climate change accord is making vulnerable Democrats nervous."

So why don't they just tell the president that any such deal is DOA in the Senate? At least until after the election?

Because Coral Davenport at the New York Times suggests that Obama plans to bypass Congress entirely.
[U]nder the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path...
American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.
By...umm...creatively building off an existing treaty, the president could unilaterally reach for the green-garbed legacy he covets. He would also confirm the fears of everybody who worries about executive overreach and probably torpedo the chances of at least a few Democrats in battleground states where the economic impact of such a deal would be an issue.

The proposal risks putting donkey party candidates in close races "in front of the firing squad," according to a Democratic strategist quoted by Cama.

But how likely is the unilateral strategy? When asked about such a Senate-bypassing scheme, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest coyly answered, "Because that agreement is not written, it's not yet clear exactly what sort of role Congress would be required to play."

President Obama is likely to follow a similar path on immigration issues. Karen Tumulty and Robert Costa at the Washington Post write:
Both political parties are in a state of high anxiety about the possibility that President Obama will allow millions of illegal immigrants to remain in the country, fearing that White House action on the issue could change the course of November’s midterm elections.
In the past few days, Democratic candidates in nearly every closely fought Senate race have criticized the idea of aggressive action by Obama. Some strategists say privately that it would signal that he has written off the Democrats' prospects for retaining control of the chamber, deciding to focus on securing his legacy instead.
The White House isn't even shy on the issue. When asked if Obama might "think twice about taking executive action on immigration," Earnest answered, "No...the President is determined to act where House Republicans won't."

A minority opinion among political strategists is that such a move is actually a clever plan to get GOP nativists foaming at the mouth so they hurt Republican prospects. But as reliably batshit as some Republicans can be on the immigration issue, Democrats are certain to suffer, too, from unilateral action on a controversial issue. And the whole idea of a republic based on limited govement power takes a hit when one person follows the "Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool" approach to ruling a country by fiat.

Note, too, that the wisdom or lack thereof of a unilateral presidential action is irrelevant to the dangers of growing executive power. I would personally agree with some of the president's ideas on easing immigration restrictions. But the problems of a president set free to do as he damned well wishes, on his own, are problems of concentrated power, no matter how it's used.

And President Obama looks like he sees a world of interesting possibilities in using that power.