Thursday, November 8, 2018
A woman choked out a bouncer after wrongly thinking he slapped her bottom.
A woman choked out a bouncer after wrongly thinking he grabbed her bottom.
Club CCTV caught the moment Kierah LaGrave, 22, had her behind pinched by a female friend - but she wrongly assumed it was the security man and grabbed him in a choke hold.
In the surveillance video, the college student is clearly seen yanking his neck back and slamming him to the ground during the incident in Five1Eight nightclub in Plattsburgh, N.Y., on October 20.
Wednesday, November 7, 2018
Muslim Bangladeshi immigrant convicted of terrorism charges in NYC subway bombing
Judge Richard Sullivan told him: "Right now is not the time for a statement."
The verdict capped a weeklong trial that featured surveillance video of Ullah on the morning when his pipe bomb sputtered, seriously burning him in a subway corridor beneath Times Square and the Port Authority bus terminal on December 11, 2017. The defense maintained that he intended to kill only himself. Nobody died and most of the injuries were not serious.
Prosecutors disputed the defense claim, saying Ullah would not have worn a bomb had he wanted to kill only himself. They said he wanted to maim or kill commuters as part of a "lone wolf" terrorist attack on behalf of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
They also cited social media postings by Ullah as well as comments he made after his arrest to investigators. He taunted President Trump on Facebook before the attack.
Authorities said Ullah's radicalization began in 2014 when he started viewing materials online, including a video instructing ISIS supporters to carry out attacks in their homelands.
In closing arguments Monday, Assistant U.S. Attorney George Turner said Ullah told investigators after his arrest that he wanted to avenge U.S. aggression toward ISIS and had chosen a busy weekday morning to attack so he could terrorize as many people as possible.The prosecutor said Ullah, 28, of Brooklyn, followed the propaganda of ISIS online and wanted to follow its instructions to carry out a "lone wolf" terror attack on Americans. "His goal was to injure and kill innocent civilians, to terrorize," Turner said.
The prosecutor said Ullah told an investigator after his arrest: "I did it for the Islamic State."
Gallicchio, though, said Ullah purposefully chose an isolated corridor to set off his bomb because he only wanted to commit suicide. "This is not a terrorist attack," she argued.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Shawn Crowley disputed the claim. "It was about martyrdom, not suicide," she said.
Ullah was indicted on five counts in the attack, including...
We've Got Six More Years Of This Folks....
Just like a cow that has not been milked in too long....
Problem is, no one wants to milk 'em.
‘Blue Wave’ Fizzles As Gun Control Appears To Fail
Over the last few weeks, some experts worked to temper expectations. They weren’t so sure the Blue Wave was going to materialize, but others were convinced that it was a foregone conclusion.
Then last night happened.
The “Blue Wave” Became “Red Dead Redemption” as the supposedly dead-in-the-water Republicans pulled out a huge upset all across the country in what has to be taken as a partial rebuke of gun control policies.
One of the biggest examples has to be the failure of Beto O’Rourke to unseat Republican Sen. Ted Cruz despite running the most expensive Senate campaign in American history. While O’Rourke was already being mentioned as a possible candidate for president in 2020, he still failed to win a statewide race to get into the Senate, at least in part due to his radical anti-gun views.
Republican Rick Scott, who may still be on the naughty list with many Florida voters after signing a host of gun control bills into law following the Parkland shooting, managed to pull out a win in that state. While many pro-gun voters were still upset with Scott, that didn’t stop many from holding their nose and voting for him over Bill Nelson.
However, Scott’s win over Nelson wasn’t the only rebuke of gun control Florida voters gave. Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum campaigned at least in part on dismantling the series of laws that led to Florida earning its “Gunshine State” moniker, yet he fell to former Congressman Ron DeSantis.
Amusingly enough, it looks like candidates caught on video supporting gun control they wouldn’t support publicly had a rough night as well.
Sen. Claire McCaskill will now be former Senator McCaskill, probably at least partially due to a Project Veritas video showing her says she wants more gun control. In New York, congressional candidate Tedra Cobb fell to Elise Stefanick as well.
While Arizona’s still too close to call, Krysten Sinema’s own brush with Project Veritas doesn’t seem to be doing her any favors as she’s trailing Martha McSally.
Another race that’s too close to call is here in my home state of Georgia, where Republican Brian Kemp is leading the anti-gun Stacey Abrams who is refusing to concede as of this writing. She’s convinced the absentee ballots will kick this one to a runoff election. I’m a little skeptical that she’ll make up the two-plus points she’s trailing just by absentee ballots unless something hinky is going on.
Even John Tester, who the polls had as a favorite going into yesterday’s voting is currently trailing Matt Rosendale. Don’t think Tester’s support for universal background checks didn’t play a role in Montana voters’ minds.
Overall, gun control crashed and crashed hard.
Today, many Democrats are wondering just what the hell happened. Now, to be fair, they did gain control of the House, which isn’t going to be helpful for President Trump and it’s not very helpful for us. It means there’s absolutely no chance of the SAFE Act, which would in part legalize suppressors, will make it to the floor for a vote. Even if it did, there’s no way it would pass now.
But because the GOP held onto the Senate and even looks to have made some gains, it also means gun control...
Want to Kill an American Aircraft Carrier? You Might Need to Launch a Nuclear Strike.
Critics say carriers are more expensive than they seem because an accurate accounting would include the cost of their escort vessels, but the truth of the matter is that the Navy would need a lot more of those warships if it had to fight conflicts without carriers.
Large-deck, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are the signature expression of American military power. No other combat system available to U.S. warfighters comes close to delivering so much offensive punch for months at a time without requiring land bases near the action. As a result, the ten carriers in the current fleet are in continuous demand from regional commanders -- so much so that extended overseas combat tours are becoming the norm.
Nobody really doubts the utility of large-deck carriers. There's nothing else like them, and the United States is the only nation that operates a fleet big enough to keep three or more carriers continuously deployed at all times. However, two issues have come up over and over again since the Cold War ended that have led at least some observers to question why carriers are the centerpiece of America's naval fleet. One concern is that they cost too much. The other is that they are vulnerable to attack.
The cost issue is a canard. It only costs a fraction of one-percent of the federal budget to build, operate and sustain all of the Navy's carriers -- and nobody has offered a credible alternative for accomplishing U.S. military objectives in their absence. Critics say carriers are more expensive than they seem because an accurate accounting would include the cost of their escort vessels, but the truth of the matter is that the Navy would need a lot more of those warships if it had to fight conflicts without carriers.
The vulnerability issue is harder to address because putting 5,000 sailors and six dozen high-performance aircraft on a $10 billion warship creates what military experts refer to as a very "lucrative" target. Taking one out would be a big achievement for America's enemies, and a big setback for America's military. However, the likelihood of any adversary actually achieving that without using nuclear weapons is pretty close to zero. It isn't going to happen, and here are five big reasons why:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)