These three poachers went from the hunters to the hunted from predator to prey.
Most of us are thoroughly disgusted by poachers. But the lions actually found them pretty tasty.
In the West, if you commit a crime, your big concern is whether you’ll get nabbed for it by the police.
Africa is a little different. Especially in the wild. The police are not the greatest threat you need to fear there. The predators are.
One head and a number of bloodied body parts and limbs have been recovered from the area, along with three pairs of empty shoes.
Three pairs of empty shoes. That phrase paints a stark picture, doesn’t it?
Owner Nick Fox, 60, said: ‘We found enough body parts and three pairs of empty shoes which suggest to us that the lions ate at least three of them but it is thick bush and there could be more.
‘They came heavily armed with hunting rifles and axes which we have recovered and enough food to last them for several days so we suspect they were after all of our rhinos here.
‘But the lions are our watchers and guardians and they picked the wrong pride and became a meal.
There was the typical expression of concern for the loss of human life.
Yeah, sure. I suppose. But something like this has a Darwin Award aspect to it. You’re there, camping out in the African wilderness for several days, intending to slaughter an entire herd… and it doesn’t occur to anybody that THEY could be the prey animal in this scenario?
Someone will mourn for the loss of life of these poachers, to be sure.
But we wonder, will any of our readers be among them?
There needs to be Samurai Sword control there must be a ban on assault Swords of all types.
Police are searching for a California man accused of beheading his girlfriend with a samurai sword after authorities found his DNA on the alleged murder weapon.
Authorities are on the lookout for Jacob Gonzales, 33, of Los Banos, and charged him Friday with murder in connection with the death of Katherine Cunningham, 26, upon discovering that the suspect’s DNA was a match with the DNA authorities found on the sword’s handle, the Daily Mailreported.
Investigators found the sword inside the trunk of a Honda Civic 560 miles away from where Cunningham’s body had been found, ran DNA tests on it, and revealed Wednesday that the blade of the sword contained Cunningham’s blood. Test results also revealed that Gonzales’ DNA was on the sword’s handle.
Authorities found Cunningham’s body on Camano Island in Washington on March 3 and initially charged Gonzales with vehicle and firearms theft. Detectives found a bunker containing ammunition, supplies, and firearms near the body.
“Based on those results, we amended the charges,” the Island County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement explaining the updated charge of “domestic violence murder in the second degree while armed with a deadly weapon” on Friday.
There is currently a $1 million warrant out for Gonzales’ arrest. Police describe Gonzales as a Hispanic male with black hair, hazel eyes, 5’9” tall and weighing around 150 lbs. Authorities say he is considered “armed and dangerous.”
Samurai swords have been used as a weapon of choice for many criminals. In March, a woman allegedly used a samurai sword to stab her boyfriend in an alleged plot to kill him.
Princess Fauxcahontas will not take the DNA test because she knows she will be exposed as a fraud.
President Donald Trump said that if Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren is in a 2020 presidential debate against him, he will — at that time — offer $1 million to her favorite charity on the spot if she takes a DNA test to prove her Native American heritage.
Warren, who originally is from Oklahoma, has maintained that her mother’s family has Cherokee or Delaware ancestry.
Trump said his critics have pressured him to apologize to Warren for the “Pocahontas” moniker.
However, Trump said at the Great Falls, Mont. rally that he apologizes to the original Pocahontas — a 17th Century Native American woman who married English settler John Rolfe and later moved with him to near present-day Henrico County, Va.
Trump said Warren and former Vice President Joe Biden are likely to announce bids to face him in 2020.
.@POTUS: “I’m meeting with President Putin next week… And let me tell you, getting along with Russia and getting along with China and getting along with other countries is a good thing. It’s not a bad thing.”
Trump was in Great Falls to stump for State Auditor Matt Rosendale (R), who is facing Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) this fall.
UPDATE: Sen. Warren fired back on Twitter:
Hey, @realDonaldTrump: While you obsess over my genes, your Admin is conducting DNA tests on little kids because you ripped them from their mamas & you are too incompetent to reunite them in time to meet a court order. Maybe you should focus on fixing the lives you’re destroying.
If Democratic Socialist Ocasio-Cortez is the future of the DemocRat party then it looks like the party will have a bleak future.
Democrat National Committee Chair Tom Perez called Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez “the future of the party” during the Bill Press Show Tuesday. Ocasio-Cortez defeated ten-term incumbent and House Democratic Caucus Chair Joe Crowley (NY) in a stunning upset last week and ran on an extreme platform of abolishing ICE and Medicare for all.
“Twenty-eight years old, never ran for office before, big progressive. Calls herself a democratic socialist, actually, like Bernie Sanders did, she was a Bernie Sanders supporter,” Press noted.
“What’s this tell you about where the Democratic Party is going today?” he asked.
Perez replied saying that his daughters were excited by Ocasio-Cortez’s win.
“I have three kids. two of them are daughters. One just graduated college, one who is in college – and they were both texting me about their excitement over Alexandria because she really – she represents the future of our party,” Perez said.
Perez added that he did have “great respect” for Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY), saying, “he’s a good Democrat … he’s fought the good fight.”
Perez’s praise for Ocasio-Cortez was milder last week following her stunning primary victory.
He would not directly answer a question from CNN’s Chris Cuomo about whether her win marked a shift in the Democratic party last week.
He told MSNBC of Ocasio-Cortez’s win that “time will tell, but I think what we’ve seen in elections across the country are candidates who won by focusing on the issues that were keeping their constituents up at night.”
I have a better being elected the next Pope than Michael Avenatti has and I have zero chance of becoming the next Pope.
Michael Avenatti, adult-film actress Stormy Daniels’ lawyer and a vocal critic of the president, said on the 4th of July that he is considering a 2020 presidential run.
Avenatti has made a name for himself with numerous media appearances on behalf of Daniels, who said she received a $130,000 hush payment from Donald Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen regarding a sexual encounter she had with Trump in 2006. Avenatti’s criticism of Trump has gone far beyond the matter with Daniels, and he said Wednesday he would be willing to run against Trump if no one who will “fight” enters the race.
“IF (big) he seeks re-election, I will run, but only if I think that there is no other candidate in the race that has a REAL chance at beating him. We can’t relive 2016,” he wrote on Twitter. “I love this country, our values and our people too much to sit by while they are destroyed.”
IF (big) he seeks re-election, I will run, but only if I think that there is no other candidate in the race that has a REAL chance at beating him. We can’t relive 2016. I love this country, our values and our people too much to sit by while they are destroyed. #FightClub#Basta
I always liked the Daily News! Be clear – only a street fighter has a chance at displacing the “King.” Otherwise, this country and its principles will be in pieces and non-recognizable. #FightClub#Basta
This echoes a previous tweet he made in June, which suggested a presidential run has been on the lawyer’s mind.
Off topic – the candidate in 2020 better be a take no prisoners street fighter who is prepared to go 15 rounds in a VERY brutal campaign. It will be a cage match like no other in modern times. The future of the republic may depend on it.
He went on to give some indication of how he may campaign by touting his position on several hot-button issues, such as abortion and immigration.
“Solidly pro choice. Would never nominate a justice to the SCOTUS who did not believe in Roe or who would seek to outlaw same sex marriage,” he wrote. “Fully support equality for women & people of all races, & gay rights. We don’t separate families at the border. And we don’t kiss-up to Putin.”
Solidly pro choice. Would never nominate a justice to the SCOTUS who did not believe in Roe or who would seek to outlaw same sex marriage. Fully support equality for women & people of all races, & gay rights. We don’t separate families at the border. And we don’t kiss-up to Putin
He also hit back at criticism that he may not have the “experience” to be win a presidential election.
“To those that claim that only a traditional politician with ‘experience’ can beat Trump, go back & look at the results from 2016,” he wrote. “He beat all 15 of those candidates that he faced (crushed many). If we go down the same path and are not smart, don’t be surprised with the result.”
To those that claim that only a traditional politician with “experience” can beat Trump, go back & look at the results from 2016. He beat all 15 of those candidates that he faced (crushed many). If we go down the same path and are not smart, don’t be surprised with the result.
On CNN Wednesday, Avenatti said he would run if no one “competent” is in the race, and he touted his positions on both economic and social issues.
“I am interested in talking about ripping kids from the sides of their mothers,” he said. “I am interested in having allies laugh at us around the world. I am interested in where all those jobs are that he promised Americans in key electoral states. I am interested in pro-choice and a whole host of other issues.”
Avenatti has hit Trump on everything from Russian collusion to a prank phone call made to Air Force One, and he has maintained a contentious relationship with reporters. His cryptic comments about his asserted knowledge of Trump’s past behavior would likely face further scrutiny were he to run for president.
Thier response is typical for the anti-gun crowd if you don’t like the message just shoot the messenger.
Senator Mitch McConnell(R-KY) is correct there isn’t one piece of legislation that could prevent the next mass shooting.
Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell is like pretty much any other politician out there. He has people who like him and people who wouldn’t extinguish him if he were engulfed in fire. That’s par for the course for any politician.
Sen. Mitch McConnell told community leaders back in his home state that Congress is really powerless to stop the scourge of gun violence in America, the Lexington Herald Leader reports. McConnell is, of course, the Senate Majority Leader, putting him in a unique position to actually do something to address the problem that has touched every part of American life from this week’s newsroom shooting in Annapolis to school shooting after school shooting to the shooting of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise during softball practice last June.
But, alas, no. There’s nothing that can be done. “I don’t think at the federal level there’s much that we can do other than appropriate funds,” McConnell said Tuesday, pointing out that Congress had appropriated money to ramp up security at schools. “You would think, given how much it takes to get on an American plane or given how much it takes to get into courthouses, that this might be something that we could achieve, but I don’t think we could do that from Washington, I think it’s basically a local decision.”
McConnell added, “It’s a darn shame that’s where we are but this epidemic is something that’s got all of our attention.”
For example, let’s examine the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise. He was shot by a Bernie Sanders supporter who had a history of domestic violence that he hadn’t been convicted for. If he had, he wouldn’t have been able to purchase a firearm. As it stood, though, he was able to buy an SKS rifle that would be exempt from any assault weapon ban or other legislation currently being discussed.
The Capital Gazette shooting involved a pump-action shotgun. These firearms are as unregulated as any firearm out there, but pretty much no serious proposal being discussed deals with these weapons either. The same with the Santa Fe High School shooting, where the weapon was a pump-action shotgun, a Remington 870.
McConnell said something that anti-gunners don’t want to hear, that the problem isn’t with guns but with people and how we deal with them. All of these cases involved guns that the anti-gun zealots aren’t talking about. Parkland stands alone in this recent swath of shootings as having had an AR-15 being used.
The truth is, though, McConnell and the rest of Congress can’t regulate away things like shotguns. The Heller decision makes it clear that the government can’t ban common-use firearms. While we can debate whether AR-15s fall into that category, only a complete and total moron would argue shotguns don’t.
So yeah, he and Congress really can’t do anything.
And since it seems that most of these shooters have a history of unprosecuted domestic violence–a crime that would keep them from buying guns, I might add–he’s also correct that it’s a “local decision.” After all, Congress can’t make prosecutors press charges, now can they?
R.I.P. Army Chaplain Major Charles Watters January 17, 1927 – November 19, 1967.
The halls of military history are filled with men who earned the nation’s highest military honor as they fought ferociously against a determined enemy. There is a good number more who risked life and limb to bring treatment and aide to the wounded.
Among that group exists an elite club of men whose faith placed them in harm’s way and yet, they too walked away with the Medal of Honor. Of the more than 3,000 men to be awarded the Medal of Honor only 9 held the title of Chaplain.
In 1967, Army Chaplain Major Charles Watters found himself face to face with a heavily armed enemy battalion near Dak To in Vietnam. His faith and his duty did not falter.
A Call of Faith to Serve
Charles Watters was born in 1927 in Jersey City, New Jersey, where he would watch as a teen, too young to fight, the epic struggle of World War Two. Whereas Watters had a heart for service early on, it would be a call of faith that would take hold. Graduating from Seton Hall University, he went on to become an ordained priest in 1953 with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark.
However, he never gave up on his desire to serve and do his part in the nation’s defense. Little did the Army know that multiple lives would be saved and a unique place in military history would be created when they accepted Watters as an Army Chaplain.
In 1962, Watters joined the New Jersey Air National Guard, and by 1964, he was on active duty with the United States Army. After nearly 2 years of active service as a chaplain, Watters would get the call to head to southeast Asia. In 1966, he began a 12-month tour in Vietnam where he would serve with distinction.
Being awarded the Bronze Star along with the Air Medal, it was clear from the start that Watters was no ordinary chaplain. He even made a parachute drop in Operation Junction City in February of 1967.
However, it was the November 1967 battle of Dak To where Watters would distinguish himself for all time. The Battle of Dak To was a series of engagements spanning from the 3rd of November to the 23rd.
The nearly three-week battle saw over 400 American or ARVN forces killed along with the loss of 40 helicopters and several aircraft. The enemy casualties are estimated to be in the thousands as the American forces found themselves facing an opponent willing to pursue victory at any cost.
Faith and Gallantry in Action
On the afternoon of November 19th, 1967, Watters found himself moving through the jungle with several companies near Dak To when they came across a numerically superior enemy battalion. Without a rifle and armed only with his faith, there was little for Watters to accomplish during the opening salvos of the battle.
However, as the casualties began to mount the time arrived for Watters to jump into action. Heading directly towards the action and the gunfire, Watters moved to the front line and began to bring aid to the wounded. Completely exposed, Watters could be seen moving up and down the line with little regard for his own safety.
At one point, a wounded paratrooper found himself in complete shock and standing directly in front of the advancing enemy. Without hesitation, Watters ran forward among the friendly and enemy fire to his aid. Picking up the wounded paratrooper and placing him on his shoulders, Watters returned the man to friendly lines.
As the Americans began to pull back into a tighter defensive formation, Watters noticed that some of the wounded had been left in the void between the two forces.
Despite attempts to restrain him, Watters rushed out beyond the friendly lines on multiple occasions to recover the fallen comrades. With mortars and machine gun fire all around him, Watters somehow miraculously recovered the wounded and returned unharmed.
With all the wounded inside the perimeter, Watters then began to offer aid to the wounded, last rites to the dying, and water to the beleaguered.
Serving Until the Very End
Chaplain Watters had already committed the gallant acts that would lead to his Medal of Honor when he was treating the wounded near the aid station. What is now thought to have been a friendly 500lb bomb landed near Watters and the men he was helping, exploding and delivering mortal wounds to the Chaplain who had saved so many. As word of his actions that day began to spread, it was clear that this was no ordinary act of gallantry.
For his actions that day, Charles Watters would join a small class of men to have received the nation’s highest military honor while serving as a chaplain. He would posthumously receive the honor from Vice President Spiro Agnew and would subsequently be buried in Arlington National Cemetery.
While most men earn such an honor by refusing to give up in a fight, Chaplain Charles Watters would earn his by refusing to give up on his call to serve.
Packing the Supreme Court has been a liberal wet dream since the days of Emperor Franklin the first.
With President Trump planning to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, many on the left fear a Supreme Court that will regularly rule against them, even reversing landmark decisions like the one rendered in “Roe v. Wade.”
Thus, they’re using whatever means are available to prevent this.
One of the more extreme plans is court packing — that is, creating more positions on the Supreme Court to change its political balance. The idea has been suggested by, among others, the liberal New Republic magazine, Harvard Law fellow Ian Samuel and David Faris, associate professor of political science at Roosevelt University and author of “It’s Time To Fight Dirty.”
Packing the Supreme Court, legally speaking, isn’t that tricky. As Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano notes, while the Constitution creates a Supreme Court, “it is silent on the number of justices.” Therefore, changing the number of judges who sit on the high court “would be just like any other legislation: It would require a majority in both houses of Congress and the president’s signature, or enough votes to override the president’s veto.”
But, politically, it wouldn’t be easy. In the first 80 years of the Supreme Court’s existence, Congress played around with the number of justices quite a bit — often to help or hinder the president in getting the court he wanted. Thus the court first had six members, then five, then seven, then nine, then 10, then eight, finally settling on nine with the Judiciary Act of 1869. It has been nine ever since.
In the 1930s, however, President Franklin Roosevelt had a plan. Known as the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, it would have allowed for the president to appoint up to six more justices to the Supreme Court.
As Judge Napolitano explains, “the true reason was the persistent rejection on constitutional grounds of New Deal legislation” — that is, FDR was unhappy with the Supreme Court’s rulings, so wanted to appoint his own justices to change that.
In general, the public opposed the bill, and it died without getting a vote in Congress. Around the same time, however, Justice Owen Roberts switched his position in favor of New Deal legislation; some believed he was trying to stave off FDR’s plans for the court. Roberts’ change became known as “the switch in time that saved nine.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd president, contemplated some significant tinkering with the composition of the high court. (AP, File)
Ever since FDR’s plan failed, however, the very idea of court packing has been considered radical. But at present, it seems some on the left want to be radical. The trouble is, at the very least they’d need the Democrats to take back the House, the Senate and the presidency. And once that happens, they’d need to convince the party to take what would likely be a highly unpopular step with the general public.
The other problem is, two can play at that game. After all, right now it’s the Republicans who hold Congress and the White House. Not that court packing would be any more popular if they tried it than if the Democrats made the attempt. As Napolitano notes, “if the Republican Congress wanted to give Trump 10 more appointees, they could increase the court to 19, [but] I would think there’d be a comparable outcry to when FDR attempted to do this.”
Further, he notes, with court packing “you’re going to end up with a Supreme Court that looks like a legislature at some point — [both sides will] keep expanding it in order to overturn what the previous court has done.”
So what should those on the left do? Well, try to win more elections, of course. But also, perhaps they — as well as those on the right who support court packing for their side — could take the longer view. As Napolitano explains, the Supreme Court “is a pendulum that swings back and forth. In the Eisenhower and JFK and LBJ years, we had the [more progressive] Warren Court. It’s just the nature of the system — power shifts.”
He also notes no one knows what will come up in the future, and “just because there are conservatives on the court, there’s no guarantee how things are going to turn out.”
Napolitano says he understands there are “progressives impatient to reverse what happened in the Trump years,” but believes “thoughtful people who understand history” would never support changing our system this way.
But those who back court packing believe Americans are in danger of losing fundamental rights, so they see extreme action as necessary. As The New Republic puts it, “Desperate times call for desperate measures.”
So will this idea gain any traction? Perhaps it depends on how desperate people get.
It is time to shut down Robert Mueller along with his band of miscreants and their ever-expanding wich hunt down.
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Robert Mueller’s Democrat investigators likely acquired NRA tax filings in expanding witch hunt,” Gateway Pundit reports. He’s commenting on an assessment by “legal experts” published by McClatchy that “it would be routine for Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators, who are looking at the NRA’s funding as part of a broader inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections, to secretly gain access to the NRA’s tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service.”
That would be a surprise no one, at least to those who have kept an eye on Mueller’s decisions over the years. What’s clear is that the self-proclaimed “Republican” is a creature of what is now being called the “Deep State.” His regard for the Constitution, and particularly for the Second Amendment, seems to be that they are inconveniences to be disregarded or obstacles to be gotten around.
“Does that only apply to a U.S. citizen that’s overseas, or does that apply to a U.S. citizen that’s here?” Rep. Kevin Yoder asked then FBI Director Mueller about an order from Attorney General Eric holder authorizing the assassination of Americans fighting on the side of “terrorists.”
“I’d have to go back, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not,” Mueller replied. Watch for yourself.
Think about that and what it means about any orders he – or those working for him whose careers depend on carrying them out – would not obey. It makes it fair to ask if the so-called “Deep State” succeeds in its coup against the duly-elected president and if patriots refuse to accept that, does Mueller think assassinating them would be Constitutional? And do his supporters think his hedging was in any way excusable?
Also seemingly not an issue (at least with the media): As head of the FBI, Mueller was a key Obama administration player during Operation Fast and Furious. The Bush appointee was asked to stay on beyond his 10-year term just as things were starting to heat up on investigations by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Apparently believing himself more qualified than the Founders to determine what is “necessary to the security of a free State,” Mueller instead endorsed so-called “gun-free” campuses and asserted “I tend to believe weapons harm people and more often than not they harm the people carrying them.”
But not, of course, if they are in the hands of the “Only Ones” approved by “monopoly of violence” beneficiaries like himself. Mueller offers nothing to substantiate his absurd bias, because it’s not founded in reality.
When you think about the power Mueller has commanded and now holds, that’s unacceptable.
I do not expect that President Trump to nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.
No matter what Schumer was to say about unifying the country the left will not be appeased until they destroy President Trump and drive him from office.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) privately urged President Trump in a phone conversation to nominate Merrick Garland, former President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee from 2016, to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.
A person familiar with the conversation said on Thursday that Schumer told Trump in a phone call that lasted less than five minutes on Tuesday that the move would help unify the country.
The Democratic leader also warned the president against nominating a potential justice to the Supreme Court who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, stating that such a move would be “cataclysmic” and damaging to Trump’s legacy, according to a person familiar with the call, which was first reported by The Washington Post.
The source added that the call between Schumer and the president “seemed more like a check the box call than meaningful consultation” because it came after Trump had already begun narrowing his short list and interviewing candidates.
Schumer previously wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times that a potential nominee’s position on abortion rights could likely be a deciding factor in their Senate nomination battle.
“The views of President Trump’s next court nominee on these issues could well determine whether the Senate approves or rejects them,” Schumer wrote.
Senate Republicans declined to consider Garland’s nomination in March 2016, citing the impending presidential election and stating the need for the American people to weigh in on the nomination.
Despite Garland meetings with several key Republicans, his nomination failed to gain any traction. Trump would later nominate Justice Neil Gorsuch to the seat formerly held by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Trump has said he will announce his second Supreme Court nomination on Monday, telling reporters that he has narrowed the list to about five candidates, including two women.
“We have great people,” Trump said of his short list. “Highly talented, brilliant, mostly conservative judges.”
Trump has previously pledged to nominate “pro-life judges,” but the White House says he is not asking his potential picks for specific policy opinions.