Some of These "Laws" Are Very True Me Thinks... Don D.

"Between a Woman's A**, And a Whiskey Glass, Many a Man Has Lost His A**" ! 'Okie Don'


MURPHY'S LAW AND SEX PER ELWOOD:

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

1.The more beautiful the woman is who loves you, the easier it is to leave her with no hard feelings.

2.Nothing improves with age.

3.No matter how many times you've had it, if it's offered take it, because it'll never be quite the same again.

4.Sex has no calories.

5.Sex takes up the least amount of time and causes the most amount of trouble.

6.There is no remedy for sex but more sex.

7.Sex appeal is 50% what you've got and 50% what people think you've got.

8.No sex with anyone in the same office.

9.Sex is like snow; you never know how many inches you are going to get or how long it is going to last.

10.A man in the house is worth two in the street.

11.If you get them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.

12.Virginity can be cured.

13.When a man's wife learns to understand him, she usually stops listening to him.

14.Never sleep with anyone crazier than yourself.

15.The qualities that most attract a woman to a man are usually the same ones she can't stand years later.

A Good Deed That Just Keeps On Giving...

A married couple was in a terrible accident where the man's face was severely burned. The doctor told the husband that they couldn't graft any skin from his body because he was too skinny. So the wife offered to donate some of her own skin.

However, the only skin on her body that the doctor felt was suitable would have to come from her buttocks.

The husband and wife agreed that they would tell no one about where the skin came from, and they requested that the doctor also honor their secret. After all, this was a delicate matter.

After the surgery was completed, everyone was astounded at the man's new face. He looked more handsome than he ever had before! All his friends and relatives just went on and on about his youthful beauty!

One day, he was alone with his wife, and he was overcome with emotion at her sacrifice. He said, "Dear, I just want to thank you for everything you did for me. How can I possibly repay you?"

"My darling," she replied, "I get all the thanks I need every time I see your mother kiss you on the cheeks."

Hillary Clinton Must Face The Consequences of Her Actions And Scrutiny of a Special Counsel

By Gregg Jarrett ~ Nov 14, 2017 ~ Fox News

No person in this country is so high that he or she is above the law. This includes Hillary Clinton.

There is no station in life or standing in government or political aspiration that absolves someone from criminal conduct. In this way, we are all creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. An orderly society cannot function if it permits individuals to disregard the law with impunity.

This fundamental principle, enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court more than a century ago, is what gives sustenance to our democracy. Without it, lawlessness, chaos and tyranny at the hands of the few would inexorably ensue.

It follows, then, that Clinton is no higher or lower than any American. She must abide by the rule of law regardless of her condition or circumstance. Running for high office, including the presidency, does not somehow establish an entitlement to legal absolution.

Yet, this essential doctrine seemed to be entirely lost on Democrats during Tuesday’s hearing by the House Judiciary Committee in which Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified.

Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat, asked the following question: “In a functioning democracy, is it common for the leader of the country to order the criminal justice system to retaliate against his political opponents?”

Sessions responded that “the Department of Justice can never be used to retaliate politically against opponents and that would be wrong.”

Conyers, a notorious partisan, appears to have deliberately misstated both the law and the facts. The Justice Department is duty-bound to investigate acts that appear to have violated criminal statutes. If there is sufficient evidence to support an indictment of charges, our system of justice demands they be brought.

This is not retaliation, as Conyers would have people believe, but the enforcement of laws unimpeded by political motivations.

Clinton is not exempt merely because she ran for the presidency and lost. If that were the case, anyone could rob a bank and be excused from punishment by becoming a candidate for office.

Sessions has been lethargic in determining whether the criminal prosecution of Clinton is warranted. On July 27, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the attorney general demanding that he appoint a special counsel to investigate alleged wrongdoing by Clinton in the controversial sale of a uranium company to Russia. Sessions never responded. A second letter in September was also ignored.

Finally, on the eve of his testimony, Sessions advised the committee that he had, indeed, directed senior federal prosecutors to evaluate whether a special counsel is needed. There is compelling evidence that Clinton may have used her office as secretary of state to confer a benefit to the Russian government in exchange for money.

If a “pay-to-play” scheme helped secure the sale of 20 percent of America’s uranium assets to Russia while enriching Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton and their foundation, it would constitute various crimes including bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud and, arguably, racketeering.

The committee has requested that a special counsel also reopen the Clinton email case to ascertain whether actions taken by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and then-FBI Director James Comey may have obstructing justice in an effort to exonerate Clinton.

If so, then the question of whether Clinton violated the Espionage Act in mishandling 110 classified documents found on her unsecured and unauthorized personal server must be re-examined for potential criminal charges against her.

As I have argued in columns for several months, the attorney general has no choice but to appoint a special counsel and must do so immediately. During his confirmation hearing on Jan. 10, Sessions vowed to recuse himself from any questions involving “both the Clinton email investigation and any matters involving the Clinton Foundation.”

Therefore, he must hand the entire matter over to a special counsel in order to comply with his promise under oath and to eliminate his admitted conflict of interest.

President Trump has criticized Sessions for his conspicuous failure to pursue investigations into Clinton and others in the Obama administration for their suspected criminality. President Trump was right to do so and is well within his constitutional authority to voice his concern.

It is a complete myth perpetuated by the media – and reiterated by Conyers during Tuesday’s hearing – that a president may not be engaged in criminal cases at the Department of Justice. There is not a single law prohibiting him from directing the department to pursue any matter that merits criminal prosecution.

To the contrary, under Article II of the Constitution the president is specifically empowered to enforce all laws – something often accomplished by instructing the Justice Department to take action. Agencies and departments in the executive branch are not independent. They are constitutionally under the direction of the president. He may tell them what to do and what not to do.

Over the course of our nation’s history, presidents have been intimately involved in both civil and criminal cases. President Thomas Jefferson ordered his attorney general to prosecute Aaron Burr for treason. President John F. Kennedy ordered his Justice Department to intervene in multiple civil rights cases.

A president may not abuse his office to pursue political vendettas under the guise of criminal prosecutions. But where there is sufficient evidence of illegality, he has every right to demand that the law be enforced. His failure to do so would constitute an egregious breach of his constitutional duty.

The more we learn about the machinations of Hillary Clinton and the unscrupulous nature of her dealings as secretary of state and, later, as a p**********l candidate, the more we have come to learn that the trajectory of her political career has been punctuated by a sense of privilege and entitlement that transcends the law.

It is time she face the consequences of her actions and the scrutiny of a special counsel.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/11/14/gregg-jarrett-hillary-clinton-must-face-consequences-her-actions-and-scrutiny-special-counsel.html

"Important Announcement:

In light of the rising frequency of human - grizzly bear conflicts, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is advising hikers, h****rs, and fishermen to take extra precautions and keep alert of bears while in the field.


They advise that outdoorsmen wear noisy little bells on their clothing so as not to startle bears that aren't expecting them.

They also advise outdoorsmen to carry pepper spray with them in case of an encounter with a bear.

It is also a good idea to watch out for fresh signs of bear activity. Outdoorsmen should recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly bear dung.

Black bear dung is smaller and contains lots of berries and squirrel fur. Grizzly bear dung has little bells in it and smells like pepper."

This is so sad. They are the generation that will eventually be running our country.
Received from an Oregon Resident.

While I was getting a coffee, I overheard 7 young people (22-26 years old, 5 males, 2 female) who have been protesting in downtown Portland the last two nights. I told them I was doing research and asked nicely if they would answer some questions. They were cool with it, so I sat down and went for it.

Ø Three v**ed. Of the four who didn't, none was registered to v**e.

Ø None of them researched independently either candidate.

Ø All were for Hillary but preferred Bernie.

Ø Why the Democratic Candidate?
· "More things are taken care of."
· "Time to have a woman President."
· "Democrats aren't sexist or r****t."

Ø Six of them live at home.

Ø All are under their parents insurance.

Ø Two have "real" jobs.

Ø Three aren't working, nor are they trying hard to find a job either.

Ø Parents pay for everything in their life or subsidize it.

Ø Six get money from mom or dad every month.

Ø Two have been on unemployment for 6+ months.

Ø One is at Portland State U, doesn't work, and parents pay for everything.

Ø All 7 said Trump is a r****t/sexist. I asked to cite proof ... "That tape, man!"

Ø When I asked, as a man myself, "Have you ever said anything like that when you've been h*****g out with your buddies?
All five males said "Yes."

Ø Would you say it if you knew you were on tape? All five answered "No."

Ø What's the difference? I asked. "You've all said bad stuff like that. Does that mean you h**e women and are a sexual predator?" ..... Nothing..... No answer.

Ø None could tell me how our government works ...They didn't know how laws are passed, how the House of Representatives or the Senate work.

Ø None could explain how a bill is passed.

Ø Only one could tell me the difference between legal and i*****l i*********n. One of them said, "Legal immigration is when you immigrate legally." ..... Seriously?

Ø None could explain the purpose of the E*******l College or how it works.

In 10 minutes they felt they had explained everything. Nice kids .... but so ignorant.

I know some awesome, phenomenal young adults; but I'm afraid the majority are like these seven.

Too many participation trophies, too much coddling by parents and teachers.

In 1944 18 year-olds stormed the beach at Normandy into almost certain death to save the world from an evil monster..

In 2016 18-year-olds feel unsafe because words hurt their feelings. So these infantiles go to a "safe room" to play with Play Doh and coloring books and to suck their thumbs.
This country is in deep doodoo!