Cosby slips through statute of limitations loophole once more... Man of Teflon

 

Los Angeles County prosecutors declined Wednesday to charge Bill Cosby with sexually abusing two teenagers in 1965 and 2008, citing time limits and a lack of evidence.

The decision comes about a week after Cosby, 78, was charged with drugging and sexually assaulting a woman in 2004 inside his home near Philadelphia — the first criminal case brought against him out of the torrent of allegations that destroyed his good-guy image as America's Dad. His lawyers have called the charges in that case unjustified and said they expected Cosby to be exonerated.

"We are satisfied that the Los Angeles DA's office fully and fairly evaluated all the facts and evidence, and came to the right conclusion in declining to file charges against Mr. Cosby," his attorney, Monique Pressley, said in a statement.

Dozens of women have accused Cosby of sex assaults or attempted molestations in incidents dating back more than four decades.

In Los Angeles County, the district attorney's office investigated allegations by a woman who said that in 1965, when she was 17 years old, Cosby took her to a jazz club in Hollywood, bought her alcoholic drinks, and took her to a home in the Hollywood Hills where he forced her to have sex.

"Filing the crime of forcible rape is barred by the statute of limitations and as such, any consideration of a criminal filing is prohibited by law," said comments on a DA's charge evaluation worksheet.

Charges also were declined in the case of a woman who claimed she attended a party at the Playboy Mansion in the summer of 2008, when she was 18, during which Cosby gave drinks to her and a friend.

The woman claimed she felt dizzy and sick and Cosby offered to take her to lie down in a room where she blacked out. The woman said she awoke naked.

Authorities investigated after model Chloe Goins met with Los Angeles police detectives in January to detail her allegations. Cosby's attorney at the time released a statement denying the accusation and saying Cosby was not in Los Angeles at the time.

Investigators found Cosby wasn't listed as a guest at any 2008 summer events at the mansion and a woman that the alleged victim said was a potential witness denied knowing her or being at the mansion, according to the DA's worksheet.

The worksheet also indicated that the statute of limitations had expired to charge Cosby with misdemeanour sexual battery and indecent exposure in the case and there was little or no evidence to back felony sex charges.

Goins, who has sued Cosby, was the second woman to meet with Los Angeles police detectives to make accusations against the comedian.

Prosecutors earlier rejected filing charges against him based on allegations by Judy Huth, who alleges in a lawsuit that he abused her at the Playboy Mansion in the early 1970s when she was 15.

The comedian gave a deposition in the case in October.

A judge has also ordered Cosby to be deposed in a defamation case filed by model Janice Dickinson, who accuses Cosby of drugging and raping her in 1982 in Lake Tahoe, California.

However on Wednesday, a California appellate court put the deposition on hold until a challenge to the case by Cosby's attorneys is decided. A hearing is set for next month.
 Apparently sadistic sex perverts who rape unconscious fifteen year olds get a free hall pass. When you have enough money to exhume Clarence Darrow to defend you, a bunch of defiled and violated women don't stand a chance.
By the way, Darrow said some pretty pithy things, such as:

"As long as the world shall last, there will be wrongs, and if no man objected and no man rebelled, those wrongs would last forever. "

Trump Tripped ...over his grade four geography lessons

Presidential hopeful Donald Trump seemingly flunked geography if his latest Twitter gaffe is anything to go by. The Republican candidate for America’s top job was reacting to the news that a man wearing a fake suicide belt was shot dead in Paris while running towards a police station.

But his rant didn't have the impact he wished , when he put Paris in a different country.

Gaffe: Donald Trump seems to have his countries mixed up (Twitter)

He tweeted: “Man shot inside Paris police station. Just announced that terror threat is at highest level.

“Germany is a total mess - big crime. GET SMART!”

Twitter users were quick to jump on Trump and his tweet and ‘Paris is in Germany’ quickly became the latest trend on Twitter and other social media.

Obviously, he garnered a lot of derision... I can still hear the echoes of cyber jeers.

Ask Maxy

Dear Maxy,
I am a college student about to go throuth sorority recruitment . There have been a few envents where I can meet the members of Greek organizations . I have tried to attend these events alone , but one of my friends regards me as an "expert" and insists on going to every event with me . I am not an expert in any way ! I just feel comfortable meeting people I would like to get to know new people without someone clinging to me , but I am not sure if I am being overly sensitive . I would like to do this alone . Should I be mad at my friend for not understanding that I am trying to meet people alone ? I try not to talk about my schedule , but she constantly brings it up whenever she shes me walking down the hall . Should I ask her to stop tagging along , or should I feel some sympathy for her during this hectic time ? 
Recruitment Woes 
Dear Recruitment Woes ,
Be upfront  with your friend . Tell her  you know she is excited  and probably a little nervous about the recruitment process , because you are as well . Add that you prefer to go to these events solo . This is what makes you feel comfortable as you are figuring out where your interests lie and engaging with new people. Despite the fact that she really wants to go with you, make it clear to her and tell her you will invite her to other events when things settle down.
Maxy

Dear Maxy,
My adult son constantly invites my husband and me to come to his music performances . He is independent now , but he seems to have held onto the elementary notion of wanting his parents to come to his shows . We have just moved four hours away , so we could theoretically see a weekend show , but this requires the funds and willpower . We have watched him play the flute for over 20 years , and as parents , we are ecstatic that he seems to have found his passion in music . However , he pouts and stomps when we tell him that we will be unable to to make a performance . I have not told my husband how my son responds when I say we cannot come , so my husband assumes our son is alright with this change . How do I come clean to everyone about my son's exhausting behavior ? He is much closer to 30 than 20 , and he needs to let his parents off the hook .
No more shows 
Dear No More Shows ,
You will have to let yourselves off the hook. It's time for you to share  the burden  of this experience with your husband . Tell him about your son's strong and unreasonable reaction  to your absence  at his performances and discuss ways you can remain supportive while giving him and yourselves the space for him to become independent. 
In spite of  approaching thirty your son sounds like he is still seeking parental approval. Although we all retain just a little of that desire, we do grow out of the need for it and handle our own lives without constantly needing that pat on the head. Your son sounds spoiled and immature, particularly when he throws a tantrum that sounds like my two year old granddaughter's. You, as parents, obviously have some responsibility for the way he turned out.
 But it is way past time that he learned to stand on his own two feet without your constant assurance. It is a sink or swim situation.
My advice is to tell him you love him, and are extremely proud of his talent and accomplishments. Remind him that you have always supported him in every way, in his pursuit of a musical career. But you are all older now and you and your husband live too far away now to make it feasible or economically possible to come to every concert. Tell him you will come periodically when it is possible for you to do so.
He may make a fuss ... just ignore it, give him a hug, wish him all the success in the world, and tell him you have the utmost confidence in his abilities. Then say 'goodbye son, we'll call you when we are coming to town'.
It may take a while but he will come around. Sadly, you did not  confront  his tantrums  effectively when he was a child . You have to do it  now . Be strong.
Maxy 

Dear Maxy ,
I realize this is is a common issue , but I still could use some advice . When my first son married , his wife was loving and involved with the family . When the babies were born , we continued a warm relationship . Now their children are older , however , my daughter-in-law is cold and distant , and she is not interested in interacting with our extended family .
She grew up in a troubled family and seemed very happy to join ours . But not anymore . We live nearby and other than chance meetings , occasional help with the children and family holidays , we seldom see my son . We was told early on that we was not to visit unannounced , and we never have . If we didn't attend the grandchildren's school functions , we would never see them .
It seems our daughter-in-law just doesn't like us and wants minimal contact . Are we asking too much ? Are we living in the past ? Is there anything that can be done to improve the situation?  You're advised parents in our situation to find other interests . I think if the young couple would imagine our situation in their future , they might realize the extent of their hateful behavior .
Crying Mother
Dear Mother ,
You are right that this is, unfortunately, a problem that occurs sometimes with daughters-in-law or with any in-laws, for that matter. I don't have enough information to form an opinion as to why  your daughter-in-law is behaving differently now.  It sounds like it is possible she may have her own emotional issues, that prevent her from having a healthy relationship with you . Now that the children are older she has more time alone to dwell on them.  
Then again, you may be behaving in a way that seems fine to you, but is upsetting to her. Give some thought to the possibility that some of the responsibility for this rift may be yours.
You may not think you are asking too much, but you might consider readjusting  your expectations now that the grandkids are older.
You must remember that now the children are growing up, they are very involved in school, sports, their peers and their social lives, they don't have as much interest in visiting their grandparents. That is a very natural progression. It certainly happened to me when my grandkids got older. Another fact I can testify to is that now the children are no longer babies or preschoolers there is not so much for you and your daughter-in-law to talk about. She may feel at a loss. She may feel she is the one who has been ostracized.
Do not criticize or assign blame . That will only  make the situation worse . You can ask your son whether there is something  you can do to help improve the relationship and then do it .
There's no reason you can't call your grandkids to chat. And no reason your son can't bring the kids for a couple of hours some weekends and give his wife a break, if you ask him.
But if you really want to change things, you will have to approach her eventually and hold out the olive branch, even if you don't feel responsible for the rift. And tell her you miss her for herself and not just because she is part of the package consisting of your son and grandchildren. Tell her you would like to see her, maybe take her to lunch or whatever she likes doing. It's up to you to bring her back into the fold and your son will naturally follow. It is more important that he supports his wife right now than visit you.
If you do nothing, you will have to accept that this is how it is.
Good luck
Maxy

Did they or didn't they ? - N Korea Claims H bomb test

Pyongyang confirming this morning's detonation ends weeks of speculation as to whether leader Kim Jong-Un had developed such a weapon. He is shown signing the order to conduct the H bomb test. ( Or so North Korea claims)

The UN Security Council says it will begin work immediately on new measures against North Korea, after Pyongyang said it has tested a hydrogen bomb in an underground location..

The council condemned the test, saying "a clear threat to international peace and security continues to exist".
This is North Korea's fourth nuclear test since 2006, but if confirmed would be the first of an H-bomb. However, the US has joined nuclear experts in questioning whether the blast was large enough for such a test. US White House spokesman Josh Earnest said "initial analysis was not consistent with North Korea's claims of a successful hydrogen bomb test".

He added: "Nothing that has occurred in the last 24 hours has caused the United States government to change our assessment of North Korea's technical and military capabilities."

The Security Council held an emergency session on Wednesday. It was called by the US, Japan and South Korea. Uruguay's UN Ambassador Elbio Rosselli, current president of the council, said: "The members... recalled that they have previously expressed their determination to take further significant measures in the event of another [North Korea] nuclear test.
"In line with this commitment and the gravity of this violation, [they] will begin to work immediately on such measures in a new Security Council resolution."
Mr Earnest said North Korea's isolation had "deepened as they have sought to engage in increasingly provocative acts".


Japan's ambassador to the UN, Motohide Yoshikawa, called for a swift and robust new UN resolution.
He said: "The authority and credibility of the Security Council will be put in question if it does not take these measures."
However, he and other members have not spelled out what they will be or when the resolution could be adopted. Russia's UN ambassador said it would be going "too far" to say Moscow supported further sanctions.
North Korea's tests in 2006, 2009 and 2013 triggered UN sanctions, with 20 entities and 12 individuals on a UN blacklist.


If an H-bomb test were confirmed, it would mark a major upgrade in North Korea's nuclear capabilities. Hydrogen bombs are more powerful and technologically advanced than atomic weapons, using fusion - the merging of atoms - to unleash massive amounts of energy. Atomic bombs, like the kind that devastated two Japanese cities in World War Two, use fission, or the splitting of atoms.
Bruce Bennett, an analyst with the Rand Corporation, was among those casting doubts on Pyongyang's test: "The bang they should have got would have been 10 times greater than what they're claiming."
A South Korean politician, Lee Cheol-woo, said he was briefed by the country's intelligence agency that the blast "probably falls short" of a hydrogen detonation.


The rhetoric from the North Korean media was spectacular, announcing the country had carried out a "world startling event" - the underground test of a hydrogen bomb.
"People of the DPRK are making a giant stride, performing eye-catching miracles and exploits day by day," state media said.
That North Korea is still living with its predictable 1950s post-Korean War viewpoint, where the US is the prime aggressor, was made clear too.
"The US is a gang of cruel robbers which has worked hard to bring even a nuclear disaster to the DPRK."
But despite the false propaganda and dramatic rhetoric, outside experts are sceptical about how much of a giant stride has been made.
What is not in doubt is the dogged determination of Pyongyang to go down the nuclear path despite widespread condemnation the last time it tested a device.


Suspicions that North Korea had carried out a nuclear test were raised when an earthquake was registered near the Punggye-ri nuclear site in North Korea at 10:00 Pyongyang time (01:30 GMT), with the tremors rattling Chinese border cities.
Hours later, in a surprise announcement, a newsreader on North Korean state TV said: "The republic's first hydrogen bomb test has been successfully performed at 10:00 am on January 6, 2016."

A note signed by North Korea leader Kim Jong-un authorizing the test said 2016 should begin with the "stirring explosive sound" of a hydrogen bomb. China and Japan are reported to have been trying to detect radiation. Japan will undoubtedly share the results of their testing and  hopefully won't confirm a thermonuclear explosion.

Can North Korea now launch a nuclear missile?

Despite North Korea's claims, experts are  quite sceptical that North Korea can make a nuclear weapon small enough to fit on a missile.

What do we know about the latest test?

Observers agree a nuclear explosion of some kind took place and it seems to have been a bit bigger than the last test in 2013, but not nearly big enough to be a full thermonuclear explosion - an "H-bomb" - as Pyongyang claims.

Why can't the world stop North Korea?

North Korea is determined to defy both world opinion and heavy sanctions to reach its nuclear goal. Crucially, its main ally, China, has proved either unwilling or unable to help. The UN Security Council must vote to apply more severe sanctions or intervene in a more direct way,  such as sending investigators to assess nuclear capabilities as they did to Iran. Other than that, it is not possible to get a country to refrain from such activity or any other activity within it's own borders without their agreement and co-operation. If they become a proven security risk to other countries beyond their borders, then more forceful steps can be taken by the UN military.

Obama fights for tighter gun controls... Takes executive action

A tearful President Obama outlined new restrictions on gun purchases

An emotional US President Barack Obama has unveiled new restrictions on gun purchases, saying the "constant excuses for inaction" have to stop. Wiping away tears, the president recalled the Sandy Hook primary school shooting in 2012 where 20 children and six adults were killed.
His executive actions, without Congress approval, widen background checks on potential gun buyers. But the National Rifle Association said it would fight Mr Obama's measures.
And the leader of the House of Representatives, Republican Paul Ryan, said the plans were certain to be challenged in the courts.
"His words and actions amount to a form of intimidation that undermines liberty," he said.

Meanwhile, sales of guns in the US appear to have risen, amid speculation in recent weeks that the White House was going to tighten the law. Earlier, the president announced the law change at the White House, while surrounded by survivors and relatives of victims of shootings.
"The gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage right now, but they can't hold America hostage," Mr Obama said.
An emotional president employed all of his rhetorical skill to justify what are, in reality, executive actions that only modestly expand federal regulation of firearm sales.
Standing in a room filled with victims of gun violence, he explained that the murder of schoolchildren in Newtown, Connecticut, changed him - and that he hoped it would change the country.
Three years have passed since that school massacre, however, and the country hasn't changed. While some states have toughened their laws, others have expanded gun rights and the US Congress has taken no action.

So Mr Obama did what he could, and wrapped the move in language that sounded more appropriate for a ceremony announcing the passage of sweeping legislation that, in today's political environment, has no chance of reaching his presidential desk.
And even this small move will likely be fiercely challenged in court, in Congress and at the ballot box by whichever Republican wins the nomination fight to replace him in 2017.

Gun violence is significantly higher in the US than in other advanced countries, killing about 30,000 people each year. Congress has been reluctant (or scared) to pass any laws making gun ownership more difficult, facing pressure from gun owners and the powerful National Rifle Association.
Mr Obama tried to pass expanded background check legislation in 2012 after the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, that left 20 children and six adults dead but it failed in Congress.

 
Former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was the victim of a shooting, attended the White House event

The executive actions include:
- Background checks for all gun sellers, overturning current exemptions to some online and gun show sellers
- States providing information on people disqualified from buying guns due to mental illness or domestic violence
- Increased workforce for the FBI to process background checks, hiring more than 230 new examiners
- Congress being asked to invest $500m to improve access to mental healthcare in the US
- The departments of defence, justice and homeland security exploring "smart gun technology" to improve gun safety

The announcement is already shaping up to be an issue in the 2016 presidential election.
Leading Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton tweeted: "@POTUS is right: We can protect the second Amendment while protecting our families and communities from gun violence. And we have to."
Republican candidate Senator Ted Cruz tweeted that the executive actions are unconstitutional, with a link to sign up for his campaign correspondence on a webpage that says "Obama wants your guns" with a photo of the president in an army jacket and hat.
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush tweeted that he would repeal the actions and protect the Second Amendment.

During Mr Obama's speech, comedian Amy Schumer, cousin of New York Senator Chuck Schumer, was in the audience. Two women died in a shooting at a movie theatre in Louisiana during a showing of her movie Train wreck. Gabby Giffords, a former congresswoman who survived a shooting, was there as well, in addition to many relatives of victims and survivors of mass shooting.

Shares in gunmaker Smith & Wesson rose to their highest value since 1999 ahead of the president's announcement. The number of background checks on potential buyers - a guide to future sales - has risen in the wake of mass shootings in the past. Is this  executive action enough to  effectively reduce mass killings ?  Probably not, but if it helps to prevent just one Sandy Hook massacre, then it was worth the excruciatingly slow process to get here.

Until assault rifles ( which where created for the artillery, a military detachment of the armed forces that uses large-caliber weapons for combat on the ground with terrorists and enemies of our country) are made illegal or at least unavailable to citizens who are not in a war zone, then there will be mass shootings and massacres because that is the weapon of choice of terrorists, nut jobs, disgruntled employees, angry husbands and every door knob who is bored with his life and thinks it might be amusing to slaughter some people. 

According to Wikipedia:

An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. Assault rifles are currently the standard service rifles in most modern armies.
By strict definition, a firearm must have the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

• It must be an individual weapon;
• It must be capable of selective fire, which means it has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.
• Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine;
• And it should at least have an effective range of 300 metres (330 yards).

Technically, the AR-15 fires 800 rounds a minute (source: Wikipedia), which is 13.3 rounds per second.  This is for the full-auto version. So 'technically', although unlikely, a doorknob with an AR-15 and perfect aim could kill 800 hundred people in a minute. Why does the average citizen need to own such weapons??
 Steve Denny, a former FBI agent and a Navy veteran, estimates the number of AR-15s domestically owned in the United States now, to be "somewhere around 8 or 9 million. And that number just represents one kind of semi automatic weapon." Really?
It is so beyond my comprehension, I have no more words to address it.

This Is a Map of the Entire Universe, Squeezed Into One Stunning Image

This stunning spherical image manages to cram in the entire universe, including our Solar System at the centre.

The mind-boggling image also packs in the outer planets, Kuiper belt, Oort cloud, Alpha Centauri star and the cosmic web along with the Milky Way galaxy, Andromeda galaxy and other nearby galaxies.

Created by artist Pablo Carlos Budassi, the jaw-dropping image is based on logarithmic maps of the universe compiled by researchers from Princeton University along with images from NASA’s telescopes and space probes.

Is Donald Trump a secret double agent for the Democrats ?

Republican leaders are currently thrashing about - holding secret meetings, issuing confidential memos and making public denunciations - as they approach a state of near panic over what Donald Trump is doing to their party. It's enough to make some believe that Mr Trump may not have the Republican establishment's best interests at heart.

Could Donald Trump be a secret double-agent, sent by Democrats to destroy their party from within? Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who has borne the brunt of more than a few Trump barbs, seems to think there's a possibility.
"Maybe Donald negotiated a deal with his buddy Hillary Clinton," Mr Bush tweeted this week, after Mr Trump cited a poll showing his supporters would stick with him if he left the Republican Party. "Continuing this path will put her in the White House."
The New York billionaire has a spotty political history, at best. He was a Republican, then he was a pro-choice Democrat, and now he's a fire-breathing, anti-immigration populist conservative
Could this latest iteration of Mr Trump's political brand be just a ruse, the elaborate cover for a liberal saboteur who has spent the past year setting explosives that threaten the unity of the party he pledged to support?
He's belittling his Republican colleagues. He's pulling the party to the nativist right in direct conflict with the goal set by strategists in 2013 to appeal to a more ethnically diverse nation. And he's generally sucking up all the political oxygen, making it harder for other candidates to get their message out. All in all, many experts say he's making it much more difficult for a Republican to win the general election next fall. Maybe he's doing it on purpose.
It's a theory that has been bubbling long before Mr Bush's recent Twitter accusation.
"If Donald Trump were a Democratic mole placed in the Republican Party to disrupt things, how would his behaviour be any different?" asked conservative political commentator George Will in July. "I don't think it would be."
Just over a week later Republican Congressman Carlos Curbelo of Florida called Mr Trump "a phantom candidate recruited by the left to create this entire political circus."



 Could Donald Trump and Bill Clinton be partners on more than just the golf course?

"Mr Trump has a close friendship with Bill and Hillary Clinton," he said. "They were at his last wedding. He has contributed to the Clintons' foundation. He has contributed to Mrs Clinton's Senate campaigns. All of this is very suspicious."
Of course Mr Trump has also contributed to plenty of Republicans. He likes to boast that he has "bought" politicians of all stripes. And Mr Trump's wedding was a coveted invitation for all of New York City's elite, of which the Clintons were definitely part.
But there's more.
Also suspicious - for those predisposed to suspicion, at least - is a "mystery" phone call between Mr Trump and Bill Clinton in May, less than a month before the real-estate tycoon tossed his hat into the presidential ring.
The details of that call are shrouded in secrecy, but that hasn't stopped conservatives from speculating that the seeds of a Machiavellian plan were sown.

Some conservatives think Hillary Clinton benefits every time Donald Trump says something controversial

 

"Clinton encouraged Trump's efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape," the Washington Post reported at the time.
Conservative commentator Brian Cates is less circumspect.
"Trump didn't jump into this race because of his deep abiding love for America, or his being a Republican or caring about conservatism," he writes. "Trump jumped into this race because BILL CLINTON urged him to."
And ever since that fateful day in mid-June when he descended a gold escalator in his office building to announce his candidacy, Mr Trump has dominated the political conversation, firing fusillades at Mexican immigrants, Muslims, his fellow candidates, the media and anything else that catches his eye.
Noah Rothman of Commentary magazine spies a pattern in Mr Trump's diatribes, whose timing, he argues, "tends to often coincide with scandalous revelations that reflect poorly on Democratic politicians".
Mr Trump, for instance, made his comments about closing US borders to all Muslims just a day after President Barack Obama's poorly received White House address on the so-called Islamic State.
Stories about Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton's email server and actions following the Benghazi consulate attack in 2012 have likewise been swamped by Trump-mania.
"None of this establishes either correlation or causation, but it is remarkably coincidental how often Donald Trump has rescued Democrats from the jaws of a terrible news cycle and the withering scrutiny of the press," he concludes.
Then again, given the number of times Mr Trump has made incendiary, headline-grabbing comments and the number of times conservatives have perceived there to be damaging revelations about Democrats that should have grabbed the headlines, perhaps it's not surprising that Rothman's list is so long.
But as the saying goes, even paranoids have real enemies. And, at least for the moment, there are some Republicans who see Donald Trump much more of an enemy than a friend.


Republican candidates in - and out - of the 2016 presidential race