Model Quits Twitter after Backlash to Tweet Bashing America

After being called out for using the October 22 terror attack on Canada as an opportunity to bash America on Twitter, super model Chrissy Teigen is leaving Twitter for Instagram to escape criticism.

It all started while the police response to the terror attack was still ongoing, and Teigen tweeted, "Active shooting in Canada, or as we call it in america, wednesday."

The response to Teigen's tweet was swift and relentless, and she tried to diffuse the outrage by explaining that she was knocking America, not Canada. She tweeted: "Sorry you don't understand that is a knock at america and our issues with gun control. No one is minimizing the Ottawa shooting."

As the outrage continued, Teigen made clear she would not recant her tweets nor would she apologize.

more:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/10/23/After-Getting-Cal...

Views: 614

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

maybe she should tweet about her cocaine habit and her model whoredom. It is people like her that Jeb Hensarling declares are the reason we can't impeach obama.

I ALREADY CALLED HIS SENIOR REP IN DALLAS MIKE LEE ON MONDAY AND ASKED ARE THEY GETTING READY TO IMPEACH SINCE WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE THE SENATE. HE SAID NO. THEY WON'T BE DOING THAT. WE GOT INTO IT HEAVILY AND HE SAID IT IS WHAT THE VOTERS WANT NOT THAT WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION.

I REMINDED HIM OF THE BLM,ETC. HE NEVER WOULD SAY THAT WHAT THEY DID IS WRONG. THEY THINK IT WAS OK SINCE BUNDY DIDN'T PAY TAXES. I ASKED HIM IF HE THINKS WE WON'T HAVE ANOTHER REVOLUTION BECAUSE WE WILL NOT GIVE UP OUR FREEDOM. HE WOULDN'T ANSWER. YES I THREATENED THEM WITH AN REVOLUTION. IT IS STILL A FREE COUNTRY AND WE SHOULD NOT BE AFRAID TO WARN THESE POLITICIANS THAT THEY ARE TREADING ON THIN GROUND. I TOLD HIM WE WILL NOT LAY DOWN AND GIVE IN TO COMMUNIST/MUSLIMS. WE WILL FIGHT AND WIN JUST LIKE 1776.

I still don't understand why people keep talking about impeachment. It takes BOTH impeachment AND conviction to remove a sitting president, not one or the other.  Only the Senate can convict, and that takes 67 votes. The GOP will be very lucky to gain a bare majority of 51 votes after 4 November, and don't expect 16 Democrats to vote for conviction, which is why articles of impeachment will not be filed. 

If the House of Representatives files articles of impeachment and there is no conviction, we will be looking as dumb as we did when we couldn't convict Scumbag Bill. 

While I somewhat agree with you, I don't discount the rush of angry voters, after November 4th, for an Impeachment.  The same voters that will turn over the Senate, will be looking for blood and to run Obama's Administration out of the Country.  With all of the "Lawyers" that sit in the Senate, one would hope that there are some that could put together a good legal case for the conviction.  The House, with the backing of a Senate Majority, will be hard pressed to not file for Impeachment, and while Obama is under the Impeachment, he will not be signing EOs until it is concluded.

Viper, In fact the voters will have nothing to do with an impeachment and a conviction trial. Only the House can file Articles of Impeachment and only the Senate can convict according to the U.S. Constitution, not the voters.  Angry or not, voters have no power to convict, and screaming at their representatives will do not good because there will not be enough votes to convict and remove Obama from office.  The "backing" of 51 senators when it takes 67 to convict means that at best, impeachment will be a symbolic gesture. and one that could easily backfire, as there is zero chance of conviction.  I don't know why you think that impeachment will stop Obama from issuing executive orders, as he will still hold the office unless he is convicted in the Senate. Until convicted he remains in office. According to http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Impeachment_in_the_United_States The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges, is separate from the act of impeachment itself.

Forget about impeachment unless 16 Marxists walk across the  aisle in the Senate and decide they are no longer Democrats. That is not going to happen because the voters elected the wrong people. 

remember, Marxists have weak spines and can be bent back...  that's how they got were they are currently.  It's the "in-group, out-group" phenomena.  They aren't powerful enough on their own, so they will convert as they see fitting to their own best interests. 

Agree!  That he won't sign any more EOs is obvious while under impeachment proceedings - logically, at least.  If he did, he would be toast.

but the "impeachment" proceedings will stop Obama's recklessness while ongoing.  And given the number of Senate Dem's who will be campaigning for their own 2016 re-election(s), I don't find it so implausible to not be able to sway that number with the evidence, that is ample!!!, in the news during the proceedings.

I say, impeach the felon, then indict.

And I believe impeachment is the only way to bring back our country to what is right.  Without attempting (even) the whole nation is saying, "it's okay for our President to break the law."  And it will happen again and again and again - until we are through.  Same principle as with murderers or wife beaters or thieves... or even just the bad behaviors of children if not corrected when they do wrong;  if everyone knows they are doing something very wrong yet nobody attempts to stop them, in the [wrong-doers' mind] the actions are being condoned; and those around (unless they are totally self-guided and beyond corruption) are thinking:  'he got away with it, so I can to.' 

The message being sent by not holding Obama accountable for his crimes is ruining our country as much as Obama's crimes are.

and just think:  without Impeachment proceedings going forward - the path Hillary will follow if she gets into the WH in 2016.  Precedent will have been set - and onward the destruction will be implemented without a course to reign her in.  If that happens, I doubt there will be any sympathy left for anyone who continues to shout, "reform."  So, impeach Obama or we all need to shut up and just live with the consequences.

Katherine Hovey

You said, "but the "impeachment" proceedings will stop Obama's recklessness while ongoing." That's an assumption. He might even use the "pen and phone" more during that time, especially if he knows he will not be convicted. There is no restriction on his activities during a conviction trial.   Besides, wouldn't we would want him to be reckless in a situation like that to help convince some of his party to convict him? He might even ACT sorrowful to get off  the hook -  he is an actor when need be. And if a conviction fails, what do you think will happen then? Payback time, and the American people will be on the receiving end. 

There is no certainty that we will even get a majority of 1 in the Senate after 4 November. 

But I wonder what makes you think that Democrats will be swayed by evidence?  I believe that is a bad assumption. Democrats are only swayed by votes, and as I noted below the voters on the left are none too bright.  And just how many Democrats will be running in red states or red districts  in 2016? And will there be enough illegals voting from now on to ensure that Democrats can't lose?

Besides, no matter what the evidence or proof, it will be turned into race, race, race and/or economic lies.  It is easy to forget that many voters are so pathetically ignorant that  they don't know right from wrong, and if they don't encourage their reps to vote for a conviction, it will not happen.  Senators only listen to their constituents.

The American people gave away their country by failure to mount strong enough protests against universal suffrage and the election of senators among many other failures. We did not ensure that voters were educated, and that was probably the biggest failure of all.

Sounds like Mike Lee joined the other side.  Who said he was a conservative?  He's more interested in saving obola's worthless hide than following the Constitution.

 Wrong Mike Lee? I suspect the Mike Lee you are thinking about is Senator Mike Lee from Utah, while Jeb Hensarling is a member of the House of Representatives from Texas, and Mike Lee is not Jeb Hensarloing's senior rep in Texas.

good for you..I also believe that we should have another revolution as this government is corrupt&out of control...They do not LISTEN to WE THE PEOPLE who PAY their wages..IRS,EPA,Congress,etc...I think that we patriotic civilians/militias need to coordinate to start the movement.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service