Sunday, September 14, 2014

Politician Lies Versus Failures

Is it a lie if a politician promises something, but does not deliver?

Or, is there something discernible about the language within the promise that indicates deception?

Remember, the words of President Bush when he said, "Read my lips, no new taxes."

He did not say "I will not raise taxes", using the strong pronoun, "I", rather than the weaker "we" in the statement.

He did, however, weaken the assertion "no new taxes" via the use of emphasis: "read my lips", first, and then secondly, "no new taxes" is passive language, avoiding ownership.

Here is an article from the NY Post on a book exert on the top lies of President Obama.  Some sensitivity will be seen in deliberate repetition of a statement.

A promise, or campaign pledge, is deceptive if the subject does not intend to fulfill it.  Sometimes, this is due to political gridlock or other unforeseen circumstances.

We are looking for that which is propounded without purpose of fulfillment.  We also look for deception via tangent, or "red herring" to be followed away from the issue.

Note these tactics as well as passivity in order to discern.

5 lies that have shaped the Obama presidency

If past presidents are remembered for their signature achievements, Obama will be remembered for his signature lie: “If you like your health care plan blah, blah, blah.” The reader knows the rest. Although the most consequential of Obama’s lies — it got him reelected — it’s far from his only prevarication.
I’ve counted 75 significant lies since his campaign for president began, but that doesn’t begin to tally the casual fibs and hyperbole he spouts seemingly every day. Here are five that illustrate just how much Obama’s presidency is built on falsehoods.

5. “My father left my family when I was 2 years old.”

Modal Trigger
Photo: EPA

Obama made this claim in September 2009, when addressing the nation’s schoolkids. By then, the blogosphere knew that baby Obama had never spent a night under the same roof as his father, let alone two years.
For years, Obama and his advisors invested enormous political capital in what biographer David Remnick called Obama’s “signature appeal: the use of the details of his own life as a reflection of a kind of multicultural ideal.”
Remnick called Obama’s autobiography, “A mixture of verifiable fact, recollection, recreation, invention and artful shaping.” In other words, the truth is never good enough.

4. “The Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration.”

Modal Trigger
Photo: WireImage

Obama spun this fiction at a September 2012 Univision forum knowing it was false. In fact, the bizarre, deadly idea to let American guns “walk” into Mexico, where they were used by drug cartels to kill dozens, began in October 2009.
Three months earlier, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney had made the same bogus claim virtually word for word at a press conference and got shot down on national TV. “It began in fall 2009,” corrected White House correspondent Jake Tapper, then with ABC.
Carney refused to acknowledge he lied, and the president continued to lie weeks later. It’s all part of Obama’s ducking of responsibility — it’s always someone else’s fault.

3. “Not even a smidgen of corruption.”

Modal Trigger
Photo: Getty Images

Obama said this in response to Bill O’Reilly’s question about the IRS scandal: “You’re saying no corruption?”
If there were not even a “smidgen of corruption,” as Obama insisted, it is hard to understand what outraged him, or at least seemed to, when news of the IRS scandal first broke. “It’s inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it,” Obama said in May 2013. Obama routinely expressed anger when some new scandal erupted on his watch — IRS, the failed ObamaCare website, the VA scandal, Fast and Furious — but never before had he shoved a scandal down the memory hole so quickly.
And how could Obama know there wasn’t a smidgen of corruption before the investigation was even over? Perhaps because the administration knew that any proof of that was gone with deleted e-mails and destroyed hard drives?

2. “We revealed to the American people exactly what we understood at the time.”

Modal Trigger
Photo: AP

During that same Super Bowl Sunday interview, Obama made this claim in response to O’Reilly’s inquiry about the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. Obama continued to dissemble: “The notion that we would hide the ball for political purposes when a week later we all said, in fact, there was a terrorist attack taking place and the day after I said it was an act of terror, that wouldn’t be a very good coverup.”
In fact, it was exactly a week after the attack, on Sept. 18, that Obama took his first questions about Benghazi. Bizarrely, he did so to David Letterman. “Here’s what happened,” Obama said.
“You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who — who made an extremely offensive video directed at — at Mohammed and Islam.”
We know now that the administration knew this wasn’t true. Not a week later; not even the very night of the attacks.
On many levels, this was Obama’s most telling lie. He only deals with the world as he sees it, not as it is.

1. “Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”

Modal Trigger
Photo: AP

Obama told this whopper to his assembled staff on his first day in office. He promised it to the press. Instead, his administration refuses to hand over documents and Obama refuses to answer questions. As liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley assessed the presidency, “Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be.”
What do these lies, just a sample of many, tell us? Obama never stopped “artfully shaping” his life.
The scary thing is he might actually believe these lies. He believes that posting a shot from his personal photographer online is “transparent.” That targeting conservative groups for audits isn’t corrupt. That everything that has gone wrong with his presidency is Bush’s fault.
Knowing that, how can we believe anything that he says?
Jack Cashill is the author of “You Lie! The Evasions, Omissions, Fabrications, Frauds and Outright Falsehoods of Barack Obama” (Broadside Books), out this week


Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

Police in Texas are investigating the murder of a 2-year-old boy whose body was found in a shallow grave. The discovery came two days after police were sent photos of the child suggesting he had been the victim of abuse.

Police found the grave Friday after searching a field in southeast Austin for several hours, according to MyFoxAustin. They have every reason to believe the grave contained the remains of Colton Turner, the station said. The boy’s mother Meagan Work told investigators she last saw the boy in July. She was in custody for abandoning and endangering Colton.

MyFoxAustin reported Friday that Work was a person of interest in the case.

“I can tell you anyone that places a child in a small, shallow grave, the fact you can do that doesn’t speak well of you as a human being and I cringe at the thought of the life he had while living,” Austin Police Department Chief Art Acevedo told a press conference.

Police in Cedar Park reported Colton missing and in danger Thursday. The day before someone sent them photos of Colton with bruises on his body. When questioned about the photos, Work gave investigators conflicting stories about what happened between then and now.

Anonymous said...

The only thing Obama is good at is lying. You can be sure that if his mouth is open, he is lying.

Anonymous said...

One time he said he gets his info, from the news, the same as "us". Then, not long after, he said he doesn't need to watch the news, as he already knows everything, before it's reported. If it wasn't such a serious matter, with SO many scandals going on, it would be kind of funny, how he (and his script writers) can't keep track of his lies and what he's previously said. That, or he/they just don't give a care - not even a smidgen. ;)

Anonymous said...

Just observing the photos in the article; there is one of those photos of Obama where he looks like he has yellow jaundice and another one where he looks like he hasn't been to bed in a week. Whatever the problem, his eyes look 'fixed'. This is not good.

I still say that Obama only got the nomination to run for president, then got elected, by those who didn't want a woman president; (ain't no woman gonna tell these smartass white politicians what to do, not now, not ever. Better a black man (the democrats only other choice at the time)than any woman.

I think they still feel this way and that Hillary doesn't stand a chance in hell of being nominated or elected by white politically affluent American men. Also, they thought they could control Obama; too late they learned they couldn't. Duh...

Would have been better off nominating and electing Hillary in the first place. At least they would have gotten Bill in the bargain. Remember, it took more than 50% of the country to elect Obama. It was not ALL a black caucus.

Anonymous said...

I remember hearing a lot about voting scandals. That dead people were voting, as well as dogs. And some people were picked up and driven to the voting booths, and illegals were signed up to vote. I think he won based on the illegals vote. Next election, who ever gets the illegal vote will win. Maybe all illegals will be made legal right before the next election. In any case, if you want to be President, you need to go after the Hispanic vote.

Anonymous said...

That may all be true Anon @10:51, but not a one of these minority groups you make mention of controls the vote; not even collectively as a whole.

Anonymous said...

Here's a good one for youse....

Sarah Palin & family have been accused of being involved in a big drunken brawl at a snow mobile party over the week-end. Wild accusations were made with fists flying, yelling, cursing, and punches made by Sarahs' brood. he he... Way to go, white trash.

New England Water Blog said...

Good denial?

Vikings' Adrian Peterson: 'I am not a perfect parent, but I am, without a doubt, not a child abuser. I am someone that disciplined his child and did not intend to cause him any injury.'

Listed as Breaking News in a lead in to this story.

New England Water Blog said...

Good denial?

Vikings' Adrian Peterson: 'I am not a perfect parent, but I am, without a doubt, not a child abuser. I am someone that disciplined his child and did not intend to cause him any injury.'

Listed as Breaking News in a lead in to this story.

New England Water Blog said...

Good denial?

Vikings' Adrian Peterson: 'I am not a perfect parent, but I am, without a doubt, not a child abuser. I am someone that disciplined his child and did not intend to cause him any injury.'

Listed as Breaking News in a lead in to this story.

Anonymous said...

YES, Adrian Peterson IS a child abuser. I think we all saw the photos of the beating he put on his little four year son with switches, big long bleeding welts on his little legs and back, even landing some on his scrotum and bragging about it which means he also hit him on the lower stomach and groin area. He thinks it wasn't abuse since it was done with switches? And because he got whippings with switches when he was a child?

What in the HELL could a little four year old do so badly that he would deserve such a beating at the hands of a big strong brutal man? Not much.

Like Sweet Haleigh Cummings, at five years old and younger, having to take brutal beatings so badly from Ronnie boy daddy that the DCF investigator had to teach him how to properly discipline a child, when a little child this young doesn't need any physical discipline in the first place.

Those switches hurt! They draw blood and pain, not to mention the emotional pain. I know, I got many a whipping as a little girl with two peach tree switches with thorns on them plated together. Today my mother would not be allowed to get away with this. And rightly so. It IS child abuse, or certainly a form of child abuse.

sidewalk super said...

To answer your last guestion:

No, bho cannot be believed.
bho is a pathological liar,
and, I doubt that he could be honest about what he ate for breakfast.

Lying is his forte, his comfort zone, his belief in himself.

He lies about any and everything.

bho is a liar.

Anonymous said...

Would you rather I say trailer trash?

The thing is, not all people are trash who live in trailers.

And not all people who live in trailers are white, black or maroon.

Seems to me like white trash suits them better since they ARE white and they WERE acting trashy.

But what gives me the biggest sigh is that none of them landed on their pointed head scattering their brains in the snow while drunk on snow mobiles (thank goodness); with Bristol attacking some guy and Willow punching out another one and Track or whatever his silly name is piled out of a stretch hummer and lit into the guy who dated Willow a few times.

What a sight to behold with everybody screaming and cursing and fists flying. Don't those dimwits ever do anything else other than shoot whales or bucks out of glider planes or go snow mobiling while drunk?

Call them whatever you like. YOu get the picture.

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

'It's my right to enjoy myself': Django Unchained actress insists she did nothing wrong before being 'harassed by the LAPD' witnesses claim she was having sex in public

Watts: (sobbing) I don’t understand how we live in a free country where I’m at a parking lot making out with my boyfriend and I get arrested just because somebody called the cops. I don’t understand how we live in a free country where cops can put you in handcuffs… for nothing.

Sgt. Parker: (speaking to someone in background) Stay here, I’d be careful… A little emotional.

Sgt. Parker (to Watts): What’s your first name? Why do you think you’re in handcuffs? Do you think we put you in handcuffs or you did?

Watts: I put myself in handcuffs?

Sgt. Parker: Who do you think put yourself in handcuffs? Who do you think put you in handcuffs?

Watts: I think that this officer right here put me handcuffs because…

Sgt. Parker No, I think you did the minute you left the scene.

Watts: Yes, because I was being treated as a criminal before I even did anything.

Sgt. Parker: I’m sorry, do you… do you see the gentleman here in handcuffs? Is the gentleman here in handcuffs before you? No, he’s not.

Watts: Do you think that I’m stupid?

Sgt. Parker: I don’t think you’re stupid at all

Watts: What’s your first name Officer Parker?

Sgt. Parker: My name is Sergeant Parker and that’s all you need to know.

Watts: Why do you need to know my first name but I don’t need to know your first name?

Sgt. Parker Because I need to identify you as a source of a radio call

Watts: So I think I’d like to identify you to my publicist, what’s your first name?

Sgt. Parker: Now you see why you’re in handcuffs?

Watts: Why because you’re afraid of the news getting out about you arresting someone who’s innocent, who was making out with her boyfriend?

Sgt. Parker: I’ve been on the news many times.

Watts: Awesome.

Second officer: Ma’am, I explained to you over there why you’re in handcuffs

Watrts: Because you asked me to turn around and face the wall and I did.

Second officer: When you left my supervisor when he told you stay…

Watts: Did he tell me to stay or did I say I am walking away and I was talking to my dad? Did you hear him tell me to stay here?

Sgt. Parker: You can’t walk away ma’am

Second officer: He didn’t say anything to you as you walked away…

Watts: You didn’t say anything to me as I was walking away.

Read more:

Anonymous said...

We just never know what's true and what isn't. One tiny little example; the media referred to Ms. Watts as kissing her husband but cops believed she was a prostitute. So what was Ms. Watts doing in a public display with her man that led to cops being called in the first place?

And why couldn't Ms. Watts simply be cooperative and not bickering with cops then she might never have been handcuffed at all. Honesty, proving your identity, "Yes Sir and No Sir" still goes a long way, doesn't it? Or does it? Will we ever know?

My point initially was now we're being told that said husband was her boyfriend. So which was it; her john, her husband or a boyfriend? Can't they ever get the simplest little detail right?

Do we ever get the whole story or know the truth about anything that's fed to us by the media and in interviews? I seriously doubt it. Just imagine how much we are misled in personal, national and public affairs, politically and in every other way.

It appears that getting involved at all is a no-win situation and a waste of time. I've concluded that no matter what happens in this world, let them all have their say, lie, nuke it out, curse and spew, kill each other and suffer the consequences, whatever;

and when the dust settles, if it affects my life in any way, just tell me the end result then I'll adjust myself accordingly where necessary, if at all; with pity to those who lost their lives or suffered unjustly.

Bubbles said...

OT: would anyone want to analyze this message I got on a dating site? It was the first contact, I had not viewed his profile or contacted him.

too love movie theater popcorn. Now you have to tell me the cedar wood story.. i just got back from the gym need a shower... I hope you are smiling and feel free too ask me anything!

Bubbles said...

My cut and paste skills are lacking - it begins with "I too" not just "too". No dropped pronoun in the first sentence lol.

Buckley said...

No, but I dare you to begin your response with: "Maybe we could share a tub...of popcorn, of course ;)"

Unknown said...

Lol, Buckley... and now I also want to hear the cedar wood story Anon!

Bubbles said...

Buckley, that's an awesome reply lol! Jen, back in the day I used to get myspace messages from foreign guys - scammers. They tried really hard to speak English but it never worked well! One said to me "you are so beautiful, you must be crafted from cedar wood or something better."

Another one bragged that he was 99% honest lol! Another said honesty was his hobby. And one told me "you are face of angel."

I's hard to believe I didn't fall for one of them!, am I right?!

Also, I didn't reply to the message, the guy didn't interest me, but the "shower" part made me wonder if the shower/laundry/water thing applies in situations like that. My thought is that he was a) pointing out that he works out and b) bringing up the shower idea so I would think of him naked.

I had a male friend once who would make suggestive comments. It entertained me so I didn't mind. He texted one day and asked what I was doing. I was literally about to step into the shower so I told him that. He said "send me a pic!" So I took a pic of my shower head with the caddy hanging off of it full of shampoo and body wash containers and sent it to him lol!

Now you know why I'm single!

Anonymous said...

Bubbles, seriously; what I'm wondering is why you think you need to resort to the interwebs to meet someone? I mean, why waste your time on all these undesirables or run the risk of getting taken in by some dude whose just looking for a quick lay, maybe passing his herpes around, hiding a wife or three, or worse?

You know the majority are crafty, slick, deceitful, on the prowl for one thing or another; or such losers they have to resort to the interwebs to try and meet someone themselves? Oh, you might occasionally meet a decent guy, but the risk just isn't worth it, is it?

You need to be asking yourself, what ARE they doing trying to meet someone on the internet? Are they porn addicts or WHAT? Why AREN'T they out socializing publically or pursuing some other worthwhile endeavor, like maybe working a second job to support the kids they left behind with another woman, or furthering their education? Don't expect them to tell you the truth, however.

Wouldn't you rather accidentally meet someone face-to-face, head on, see how they dress, their mannerisms, smile, voice, speech, education, look into their eyes, gauge their honesty or lack of?

There are many MANY places where one can meet eligible dates without taking crazy risks with strangers on the internet. It's easy; you can be formally introduced by a friend or set up for a blind date or just coffee with a friend who knows your type and style and if you don't like this person, sheebang, it's over. Or get out there and do some serious looking on your own, and I don't mean in bars or casinos.

If you think you might like someone you've met, no matter where you meet him; you're in a better position to really get to know him; meet his friends, family, coworkers and have a more well-rounded relationship, go to parties, shows, out for dinners, etc., etc., rather than sitting around posting together over a bunch of crap with a stranger you've never met. What kind of life is this?

If you're interested, I can make all kinds of suggestions where you can meet a large variety of different classes of eligible men; IN PERSON one-on-one, and it's NOT a singles club although there are a few of those too that aren't so bad.

Bubbles said...

I have only gone on one date with someone from online. I get lonely once in a while so I created a profile, but ended up deactivating it. I get lonely once in a while and activate it again, only to be reminded of how useless it is and then deactivate again!

I have kids that have to come first. I am not one of the lucky few who will find's just not meant for me. I have kids, I am not most men's ideal physical type even though I am pretty, I have too many insecurities to be in a healthy relationship. I fill my time with family, books, movies, tv, true crime, and creating photo scrapbooking.

Thank you for taking the time to write that post.

Anonymous said...

I met my husband online. It's not always awful or horrible and I didn't get herpes or cut up into pieces. Only time I have truly gotten to know someone without letting physical aspects drive me.

Anonymous said...

Lucky for you, Anon at 10:47; you are blessed that it turned out this way. There are many that don't. We read about them in the news very frequently and I can just imagine all those we don't read about;

more often than not it is the many women who get so hood-winked that they let this 'nice' internet guy move in on them, gentle as a lamb; soon they are supporting him while he robs them blind running up their charge cards and so on and on.... Not to mention those who learn their children are being abused by this teddy bear, while they lived in fear of him, too frightened to tell their mother (or father, as the case may be). Of course, they also discover that he still has his other internet babes, porn, drugs and you name it.

Congratulations! Good on you. Sounds like you hit the jackpot. However; still, VERY lucky.

Anonymous said...

Most men's ideal physical type, is in the eye of the beholder. Don't let that hold you back. Work on your insecurities, and love yourself. You will find someone who will appreciate everything about you.

Tania Cadogan said...

off topic & further to my post of the transcript from the arrested actress

The Django Unchained actress who claimed she was harassed by LAPD officers who unfairly arrested her when she was making out with her boyfriend appears to have been doing a lot more than just kissing.

Pictures obtained by TMZ show Daniele Watts straddling her boyfriend Brian James Lucas in his car while the couple steady themselves with their hands on the car sunroof.

Eyewitness accounts suggest that Watts was grinding on top of her boyfriend with her shirt pulled up and her breasts exposed.

An eyewitness who saw the couple as he worked in a nearby office told TMZ that Lucas was sitting in the passenger seat with his feet on the curb and Watts was straddling him and rocking back and forth.

Someone from the office went down and asked the couple to stop because everyone in the office could see them but they continued.

The eyewitnesses said Lucas then began 'horizontally bongoing her boobs back and forth'. He added that Watts eventually reached into the center console, grabbed a tissue, wiped him down and then herself and tossed it on the grass.

Watts has insisted that she did nothing wrong before officers questioned and detained her - despite accounts from witnesses saying she and her partner were having sex in public.

She claimed she was 'handcuffed and detained' by police after being mistaken for a prostitute as she kissed her white husband.

Meanwhile the Los Angeles police officer who detained her has spoken out to defend his actions and said he never suspected her of being a prostitute.

Sergeant Jim Parker told the Los Angeles Times that he never intended to arrest Watts or her boyfriend Brian James Lucas when he was called to an LA studio parking lot for a report of two people have sex in a car.

'I figured I could take care of this call and go get coffee and that was it,' Sgt Parker told the newspaper.

Instead, he says, Watts turned it into a 'long, drawn-out drama.'

'I was trying to ID them and leave. Nobody wanted them arrested for having sex in public,' Sgt Parker told the Times.

'But then she went into her tirade.'

In a police audio of the incident obtained by TMZ, Daniele Watts is heard accusing the police of racism when Sgt. Jim Parker asks her for ID. She then tells cops that they don't who she is before storming off, refusing to show her ID.

After storming off, Watts was apprehended by a police officer a short distance away and brought back where she continued her rant.

In the audio, Sgt. Parker can be heard telling Watts that the police were responding to calls from a nearby office.

She says: 'I bet there's at least one person up there who's a racist. I bet you. I bet you're a little bit racist.'

Tania Cadogan said...


After refusing to give her name, Watts demands to know Sgt. Parker’s first name, before adding: ‘I think I’d like to identify you to my publicist. What’s your first name?’

She continues: 'I guess we all have our destinies... I serve freedom and love. You guys serve detainment. That's cool.

'I hope you feel free... I hope when you're f***ing your spouses you really feel alive. That you feel thankful, full of gratitude for the freedom that you have, that you share with the people of this country.'
Miss Watts told CNN that she stands by her decision not handing over her ID.

'I believe what this country stands for and I believe in freedom and I believe in a country that calls itself the land of the free and the home of the brave,' she said on Monday.

'If I am within my amendment rights, my constitutional rights to say no, unless you're charging me with a crime, I will not be giving you my ID, that is a right that I stand up for.'

California law allows police to handcuff and detain people in order to identify them.

The LAPD says it is conducting a review of the incident. The department is also investigating a complaint Miss Watts filed against Sgt Parker.

A recording of the encounter, obtained by the TMZ and the Times, shows Parker explaining: 'Somebody called, which gives me the right to be here, so it gives me the right to identify you by law.'

Watts responds: 'Do you know how many times I've been called, the cops have been called just for being black? Just because we're black and he's white? I'm just being really honest, sir.'

Sgt Parker replies: 'Who brought up the race card?'

Read more:

Tania Cadogan said...

From her transcript

Watts: (sobbing) I don’t understand how we live in a free country where I’m at a parking lot making out with my boyfriend and I get arrested just because somebody called the cops. I don’t understand how we live in a free country where cops can put you in handcuffs… for nothing.

I would have asked her what her definition of making out with her boyfriend was.

From the released photos and eyewitness statement, she was straddling him, rocking back and forth and grinding on his with her skirt up and her bosoms exposed.

If this is in fact the case, then i am not surpiosed she was arrested as a suspected hooker.
Having sex in broad daylight and in public does tend to give people and cops that impression.

It appears to be another case of don't you know who i am and you mustn't arrest me or bother me cos i am famous.

if she had done as asked then he would have dropped it and this would never have made the papers. instead she tried to play the fame and race card and is responsible for making her behavior front page news.

Tania Cadogan said...

off topic

A Washington cold case of a missing boy has been all but solved, police announced Tuesday, now that a man already in prison for stabbing to death his wife, has confessed to killing his toddler son in 1983.

Stanley Guidroz told police from a Louisiana prison that he 'just lost it' on his fussing son Wallace all those years ago. He says he smacked the 3-year-old to the ground, where he hit his head and died.

Guidroz confessed he then buried the toddler in a shallow waterside grave in Tacoma before calling police to say the boy had gone missing.

It was a family the father and son had met while fishing that January day, Guildroz told police, who he believed kidnapped the boy.

Police never found a family matching the description Guildroz gave, and he remained a suspect himself, but a body was never found and Guildroz would quietly slip out of Washington by the following year.

His shadow would never again darken the Evergreen State and nearly 30 years would pass before police got a break in the heartbreaking case.

Fast-forward to 2011, and a glimmer of that break would finally come as Detective Gene Miller of the Tacoma Police Department's Cold Case Unit reviewed the case.

Miller chose to reopen the case when he found inconsistencies in Guidroz's statements to police, according to a Pierce County Prosecutor's Office release.

Miller tracked Guidroz to Louisiana, where he was in prison for manslaughter after stabbing to death his wife--not Wallace's mother--and driving around with her body in the car until confessing in a nearby police station.

The 2011 murder of Pepettra Guidroz is likely what spurred Washington police to reopen Wallace's ice cold case.

Miller would hear several more versions of Guidroz's story before hearing the jarring truth, according to WWL.

Guidroz said he simply 'lost it' while feeding his fussy son in a high chair and a backhanded slap was all it took to leave Wallace lifeless on the floor.

So why didn't Guidroz's guilt get the best of him then, as it did when he'd later kill his wife?

He told police he was more afraid of being labeled in prison as a 'child killer.'

Soon, though, he'll likely be labeled that in spite of himself.

'This is another success for the Cold Case Unit,' said Prosecutor Mark Lindquist. 'Justice matters, no matter how long it takes.'

A warrant has been issued for his return to Washington state, where he'll answer to a manslaughter charge in the first degree for taking the life of his own son.

Read more:

impulsive said...

Interesting article about "actually" and credibility:

Anonymous said...

Ms. Watts is a disgrace to the human race (as is the b/f) and is thoroughly disgusting for her blatant public display of repulsive sex acts (as is her boyfriend of the moment) in the parking lot for other employees having to witness. WITH the car door open no less, for all to watch. Good for the onlookers, someone video taped it and reported them to 911.

She is an idiot if she thinks this officers response to the allegations and (timid!)investigative duties in his questioning of her was in any way racial, nor did it have any bearing whatsoever on any racial issues she may have endured previously. Fool.

This incident was not a racial issue; it is about the display of public lewdness, for which there are laws prohibiting. Ms. Watts has mental issues, trying to focus the spotlight against this innocent officer and away from the obviously true allegations against her which is the real issue at hand. Since SHE brought it up, it makes one wonder if she was in fact, out there performing a quick trick?

Can the officer sue her for damages caused by her false allegations against him? I hope so. At the least, I hope her false allegations of racial bias affects her future career and that those who might have employed her will realize they might suffer the same consequences if they do. Then it's fare-the-well Ms. Watts. It would serve her right to have to start turning tricks in parking lots. She should be pretty good at it, right?

Anonymous said...

And YOU at 10:05, must have started hitting the bottle a little early, 'eh? You said "subjecting"... when you meant 'suggesting', didn't you?

SOOo, I suggested she might have to start turning tricks in parking lots? Get over it. She DID lie against this officer and it would serve her right to wind up unemployable and turning tricks. SOO what if she's an actress... whop-tee-do. She STILL lied. I hope it's HER career she has damaged and not his.

There is already enough white-cop practicing bias against black people, we don't need some black person making these false allegations against a white officer that has no basis of foundation whatsoever, when actually he treated her with kid gloves when she didn't deserve his kindness; she deserved to be locked up on the charges that were called in against her. Period. End of story.

Big Russian said...

And there you have it. We are trying to have a conversation about the Leader of the Free World and somehow it is more important to talk about some hood rat actress. Scary to say the least.