Category Archives: abortion

Sharon Stone, who lied about her high IQ, says a vote for pro-abort Biden is a ‘vote to live’

There is no one more hypocritical and narcissistic than a Hollyweirdo.

In an interview with The Telegraph‘s fawning Celia Walden, actress Sharon Stone, 62, whose claim to fame is the brief shot of her crotch in the 1992 movie Basic Instinct, urged her followers to vote for Biden.

As reported by the sycophantic Walden:

Stone urged her followers to “vote to live” – for Joe Biden and his running mate, Kamala Harris – and ended with the rallying cry: “With women in power, we will fight for our families.”

“Vote to live”?

Tell that to the unborn whose abortion Biden and the Demonrat Party approves up to the point of birth.

The slogan instead more accurately should be “Vote for murder” or “Vote for death”.

Stone is proud of flashing her beaver in Basic Instinct. She pats herself on her back, calling herself courageous, and that exposing her crotch was an empowering strike for feminism. She said:

“It was a real sociological game-changer. And of course it took a lot of heat, as anything that changes the game does. Any time you’re really a tiger, any time you step out and do something different, you take a lot of heat. But it was worth it. It made such a difference in terms of the way we view women in film. Even the way women actually get to direct is so different now. I don’t think women had a voice in film before really.”

Stone is so proud of flashing her beaver that she, a 62-year-old woman with three adopted sons ages 20, 15, 14, that she posed like this for The Telegraph‘s photog Michael Muller.

Sharon Stone claims she belongs to Mensa, and has a genius-level I.Q. of 156, higher than that of Abraham Lincoln!

Alas, Mensa has no records of Sharon Stone being a member.

From Neatorama.com:

Despite popular belief, Sharon Stone is not a member of Mensa. After she started to get a reputation as a bubbly blonde, Sharon told reporters that she was so smart that she belonged to [Mensa,] the society that only admits people who score in the top two percent of their intelligence test. She maintained the story until 2002, when Jim Blackstone, Mensa’s national marketing director, called her out. After admitting that she wasn’t actually a member, she claimed that she did, however, go to a Mensa school. Blackstone says that couldn’t be true either, because no Mensa schools have existed since the early 1960s – Stone was born in 1958.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder: Pro-life sign triggers unhinged demorat

Warning: NSFW.

This is really sad on so many levels. Unhinged and hysterical is not a way to go through life.

All it took for this woman to go off on her rant against pro-lifers was seeing a pro-life sign.

More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

The latest genre from Hollyweird: Abortion “comedies”

Apparently Hollyweird is trying to push an “emerging genre” upon our culture: Abortion comedies. Because, you know, THIS is hilarious or something:

There’s a new movie that you can watch on HBO Max called Unpregnant. They describe the movie as follows:

“In Unpregnant, seventeen-year-old Veronica (Haley Lu Richardson) never thought she’d want to fail a test—that is, until she finds herself staring at a piece of plastic with a blue plus. With a promising college-bound future now disappearing before her eyes, Veronica considers a decision she never imagined she’d have to make. This never-taken-lightly decision leads her on a 1000 mile hilarious road trip to New Mexico over three days with her ex-best friend, Bailey (Barbie Ferreira) where they discover sometimes the most important choice you’ll make in life is who your friends are.”

Yahoo Life has a review which includes the following excerpt: “The ride forces them back in their seats as they barrel forward. “I’M PREGNANT AND I’M GETTING AN ABORTION!” Veronica yells into the wind, her sense of freedom billowing across the dark sky like fireworks.”

More from Yahoo: “The “abortion comedy” is, indeed, an emerging genre. It’s also a real misnomer. There is no mainstream comedy movie that laughs gleefully at the personal and often very painful decision that one out of every four women will make in her lifetime to have an abortion. (Though there are, actually, countless movies that make abortions seem like the most dangerous and traumatizing thing that could ever happen to a person.)

Unpregnant, and the tiny band of movies that show abortion not as a tragedy but as a profound act of agency, are badly needed right now. Safe, accessible abortion is a constitutional right, according to the Supreme Court. But safe, legal abortions are very, very hard to access in much of America.”

Read their whole story here.

Hard pass for me on ever going to pay money to see an abortion “comedy.”

It’s no surprise Hollyweird is embracing this emerging genre. Progressives have made their attitudes toward human life quite clear for some time now:

Abortion comedy actress, Barbie Ferreira

FYI: Barbie Ferreira, one of the actresses in this “comedy,” is on a mission to fight against “fat-shaming” in Hollyweird. From LA Times:

“Reclaiming that word [fat] felt empowering,” she says. “‘Fat’ used to be the worst thing I could ever be called. But ‘fat’ is not a bad word. I really had to train myself to think: Being fat is the least of my problems. Am I a good person? Am I responsible? Am I talented? I’m still training myself, I think.”

Barbie goes on in the LA Times article to explain how abortion is not political – it’s just “healthcare.”

Read that whole story here.

PS Barbie: ‘Ya might want to look at the consequences of obesity and Wuhan virus. Just saying…

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry sign with Netflix to make ‘inspirational family programming’

I wonder if this couple’s programs will be as “inspirational” and “family-oriented” as these other Netflix shows:

Garbage: New Netflix shows how 11-year-old discovers her “femininity” and becomes fascinated with “twerking”
Netflix ‘Insatiable’ TV series mocks Christianity with young girls pleading for sex with Jesus and Holy Spirit
Demonic: Netflix airs ‘Salute to Abortion
Garbage: “Chilling Adventures of Sabrina” underage orgy scene on Netflix

Via Yahoo: “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have signed a multiyear deal with Netflix, The New York Times reported Wednesday. Their unnamed production company is set to make documentaries, docu-series, feature films, scripted shows and children’s programming exclusively for the streaming giant.

“Our lives, both independent of each other, and as a couple have allowed us to understand the power of the human spirit: of courage, resilience, and the need for connection,” Meghan and Harry said in a statement. “Through our work with diverse communities and their environments, to shining a light on people and causes around the world, our focus will be on creating content that informs but also gives hope.”

They added, “As new parents, making inspirational family programming is also important to us, as is powerful storytelling through a truthful and relatable lens. We are pleased to work with Ted and the team at Netflix whose unprecedented reach will help us share impactful content that unlocks action.”

Read the whole story here.

The power of resilience? Yeah, these two were so “resilient” they left the Royal family behind and moved halfway around the world to live in #OrangeManBad America. Wonder how they keep that “connection” with his family when you live so far away from each other?

Want to hear another “family inspirational” conversation? Read about Meghan’s interview with pro-abortion supporter Gloria Steinem here.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin wants you to believe he respects women

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin

Jeffrey Toobin is a lawyer, blogger, author and legal analyst for CNN and The New Yorker. During the Iran–Contra affair, he served as an associate counsel in the Department of Justice, and moved from government into writing during the 1990s.

According to Wikipedia, Toobin married his wife Amy in 1986 and also had a longtime off and on extramarital affair with attorney Casey Greenfield.

Toobin wants you to believe that he cares about how people respect women.

He’s a liar. Not only does he not respect women, he doesn’t care about his own children.

More from Wikipedia:

Toobin and Casey had a child in 2009, which Toobin initially resisted acknowledging. Ultimately, Toobin’s paternity was confirmed with a DNA test and separately, a Manhattan Family Court judge ordered Toobin to pay child support.

Gawker reported in 2010 that Toobin offered to pay for Casey’s abortion. Such a gentleman.

Apparently Toobin even offered to pay for her to have another baby with a sperm donor.

They also report that when Casey told Toobin she was keeping the baby, Toobin told her “she was going to regret it, that she shouldn’t expect any help from him.”

Jeff Zucker must be so proud.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

8 things you should know about Kamala Harris

(1) Kamala Harris is neither a “natural born” U.S. citizen (defined as both parents being U.S. citizens at the time of her birth), nor she is an African American. Her mother is a Tamil Indian, who immigrated to the U.S. in 1960 from Madras, India (Madras was renamed Chennai in 1996); her father came to the U.S. in 1961 from Jamaica, to attend graduate study in economics at the University of California, Berkeley. (Wikipedia)

(2) At age 31, fresh out of law school, Kamala Harris “slept her way” into two lucrative state government jobs that paid her nearly half a million dollars in just 4 years.

(3) Kamala Harris is rabidly pro-abort:

  • Not only does she support late-term abortions, Harris supports abortion up to birth. In other words, she supports infanticide.
  • Harris wants the federal government to overturn state and local laws protecting the unborn.
  • Harris is endorsed by Planned Parenthood, the abortion mill that has generously and consistently contributed to her campaigns.
  • As senator, Harris has produced legislation targeting pro-life journalists who expose Planned Parenthood’s sale of organs and parts from aborted babies.

(4) In February 2019, Kamala Harris said she would support reparations for “black people”.

(5) In July 2019, Kamala Harris said that if elected president, she would use executive orders for gun control.

(6) Kamala Harris is pro-illegal immigration:

  • In 2010, Harris opposed Arizona’s since-struck-down immigration law, declaring that we “can’t afford to divert scarce local law-enforcement resources to enforcing federal immigration laws.”
  • In 2012, Kamala Harris submitted a brief supporting an illegal immigrant’s application for a law license. In 2014, the California Supreme Court ruled in the immigrant’s favor, even though the California State Bar’s rules state that it is disqualifying professional misconduct to commit a criminal act.
  • In her first speech on the Senate floor, Harris declared, “An undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.” She later avowed the belief that illegal immigration is “a civil violation, not a crime.” (National Review)

(7) Kamala Harris discriminates against Christians:

  • When she was California’s attorney general, Harris filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to refuse craft-store Hobby Lobby’s request to deny women health care coverage for contraception because of the owner’s Christian beliefs. (Religion News)
  • In November 2018, Senator Kamala Harris opposed federal judicial nominee Brian Buescher because he is a member of the Knights of Columbus, a pro-life Catholic group.

(8) Kamala Harris is not a feminist:

Before Joe Biden selected her to be his VP running mate, during last year’s Demonrat primaries, at a campaign event in Nevada on April 2, 2019, Kamala Harris said she totally believed the women who accused Biden of touching them against their wishes: “I believe them and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it.” (The Hill)

Of course, now that she is Biden’s VP running-mate, Harris conveniently has forgotten all that. So much for Kamala Harris being a feminist.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

RINO John Kasich is a turncoat

It is one thing for a Republican to be a RINO: Republican In Name Only.

It is one thing for a RINO to be one of those Never Trumpers.

It’s quite another thing entirely for a Republican RINO to actually go to the other party — the Democrat Party of socialism,  “post-birth abortion” infanticide, and open borders to illegal migrants — by speaking at the 2020 Democratic National Convention.

That is what former Ohio governor John Kasich has declared he will do.

John Kasich, you make me ill.

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Obama-appointed judge rules women can get abortion pill without doctor visits

Apparently if pregnant women can’t get this “abortion care” pill quick enough it will cause “irreparable harm.”

From MyFoxChicago: A federal judge agreed Monday to suspend a rule that requires women during the COVID-19 pandemic to visit a hospital, clinic or medical office to obtain an abortion pill.

U.S. District Judge Theodore ChuangJ in Maryland concluded that the “in-person requirements” for patients seeking medication abortion care impose a “substantial obstacle” to abortion patients and are likely unconstitutional under the circumstances of the pandemic.

“Particularly in light of the limited timeframe during which a medication abortion or any abortion must occur, such infringement on the right to an abortion would constitute irreparable harm,” the judge wrote in his 80-page decision.

Chuang’s ruling will allow healthcare providers to arrange for mifepristone to be mailed or delivered to patients during the public health emergency declared by the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone to be used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol, to end an early terminate pregnancy or manage a miscarriage.

“By causing certain patients to decide between forgoing or substantially delaying abortion care, or risking exposure to COVID-19 for themselves, their children, and family members, the In-Person Requirements present a serious burden to many abortion patients,” Chuang wrote.

Read the whole story here.

DCG

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

61.6 million unborn U.S. babies killed in abortions in 44 years

Amos 3:2,8; 4:11-12

Therefore I will punish you
for all your iniquities….
The Lord GOD speaks….

I brought upon you such upheaval
as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah:
you were like a brand plucked from the fire;
Yet you returned not to me,
says the LORD.

So now I will deal with you in my own way, O Israel!
and since I will deal thus with you,
prepare to meet your God, O Israel.

World Magazine reports, June 27, 2020, that according to a calculation by National Right to Life using data from the Guttmacher Institute, the total number of reported abortions in the United States between 1973 (when the U.S. Supreme Court forced states to legalize abortion) and 2017 is 61,628,584. 

Of the more than 61.6 million reported abortions:

  • 744,610 abortions in 1973 when the Supreme Court legalized abortion.
  • 1,608,600 abortions in 1990, the highest annual number of abortions since the 1973 Roe v. Wade SCOTUS decision
  • 1,312,990 abortions in 2000.
  • 1,102,670 abortions in 2010.
  • 899,500 abortions in 2015.
  • 862,320 abortions in 2017, a decline of almost 50% since 1990.

While the number of abortions had gone down since 1990, the total number of 61,628,584 reported abortions in the 44 years since 1973 is more than twice the population of Australia, near six times the population of Greece, and more than seven times the population of Switzerland.

Below are the countries whose total population is less than the 61.6 million U.S. abortions since 1973 (source: Wikipedia):

  1. South Africa (pop. 58,775,022)
  2. Tanzania (57,637,628)
  3. Myanmar (54,817,919)
  4. South Korea (51,780,579)
  5. Columbia (50,372,424)
  6. Kenya (47,564,296)
  7. Spain (47,329,981)
  8. Argentina (45,376,763)
  9. Algeria (43,000,000)
  10. Sudan (42,627,655)
  11. Ukraine (41,806,221)
  12. Uganda (41,590,300)
  13. Iraq (40,150,200)
  14. Poland (38,379,000)
  15. Canada (38,083,197)
  16. Morocco (35,942,525)
  17. Uzbekistan (34,269,199)
  18. Saudi Arabia (34,218,169)
  19. Peru (32,824,358)
  20. Malaysia (32,826,760)
  21. Afghanistan (32,225,560)
  22. Venezuela (32,219,521)
  23. Angola (31,127,674)
  24. Ghana (30,280,811)
  25. Mozambique (30,066,648)
  26. Nepal (29,996,478)
  27. Yemen (29,825,968)
  28. Cameroon (26,545,864)
  29. Madagascar (26,251,309)
  30. Ivory Coast (25,823,071)
  31. Australia (25,756,880)
  32. North Korea (25,450,000)
  33. Taiwan (23,596,493)
  34. Niger (22,314,743)
  35. Sri Lanka (21,803,000)
  36. Burkina Faso (21,510,181)
  37. Mali (20,250,833)
  38. Chile (19,458,310)
  39. Romania (19,405,156)
  40. Malawi (19,129,952)
  41. Kazakhstan (18,729,296)
  42. Zambia (17,885,422)
  43. Ecuador (17,516,888)
  44. Syria (17,500,657)
  45. Netherlands (17,482,181)
  46. Senegal (16,705,608)
  47. Guatemala (16,604,026)
  48. Chad (16,244,513)
  49. Somalia (15,893,219)
  50. Cambodia (15,288,489)
  51. Zimbabwe (15,159,624)
  52. South Sudan (12,778,250)
  53. Rwanda (12,374,397)
  54. Guinea (12,218,357)
  55. Benin (11,733,059)
  56. Tunisia (11,722,038)
  57. Haiti (11,577,779)
  58. Belgium (11,528,375)
  59. Bolivia (11,469,896)
  60. Cuba (11,193,470)
  61. Burundi (10,953,317)
  62. Greece (10,724,599)
  63. Jordan (10,713,832)
  64. Czech Republic (10,693,939)
  65. Dominican Republica (10,448,499)
  66. Sweden (10,345,449)
  67. Portugal (10,295,909)
  68. Azerbaijan (10,067,108)
  69. United Arab Emirates (9,890,400)
  70. Hungary (9,769,000)
  71. Belarus (9,397,800)
  72. Honduras (9,304,380)
  73. Israel (9,216,070)
  74. Tajikistan (9,127,000)
  75. Papua New Guinea (8,935,000)
  76. Austria (8,902,600)
  77. Switzerland (8,619,259)
  78. Sierra Leone (7,901,454)
  79. Togo (7,538,000)
  80. Paraguay (7,252,672)
  81. Laos (7,123,205)
  82. Serbia (6,963,764)
  83. Bulgaria (6,951,482)
  84. Libya (6,871,287)
  85. Lebanon (6,825,442)
  86. Kyrgyzstan (6,533,500)
  87. El Salvador (6,486,201)
  88. Nicaragua (6,460,411)
  89. Turkmenistan (6,031,187)
  90. Denmark (5,824,857)
  91. Singapore (5,703,600)
  92. Congo (5,518,092)
  93. Finland (5,498,027)
  94. Central African Repubic (5,496,011)
  95. Slovakia (5,457,873)
  96. Norway (5,372,355)
  97. Costa Rica ()
  98. New Zealand (5,008,365)
  99. Palestine (4,976,684)
  100. Ireland (4,921,500)
  101. Oman (4,645,249)
  102. Liberia (4,475,353)
  103. Kuwait (4,420,110)
  104. Panama (4,218,808)
  105. Mauritania (4,077,347)
  106. Croatia (4,076,246)
  107. Georgia (3,716,858)
  108. Uruguay (3,530,912)
  109. Eritrea (3,497,117)
  110. Mongolia (3,325,178)
  111. Bosnia and Herzegovina (3,301,000)
  112. Armenia (2,956,900)
  113. Albania (2,845,955)
  114. Qatar (2,795,484)
  115. Lithuania (2,793,353)
  116. Jamaica (2,726,667)
  117. Moldova (2,640,400)
  118. Namibia (2,458,936)
  119. Gambia (2,347,706)
  120. Botswana (2,338,851)
  121. Gabon (2,172,579)
  122. Slovenia (2,095,861)
  123. North Macedonia (2,077,132)
  124. Lesotho (2,007,201)
  125. Latvia (1,904,600)
  126. Kosovo (1,795,666)
  127. Guinea-Bissau (1,604,528)
  128. Bahrain (1,543,300)
  129. Equatorial Guinea (1,454,789)
  130. East Timor (1,387,149)
  131. and 51 more countries with population fewer than East Timor’s

You demon-possessed advocates of abortion must be so proud.

The smiling faces of evil

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

George Floyd. 3 Minutes of resisting arrest. The video Fake News didn’t want you to see?

 

Video footage the MSM fake news conveniently kept out of their “breaking news story” has surfaced  of George Floyd resisting arrest for around three minutes .

Would this have stopped the riots? No. Fake news had made their minds up.  They were going do their part at destroying the country.  They were sticking to the plan.

*”One of the most obvious ways to tell I’f a event could be faked is paying attention to the news release. It’s  a dead giveaway when you see all the networks releasing the same exact story, at the same time.”

This video just adds to the long list  of events that fake news got caught at “faking news”.

There you have it.  Floyd did indeed resist arrest.  The entire fake news complex lied to you, again.  They specifically said Floyd didn’t resist arrest.

This is just another example why I quit believing everything the news media puts out..  Some might think that’s a little extreme.  No. It’s  the only logical, smart solution.  The days of me saying “they lie sometimes but usually they are pretty honest”  were gone long ago.  If you say you can tell the difference simply by using your best judgement, all you are really doing is selecting what you feel comfortable with. That does not make it true.

People saw the video.  They saw Floyd die.. Somebody mentioned in the comment section in a prior post of mine.  Something along the lines that “it’s  going to take more than different time stamps to change my mind”.

Five simple points, out of many.

  1. MSM lies all the time
  2. “Floyd is dead because the video shows it.”  Yes, the video looks like someone got killed or died of something. .. I get it, you’re convinced.  Now go turn on your TV or watch your favorite movie on the internet.   Why do you watch what you are watching?  It’s because the character’s seem real.  A block buster movie only becomes a hit if the movie is good.  This requires the actors  being skilled enough to convince you the roles the play are real..  Seeing is no longer believing.   If you believe Floyd is dead because it was captured on video, then you have to believe everything in all movies/videos  are true.
  3. If we wanted to use a video deposition in court, most states require the date/time to be burned into the video at the time of recording.  If the date is off/time is off, they cannot be used in court.  All the videos  times were different..  Floyd videos should not be legit evidence in court.  *Time/ date can be faked in any video.  Even when time of recording is hurned into video.
  4. To convict, there cannot be a reasonable doubt.   Time/date or  anything  else that’s  seemd wrong with this event causes reasonable doubt.  Innocent until proven guilty.
  5. Reliability of source of video.

I use the MSM as leads.  Then I investigate the story myself. But to each their own.

Fake ot not , some have come out ahead because of Floyd’s death.

  • Floyd family got millions in donations. Fame and fortune.
  • Black LIves Matter seemed to grow in numbers.  They assaulted and killed police officers which continues at this very moment.  They ignore   black on black deaths., or any other death in the black community..  They’ve actually got people giving in to their demands..  Some are actually kneeling for them, because BLM expects it.  .  Yes, they have been successful proving racism and bigotry exist in America.  BlM being perhaps the most openly racist group to ever exist in America..
  • Let’s not forget the 35 million and more BLM has received  in donations..  Unfortunate for them,  the people handling their money, the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) has only spent  $200,000 of the money on bail money for protesters.  They haven’t  said where the rest of the money went.  MFF deleted the board members(which are almost all white) page on their site and they quit accepting donations.  They already admitted on Twitter that ” the donations are turned over to ACTBLUE.  ACTBLUE then give it to the democrats”.  That’s  because ACTBLUE is part of the Democrat party. Looks like the democrats hustled BLM.  Watch, BLM will still support democrats. Ok
  • Democrats have shown how much they love their voter base by allowing out of town rioters to destroy their cities, their  businesses, get assaulted, killed and have their whole lives destoyed.
  • Biden says Floyd is more important than MLK.
  • Science makes discovery that protesting will keep you safe from getting covid19 but attending church, working, etc, increases your chance to get the virus.
  • The first time in history that a transperson parent got to fight alongside their transchildren and transhgrandkids with their trans dog and trans bird. Take over American soil.  They did this through violence and   declared their own country.  Perhaps the #1 country of starving people because the homeless stole all the food the firds day.
  • The first time a unknown rapper declares himself the police after removing the police because they didn’t want police there.  He also declares himself to be leader of country by beating and who knows what.  Proving the people with guns win. Tupac  and biggie would be proud.
  • Floyd  so influential and important that he gets minute by minute coverage the day he is buried.  He gets second by second camera coverage from helicopter  of his car as it travels to his resting grounds. The man is treated like a Saint, even though he was a hardened thug who died while being arrested for committing a crime that is a violation of federal law , which can carry a sentence  of 20 years.
  • Police are getting replaced and now, just as I predicted, democrats are going after their weapons.
  • Muslims love the replacing the police with something like community police.  Perfect because to Muslims, community police is religion police or the morality police.  That gives them a chance to bring in Sharia  law.

Minneapolis is home to the largest population of Somali in the USA.  That means Muslim. You can be sure a Muslim controlled replacement for the police is ready to fill the spot.

I find it unusual that CUP FOODS is also the address of a Mosque.  Yes, they have a Mosque in the basement.  An “underground Mosque”. Now you know it’s  true.  They exist.

I mentioned earlier  about the video source being reliable. There is some evidence that the owner(from Palestine)of Cup Foods might have had some animosity toward the police.

That area of town is a hotspot for crime.  Cup Foods being a hotspot for drug trafficking.

The owners  son is a convicted felon who has been to prison. The business has been in trouble with the law in the past.  Both the owner and son have criminal records.

This document will explain the situation better than I.

 

CUP Foods, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, and its President Samir Hamaden Abumayyaleh, Relators, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent. C2-01-399, Court of Appeals Published, September 11, 2001.

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

C2-01-399

CUP Foods, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, and its President Samir Hamaden Abumayyaleh,

Relators,

vs.

City of Minneapolis,

Respondent.

Filed September 11, 2001

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded

G. Barry Anderson, Judge

City of Minneapolis

Docket No. 9-2110-12612-3

Ronald I. Meshbesher, Jonathan M. Peck, Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd., 1616 Park Avenue, Minneapolis, MN  55404 (for relators)

Jay M. Heffern, Minneapolis City Attorney, Scott Reeves, Assistant Minneapolis City Attorney, 300 Metropolitan Centre, 333 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, MN  55402 (for respondent)

Considered and decided by G. Barry Anderson, Presiding Judge, R.A. Randall, Judge, and Robert H. Schumacher, Judge.

S Y L L A B U S

If an agency adopts the findings and conclusions of an administrative law judge, but rejects or significantly deviates from the recommendations of that judge and does not make findings explaining the deviation, the decision is arbitrary and capricious, and the case should be remanded for the agency to make findings explaining its decision to deviate.

O P I N I O N

G. BARRY ANDERSON, Judge

Respondent city stayed revocation of relator’s business licenses subject to store closure for six months and compliance thereafter with several conditions.  Relator argues that respondent’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence and that the sanction was arbitrary and capricious.  Relator also argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ) abused her discretion by denying his motion to strike testimony concerning controlled drug buys.  We conclude that there is substantial evidence to support respondent city’s finding of good cause for adverse license action against relator.  In addition, because relator did not make a timely motion to strike, we conclude that the ALJ acted within her discretion by denying the motion.  But because respondent deviated from the ALJ’s recommendations when imposing its sanction, without making findings explaining the reasons for doing so, we reverse and remand.

FACTS

In 1989, relator Samir Abumayyaleh opened a convenience store at the northeast corner of 38th Street and Chicago Avenue South in Minneapolis.  The store sold groceries and the usual convenience items.  Eventually, relator added numerous goods and services to the store, including a delicatessen, cellular phone and pager sales, tobacco products, and off-sale 3.2 beer.

Respondent City of Minneapolis issued CUP Foods (Chicago Unbeatable Prices) four licenses: (1) grocery store; (2) food manufacturer; (3) tobacco dealer; and (4) off-sale 3.2 beer vendor.  Respondent first issued the licenses in 1989 and each is subject to annual renewal.  Relator’s family, including his father and two younger brothers, work at the store, but relator also employs other workers.  Relator’s younger brother Nabil, known as “Billy,” one of the store employees, has a prior felony conviction for auto theft.

CUP Foods is located in a high-crime area of Minneapolis and, not surprisingly, experienced problems with loitering and drug activity in and around the store.  In 1991, relator complained to respondent about the loitering problem, and at a city crime specialist’s recommendation, relator placed two yellow “no trespassing” signs outside his store.  Respondent conditioned relator’s licenses on reduced hours of operation.  On several occasions, however, the store remained open after the designated closing time.

In 1993, after receiving additional complaints about loitering and drug activity near CUP Foods, respondent scheduled a committee meeting to consider adverse license action.  As a result of the meeting, relator agreed to remove public pay phones, hire off-duty police officers for security, reduce hours of operation, hire older employees for evening shifts, report drug activity to police, and remove signs blocking store windows.  Relator understood that failure to comply with the agreed-on conditions could result in revocation, suspension, or non-renewal of his licenses.  Relator complied with the conditions, including the employment of off-duty police officers as security guards.  But approximately one-year later, relator discontinued their employment because of the cost and because “things got a lot better at the intersection.”

As time went on, however, the crime problem at 38th and Chicago became worse.  In 1996, neighborhood residents formed a task force to improve safety and reduce drug-dealing activity in the neighborhood.  In 1998, the number of complaints concerning CUP Foods prompted police community crime specialists to open a file on the store.  Crime-prevention specialists visited CUP Foods and relator signed a Minneapolis “no trespassing” affidavit and received two new “no trespassing” signs.  The specialists advised relator to call 911 to report trouble, and he and his employees did so.

On July 13, 1998, a shooting took place near CUP Foods.  Shortly thereafter, relator attended a task-force meeting and asked for a greater police presence at the intersection.  A few months later, two more shootings took place near CUP Foods.

Beginning in October 1998, police conducted surveillance of CUP Foods.  Police observed loitering and hand-to-hand exchanges outside the store and in the store entryway.  Using confidential informants, police made several “controlled buys” of either crack cocaine or apparent crack cocaine inside CUP Foods.

Based on the results of the controlled buys, police obtained a search warrant for CUP Foods and executed that warrant on November 18, 1998.  Police recovered: stolen cell phones; a bullet-proof vest; live ammunition; a stolen bicycle; ephedrine, an ingredient in methamphetamine; glass tubing; baggies of what appeared to be crack cocaine (but later proved to lack cocaine base); postal scales; and three firearms.  Police also observed bullet holes in a door.  The state charged Nabil Abumayyaleh with unlawful possession of a firearm, but later dismissed that charge.  Police did not link any of the stolen items to relator, and did not charge him with any crime.

Police continued to make controlled buys in CUP Foods during 1999.  On one occasion, the participants completed a transaction in plain view of Nabil Abumayyaleh as he worked as a cashier.  On November 9, 1999, a Minneapolis police officer recovered crack cocaine from a CUP Foods shelf during the course of answering a call reporting an armed man in the area.

In November 1999, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office commenced a nuisance-abatement proceeding against CUP Foods.  That proceeding was stayed pending the city’s resolution of appellant’s licensing issues because, on November 19, 1999, respondent filed a notice of hearing concerning all CUP Foods licenses.  Respondent filed amended notices on February 25, 2000, and again on March 27, 2000.

An ALJ conducted evidentiary hearings on March 28, 30, and 31, and on May 5 and 15, 2000.  Respondent presented testimony from police and neighbors, and argued for revocation of relator’s licenses.  Relator presented favorable testimony from neighbors and customers, testified to his own compliance with recommendations, and explained that he, too, sought to end the criminal activity near the intersection.

The ALJ concluded that respondent had shown good cause for taking adverse action against CUP Foods, but recommended that the city council consider placing conditions on CUP Foods licenses, rather than revoking the licenses outright.  On December 29, 2000, the Minneapolis City Council adopted the ALJ’s report but, rather than placing conditions on relator’s business licenses, it revoked all the licenses, stayed on the conditions that CUP Foods (1) close for six months and (2) take additional specified crime-prevention measures upon re-opening.  The council, however, waived 90 days of the closure period, upon relator’s payment of a $10,000 administrative fine.  The mayor approved the decision on January 4, 2001.  Relator now proceeds by writ of certiorari.

ISSUES

I.                    Was respondent city’s decision to stay revocation of relator’s business licenses, subject to conditions, a denial of due process, arbitrary and capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence?

II.                 Did the ALJ violate relator’s right to due process of law by denying relator the opportunity to cross-examine confidential informants who made controlled buys at CUP Foods?

ANALYSIS

I.

            Appellant first argues that respondent city’s decision to revoke his business licenses is arbitrary and capricious, is unreasonable, is irrational, and not supported by substantial evidence, and that it violates his due-process rights because neither relator nor his employees had direct knowledge that drug activity took place inside CUP Foods.

Generally, decisions of administrative agencies, including cities, enjoy a presumption of correctness and will be reversed only when they reflect an error of law or where the findings are arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence.  Cable Communications Bd. v. Nor-West Cable Communications P’ship,356 N.W.2d 658, 668 (Minn. 1984); see alsoMinn. Stat. § 14.69 (2000) (setting forth the scope of judicial review).

 Where the evidence is conflicting or more than one inference may be drawn from the evidence, findings must be upheld.  City of Minneapolis v. Richardson,307 Minn. 80, 88, 239 N.W.2d 197, 202 (1976).  If the agency engaged in reasoned decision-making, a reviewing court will affirm its decision even though the court may have reached another conclusion. State by Khalifa v. Hennepin County,420 N.W.2d 634, 639 (Minn. App. 1988), review denied (Minn. May 4, 1988). 

A.         Due Process

            Relator argues that respondent’s decision denies him “due process of law.”  To determine what process is due, this court first determines whether a property interest is implicated.  Humenansky v. Minnesota Bd. of Med. Exam’rs,525 N.W.2d 559, 566 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied(Minn. Feb. 14, 1995).  Relator correctly points out that he has a property interest in his business licenses.  See Bird v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety,375 N.W.2d 36, 42 (Minn. App. 1985) (finding property interest in automobile dealer’s license).  Our second inquiry requires weighing the particular interests involved. Humenansky,525 N.W.2d at 566. 

Sufficient due process generally requires reasonable notice and a hearing.  In re License of W. Side Pawn,587 N.W.2d 521, 522 (Minn. App. 1998), review denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 1999).  Although relator argues that he was denied due process, he does not allege that he was denied either reasonable notice or an opportunity to be heard.  The record shows relator received initial notice of the hearings approximately four months before the license proceedings, a five-day trial-type hearing, representation by counsel, an impartial decision-maker, and a decision based solely on the record.  This is sufficient to satisfy the due-process requirement.  See Humenansky,525 N.W.2d at 565 (describing the process due when property interests are implicated).

B.         Substantial Evidence

Relator argues that respondent violated his due-process rights because revocation

extinguishes [relator’s] property interest and deprives [relator] from making a living without a factual finding that either [relator] or any of his employees permitted, encouraged, or had any direct knowledge of the alleged controlled buys.

In essence, relator alleges that respondent lacked substantial evidence of “good cause” to take adverse license action against relator’s business.

 Substantial evidence, for the purpose of appellate review of an administrative agency’s decision, is: (1) such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; (2) more than a scintilla of evidence; (3) more than some evidence; (4) more than any evidence; and (5) evidence considered in its entirety.  In re Friedenson,574 N.W.2d 463, 467 (Minn. App. 1998) (citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr. 30, 1998).  We defer to the agency’s fact-finding process and it is the challenger’s burden to establish that the findings are not supported by the evidence.  In re Lakedale Tel. Co.,561 N.W.2d 550, 554 (Minn. App. 1997).  Unless manifestly unjust, inferences must be accepted even though it may appear that contrary inferences would be better supported by the record.  Id.  Thus, relator must show that the evidence, considered in its entirety, and drawing inferences in favor of the decision, is not substantial, and, therefore, does not adequately support respondent’s finding that good cause existed to take adverse action against his business licenses.

The Minneapolis Code of Ordinances provides that “[a]ny license granted under this chapter may be revoked by the mayor or the city council as in the city charter provided.”   Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances § 188.350 (1999).  The city charter provides:

Section 16.  Licenses May Be Revoked.  Any license issued by the authority of the City Council may be revoked by the City Council at any time upon proper notice and hearing for good cause * * * .

Minneapolis, Minn., City Charter ch. 4, § 16.

The ALJ’s memorandum explained that relator’s employment of his brother Nabil Abumayyaleh, a convicted felon, and the handguns found during the search of CUP Foods, did not warrant taking adverse license action against relator because relator legally employed his brother and legally possessed the handguns for protection.  Similarly, the ALJ found that, because respondent failed to link any of the stolen items recovered during execution of the 1998 search warrant to relator, that evidence alone did not support adverse license action.  Further, the ALJ found that the three shootings near CUP Foods had no connection to the store and were simply a “by-product of the gang violence that is prevalent in this south Minneapolis neighborhood.”

But respondent, through the testimony of police officers and neighbors, presented evidence of: (1) chronic loitering at CUP Foods; (2) numerous hand-to-hand exchanges, an indication of drug dealing, taking place in and outside the store; and (3) controlled drug buys inside the store.  Respondent also presented evidence that despite the earlier license conditions, the store’s windows remain obstructed by advertising, signs, and shelving, and that the lack of visibility inside the store hampers law-enforcement efforts.

For these reasons, the city council adopted the ALJ’s conclusion that

[respondent] has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that drug dealing and loitering have occurred on a frequent basis on and near CUP Foods’ premises.  * * * [Relator’s] failure or inability to prevent or meaningfully control the sale of drugs occurring inside his store constitutes good cause for taking adverse action against CUP Foods’ licenses. While [relator] testified that he routinely asks loiterers to leave, substantial credible testimony from neighborhood residents and police officers established that there is an ongoing pattern of loitering and drug dealing both inside the store and outside the store’s front entrance.  And, despite some measures taken by [relator] to increase visibility in his store, the record established that the majority of the store’s windows remain obstructed by shelving, advertisements, and other signage.  The inability to see into the store’s windows encourages loitering and criminal activity in general at CUP Foods.

Although there is no direct evidence that relator or his employees observed drug transactions, there is ample evidence, including the evidence of the controlled buys, that such transactions took place in and around CUP Foods and that relator knew that crime in and near the store was an ongoing problem.  Although relator made efforts to improve security and reduce crime, he failed to decrease the height of store shelves or remove window advertisements, and, until very recently, relator had abandoned the use of security guards.

Drawing inferences in favor of respondent city’s decision, as we must, and viewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the evidence, though hardly overwhelming, is reasonable, “more than a scintilla,” “more than some,” and “more than any” evidence.  The evidence, therefore, is substantial and supports the conclusion that respondent had “good cause” to take adverse license action against relator.[1] 

C.        Arbitrary and capricious

Relator also argues that the adverse license action is arbitrary and capricious.  Reviewing courts may reverse an agency’s decision if the decision is arbitrary or capricious.  Minn. Stat. § 14.69(f) (2000).  An agency decision is arbitrary and capricious if it is an exercise of the agency’s will, rather than its judgment, or if the decision is based on whim or is devoid of articulated reasons. Friedenson,574 N.W.2d at 467;Mammenga v. State Dept. of Human Servs.,442 N.W.2d 786, 789 (Minn. 1989).  “Where there is room for two opinions on the matter, [an agency’s choice of one course of] action is not arbitrary and capricious * * * .”  Friedenson,574 N.W.2d at 467 (citing Brown v. Wells,288 Minn. 468, 472, 181 N.W.2d 708, 711 (1970)).     

The problems at CUP Foods illustrate the collision between two important principles of United States jurisprudence: the reasonable public safety expectations of citizens and the preservation of private property rights, which, in this case, take the form of business licenses.

A city council may affirm, reject, or modify an ALJ’s findings or conclusions.  See Hymanson v. City of St. Paul,329 N.W.2d 324, 326-27 (Minn. 1983) (a city council may make new findings or decide contrary to the hearing examiner’s recommendations).   Despite this authority, when an agency significantly deviates from a reviewing authority’s conclusions, it must explain the deviation.  Beaty v. Minnesota Bd. of Teaching,354 N.W.2d 466, 472 (Minn. App. 1984).  Failure to do so “evidences the agency’s desire to exercise its will and not its judgment.”  Id.see also Burnett v. Stearns County Welfare Bd.,370 N.W.2d 452, 455 (Minn. App. 1985) (holding county welfare board acted arbitrarily and capriciously by rejecting without comment merit system council recommendation to grant relator a merit increase).  But see Friedenson,574 N.W.2d at 467-68 (holding revocation of relator’s medical license not arbitrary and capricious, even though board failed to explain its reasons for deviating from ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, because reviewing court was satisfied penalty was the product of “careful and prudent judgment”).  

Respondent adopted the ALJ’s findings, as well as the conclusions supported by those findings.  But respondent did not adopt the ALJ’s recommendations to place conditions on relator’s business licenses, and instead stayed revocation on the conditions that CUP Foods close for six months and, upon re-opening, comply with numerous crime-prevention measures.  Respondent significantly deviated from the ALJ’s recommendations without explaining why the ALJ’s recommendations were rejected or making additional findings to support this disposition.  At a minimum, a business owner with property rights in the form of government licenses is entitled to know the reasons for adverse action by the city council.  We therefore hold that the absence of such findings renders the respondent city’s decision arbitrary and capricious, and we reverse and remand for additional proceedings and to permit respondent to make appropriate findings explaining its decision.

We caution respondent, however, that any additional findings or conclusions it may adopt on remand, to explain its reasons for significantly deviating from the ALJ’s recommendations, must be limited to the issues raised in the earlier proceedings.  See Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County Bd. of Comm’rs, 617 N.W.2d 566, 580 (Minn. 2000); Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton, 513 N.W.2d 460, 463 (Minn. 1994) (reviewing board “must confine its inquiry to those issues raised in [the] earlier proceedings”); White Bear Rod & Gun Club v. City of Hugo, 388 N.W.2d 739, 742 (Minn. 1986) (city council not required to make formal findings but, at a minimum, must “‘have the reasons for its decision recorded or reduced to writing and in more than just a conclusory fashion’” (quotation omitted)). 

II.

            Relator also argues that the ALJ abused her discretion by denying relator’s motion to strike testimony concerning the confidential informants who completed “controlled buys” inside CUP Foods, contending that by failing to strike that testimony the ALJ denied him his right to confront the informants.  Evidentiary rulings in administrative proceedings are subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard.  See Lee v. Lee,459 N.W.2d 365, 369 (Minn. App. 1990) (applying abuse-of-discretion standard to appeal of evidentiary ruling on hearsay evidence made during an administrative child-support hearing conducted under Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act rules), review denied(Minn. Oct. 18, 1990).

During the license hearings, respondent’s counsel questioned Sherry Appledorn, the police officer who arranged the controlled buys, about her conversations with the confidential informants.  Relator’s counsel objected on hearsay grounds.  The ALJ sustained the objection, but permitted the officer to testify concerning matters within her own knowledge.  At the close of the hearings, relator moved to strike all testimony concerning the controlled buys on the basis that he was denied the right to confront the informants.  The ALJ ruled that the request was untimely.  Respondent argues that this court need not reach the issue of confrontation because relator’s motion to strike was untimely.  We agree.

The rule that an objection to the admission of evidence must be made at the time the evidence is offered is well established.  Eilola v. Oliver Iron Mining Co.,201 Minn. 77, 79, 275 N.W. 408, 409 (1937); see also Minn. R. Evid. 103(a)(1) (providing that there is no error unless an evidentiary ruling affects a substantial right of a party and a timely objection or motion to strike is made).  Although relator objected to out-of-court statements made by the informants as hearsay, relator did not (1) bring any motion to compel respondent to disclose the informants’ identities, even though the initial notice of hearing indicated that the controlled buys would be part of respondent’s evidence, or (2) object to the admission of Appledorn’s testimony concerning her knowledge of the controlled buys until the close of the hearing in May 2000, more than one month after she testified.  We therefore conclude that the ALJ acted within her discretion by denying relator’s motion to strike, and we decline to further address relator’s confrontation claims.

D E C I S I O N

Respondent’s conclusion that there is good cause to take adverse license action against relator is supported by substantial evidence.  Respondent’s decision to deviate from the sanctions recommended by the ALJ, however, is arbitrary and capricious because the deviations are significant and respondent did not make findings explaining its decision to deviate.  Finally, the ALJ did not abuse her discretion by denying relator’s motion to strike testimony concerning controlled drug buys because the motion was untimely.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

[1]Relator devotes more than three pages of his brief to a discussion of Saxon Coffee Shop, Inc. v. Boston Lic. Bd.,407 N.E.2d 311 (Mass. 1980).  In Saxon,a license-revocation action, criminal activity inside a store and the non-cooperation of the store’s management did not meet the substantial-evidence test.  Id at 319.  We reject Saxon’sreasoning because City of Mankato v. Mahony,542 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. App. 1996), suggests that a city may take adverse-license action in response to criminal activity if the licensee does not cooperate to prevent future violations.  Id. at 692 (reversing revocation of landlord’s license where landlord acted responsibly to prevent further violations of city noise codes). 

Source

Perhaps Floyd and the business was doing a drug deal.  When Floyd was on the ground, leaning against Dragon Wok, an officer leaned over and picked something up off the ground and put it in his pocket.  Maybe it was just a dime or something.

False Flag or not, the whole situation has the Democrats name written all over it.  It’s  only going to get worse until election  day.

Respectfully

Deplorable Patriot.

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0