THERE IS NOTHING LIKE THE LOVE OF AN ANIMAL. THEY WILL ALWAYS BE THERE FOR YOU NO MATTER WHAT AND WILL ALWAYS PUT YOU BEFORE THEMSELVES. THIS IS WHY IT ALWAYS HURTS TO MUCH TO SEE THEM GO KNOWING YOU DIDN’T DESERVE THEIR LOVE.
A tragic moment for the Houston Police Department has been memorialized in a photograph that is going viral. In it, a Houston police officer comforts one of the city’s police horses that was struck by a commercial vehicle.
The officer who had been riding the horse had to be taken to the hospital, so another mounted officer stayed with the animal during its last few minutes before being euthanized.
The police horse had been spooked and tossed her rider before stepping into traffic and being fatally hit by a vehicle, near downtown Houston.
The Animal Justice League issued a statement on social media saying:
“We’ve always said we support ALL animals and know the relationship with those animals & their person is an incredible thing. Yesterday, here in Houston, a police horse backed into the wheel well of a concrete truck and sustained a broken leg. While Officer Herrejon (Charlotte’s partner) was being transported by ambulance to the hospital, another officer, Ronald Curry laid her down and covered her face while she took her last breaths before being euthanized on the scene. We admire the heart & strength of this officer because as you know, when you lose an animal, to be with them during their last breath is a heartbreaking & tough thing to do. Our hearts go out to both officers & the HPD family. RIP Charlotte.”
The Houston Police Department also released a memorial statement on their Facebook page which read:
“It is with heavy hearts that we announce the death of Charlotte, an HPD Mounted Patrol horse, who died in the line of duty this morning in a motor vehicle accident. Charlotte came to HPD as an unstarted 2-year old Tennessee Walker from Oklahoma. She thrived in HPD Mounted Patrol’s barefoot and natural horsemanship programs. She passed her evaluation period with flying colors and was working the streets of Downtown Houston within a short time of being started under saddle. She loved her job and was always ready to go to work putting bad guys in jail or giving nuzzles to children. She served the citizens of Houston for 4 years. She will be missed.” READ MORE
HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP
“Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance.
Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.”
Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump.
Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon.
“Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.”
Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday.
The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.”
But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why?
At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime.
“The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained:
For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code.
However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct.
A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.”
However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him.
. Obama’s Iran nuke deal
Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server
Obama IRS targets conservatives
Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters
Obamacare & Obama’s false promises
Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order
Operation Fast & Furious
5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl
‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session
Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval
Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law
Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act
Illegally conducting war against Libya
NSA: Spying on Americans
Muslim Brotherhood ties
Solyndra and the lost $535 million
Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress
Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers
Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’