Porno quietly came up in the back

Видео

Porno quietly came up in the back

Фото

Porno quietly came up in the back

Не удалось загрузить интерактивные субтитры. В данный момент эта функция недоступна. Повторите попытку позже. Oh the irony. In 2010, Obama addresses the middle class and informs Republicans that they can come along for the ride but they must sit in the back. Fast forward to 2016 and the Republicans are now driving. http://www.absentvote.com/caucus/back...

cause I just came up. good drugs in my cup. I don`t wanna wait now, But I know you gonna make me. Who you wanna hate now? All the hate don`t phase me. All the money that I make now, I`ll never let it change me.

Oil prices are up more than 20% from their recent low, which is technically a bull market even if investors aren`t all that bullish on crude these days. Oil prices burst out of the gate this week, rising more than 3% on Monday. That rally pushed the U.S. oil benchmark, WTI, up to more than $52 per barrel, while the global benchmark, Brent, rose above $59 per barrel. For WTI, it was the highest close in five months, while Brent hit its best level since July 2015. What`s noteworthy about these moves is that they pushed oil 20% above its bottom in June, which means crude is now officially in bull market territory. As I suspected they might , three factors fueled that rapid recovery: Sinking oil inventories , accelerating demand growth , and slowing shale supply growth . Those same catalysts could continue to push oil higher, especially if OPEC remains steadfast in its commitment to keep a lid on output. That said, while the market is pinning its hopes on OPEC, the wild card for higher prices is shale, which has become the new swing producer. Oil market fundamentals have rapidly improved over the past few months. According to the latest report from the International Energy Agency, oil demand grew by a much stronger-than-expected 2.3 million barrels per day last quarter, which is up 2.4% year over year. That led the IEA to upwardly revise its growth estimate for the full year. Additionally, global oil supplies fell last month due to unplanned outages and scheduled maintenance. One of the other drivers was continued high compliance by OPEC on its pledged production cut, which has averaged 86% for the year. Add to that a slowdown in shale production growth as well as some turmoil in Libya, and the oil market cut even deeper into its inventory overhang. Those stockpiles had fallen to only 35 million barrels above the five-year average versus the 219 million barrels it was above that mark in the previous month. As mentioned, another factor driving crude`s quiet rally has been some discipline from shale drillers. With crude slipping into the $40s, several drillers announced plans to curb their activities in recent months. The Eagle Ford Shale`s Sanchez Energy ( NYSE:SN ), for example, announced in July that "given the challenged current oil and gas price environment," it would reduce its 2018 capital budget by $75 million-$100 million. One result of that budget cut was that Sanchez Energy would decrease its rig count this year, cutting it from the eight that were running at the time down to five by the end of September. Furthermore, Sanchez would slow down the pace of its well completions, which would push production out until 2018. Meanwhile, the Permian Basin`s Pioneer Natural Resources ( NYSE:PXD ) tapped the brakes on its 2017 plans after running into some drilling issues. Pioneer chose "not to accelerate activity in order to catch up in the second half, especially in light of the current commodity price environment." Instead, it cut $100 million from its drilling budget and would defer 30 wells into 2018. As a result, Pioneer`s production would grow closer to the low end of its 15% to 18% guidance range. In addition to trimming spending to keep it aligned with cash flow, some larger drillers are allocating capital to buybacks instead of more wells. Anadarko Petroleum ( NYSE:APC ), for example, recently announced a $2.5 billion buyback. The company felt that the repurchase was a "very attractive use" of its cash because it could retire about 10% of its outstanding shares. That would enable Anadarko to accelerate its production growth on a per-share basis without adding any more oil to a still-saturated market. If producers continue to exercise restraint and chose buybacks or balance sheet improvements over production growth, then it`s possible that the rally in the oil market can continue. However, if shale drillers quickly reaccelerate, it could keep a tight lid on prices. The oil market has had its share of false starts over the past couple of years, so it`s no surprise that the recent bull run has practically gone unnoticed by investors. In fact, Pioneer and Sanchez have seen their stocks drop 6% and 25%, respectively, even as crude has powered higher over the past three months. That said, the fact that bigger drillers like Anadarko are starting to turn to buybacks suggests that producers plan to be more disciplined this time around. If that continues, and OPEC doesn`t waver on its commitment, the market could continue quietly moving higher, and should eventually take prudent producers up with it. Matthew DiLallo has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy . Matthew is a Senior Energy and Materials Specialist with The Motley Fool. He graduated from the Liberty University with a degree in Biblical Studies and a Masters of Business Administration. You can follow him on Twitter for the latest news and analysis of the energy and materials industries: Follow @matthewdilallo

In many ways, we were an ordinary family – mum, dad, two kids, a Volvo in the drive.  And in some ways we weren’t so ordinary. As a ship’s engineer, my husband Daniel worked away from home for up to four months at a time. But I never for a moment dreamt that we were extraordinary – until It started out fine, that Tuesday in December 1996. Our younger daughter, Claire, 13, was at school, and I was looking forward to spending some time with Tamsin, who had just broken up for the holidays. At 15, she was a weekly boarder at a specialist school for high-ability dyslexics. do. That was when the first hint of discord arose. Tamsin and I squabbled, like all mothers and daughters. But that day she was impervious to reasoned argument. She began making hurtful personal attacks on her father and me, something she had never done. At bedtimewe kissed goodnight, but for the first time we parted with a coolness between us. The following evening, I was in the living room when she burst in, flung a piece of paper at me and stormed out. ‘I have to leave or he has to,’ she had written. ‘And you seem to need him. And f*** you, you probably won’t believe me anyway.’ She was talking about her father – telling me that he had been sexually abusing her for the past five years. In the seconds it took me to absorb her words, my world came tumbling down. I found her down the road with her dog. ‘Come home and tell me about it,’ I begged. She looked into my eyes and must have been reassured by what she saw. ‘He won’t leave me alone,’ she cried. ‘He’s always feeling me up. He brushes against my breasts so I know it’s not accidental, but he could persuade someone else it was.’ Hope blossomed in my mind. Maybe it was just a misunderstanding, an over-tactile father who would have to learn to respect Tears were falling from my eyes as I looked up the number for social services and picked up the phone. I just knew I had to do the Daniel and I had been married for 18 years. I was 27 when we met, working as a medical photographer; he was a year older and at college, studying for his Second Engineer’s certificate. He was tall and slim with auburn hair and blue-grey eyes and a full beard and moustache. And he was gentle, laid-back – all the things I wasn’t. Within a week, I had decided he was the man with whom I wanted to spend the rest of my life. We married the following year. without them. Tamsin was conceived two years after our wedding, and Claire came along two and a half years after that. As it turned out, I loved being a mother and Daniel was good with the girls as babies. But as they grew up, he changed. His own parents had been authoritarian, and not reluctant to use a belt to hit their children. He, too, resorted to smacking and violence. One incident in particular stands out. When the girls were seven and four, I noticed ‘fingertip’ bruising on Claire’s arm. I really went for Daniel, threatening to kick him out if he couldn’t control his temper. He was angry with me for taking him to task; but when he realised I was serious, he backed down and apologised. Over and over again, we talked about what was reasonable behaviour and over and over he agreed with me. But his efforts to improve never lasted long. Why did I stay with him if things were so bad? Well, they weren’t bad all the time. Mostly, we had a good family life. I knew the harm that divorce causes to children. I still loved Daniel and I thought we could make it work. Until that day. Daniel was in the Far East when Tamsin wrote her devastating note. Social services set up an appointment for the following Monday. Meanwhile, I had to address another horrible thought. Gently, I asked Claire if her dad had ever touched her. ‘He used to come and give me back rubs,’ she replied. ‘But I liked that…’ ‘Nothing else?’ I asked. ‘He asked me to take off my T-shirt, but I just said no. And once he tried to give me a tummy rub, but I wouldn’t let him.’ It was becoming clearer now. Claire has always been an upfront child. Whenever anything was worrying her, she would come and tell me. If only Tamsin had been the same. I’m not going to describe Tamsin’s statement to social services. Listening to her engraved pictures on my mind which I still have trouble banishing today. The police also took statements and arranged a medical examination. Several weeks later, Daniel was arrested as he stepped off a flight from Jakarta. DC Barbara White from the sexual offences unit called later to tell me: ‘He’s admitted everything. It’s a very credible confession. He wants me to tell you that he’s never raped Tamsin, and he’s never been unfaithful to you with anyone else.’ I cried my eyes out. Even though I was convinced Tamsin had been telling the truth, still a tiny part of me had hoped it was all a mistake. Daniel was bailed, with strict conditions not to approach either Tamsin or me. I had imagined that he would be feeling crushed and placatory. I was soon to discover how little I knew him. Within a few days, a letter from him arrived informing me that his mother was bitter that I had not kept our troubles ‘within the family’. So that was it. I was to be blamed for reporting the abuse. This was my first experience of the denial which abusers use to protect themselves from acknowledging the harm they have caused. Who is protected by dealing with such matters within the family? Only the abuser. For the sexual assault on his daughter, Daniel was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment and placed on the Sex Offenders Register for five years. The case took ten months to come to court and was finally heard in October 1997. When people asked me that year how I was coping, I said I had pencilled in a nervous breakdown for November. In the event, it didn’t happen. I didn’t have the time. Tamsin needed all my energy. Tamsin went downhill quickly. The first signs were strange attacks, which she called freakies. They are difficult to describe. Her body was there, but the rational person that was Tamsin disappeared. Instead there was a frightened creature which threw itself at walls and on the floor, and scratched itself incessantly. I spent many evenings desperately holding her hands to stop her scratching out her eyes until the prescribed tranquilliser could take effect. For a while, she underwent counselling and we got a brief glimpse of the old Tamsin – a normal teenager full of fun and laughter. But then she went downhill again. Two years after she first disclosed the abuse, she was admitted to a psychiatric hospital, where nurses found her scraping away at her wrist with a knife. When they took the knife away, she continued to scratch with her nails. She talked about hearing bad voices – the Doctors, she called them. One night, after she was discharged, I found her shaving the skin off the back of her hand with a razor. ‘Don’t be angry with me,’ she begged. ‘I didn’t want to do it. It was the Doctors; they made me!’ For six desperately anxious months, we worried that Tamsin was schizophrenic. But psychiatrists eventually concluded that she had been suffering from a neurotic, rather than psychotic illness. As new medication began to work, life calmed down and there were no more voices or self-harming. It was by no means the beginning of the end I, too, underwent counselling to unravel my confused feelings. There have been those who, on hearing our story, have expressed amazement that I had just accepted Tamsin’s word when she told me her father had been abusing her, without first giving Daniel a chance to have his say. I can’t explain it. Partly it was because I knew from reading about the subject in newspapers and magazines that children seldom, if ever, lie about abuse. Partly it was because I knew that Tamsin was a truthful person. But mostly it was that somewhere deep inside I had known instinctively that she was telling the truth. Afterwards, odd bits of behaviour and events began to click into place. One of the difficulties when a relationship ends abruptly is that there is no proper closure. I never got the chance to say goodbye to Daniel. People didn’t expect me to grieve for him because of what he’d done; but this was the man with whom I had spent half my life. I came to understand that without grief there can be no final acceptance. Another insight was the realisation that the pain of Daniel’s betrayal will never go away. Again the answer is acceptance, because without acceptance nothing changes. Daniel served six months of his sentence. Our only contact with him since has been through solicitors. Today I can look more objectively at our experiences. When Tamsin revealed the abuse, some friends found it hard to accept. Daniel doesn’t look peculiar or behave in a peculiar way. He was on the Playing Field Committee in our village; he was asked to be a steward in our church. Surely he can’t be a paedophile? Surely it must have been a misunderstanding? At the heart of this attitude is denial. To open yourself to the knowledge of what an abuser has done is hard. Much easier to think of it as a mistake for which no one should suffer. Tamsin has had the most horrendous time. Anyone who understands about self-harming knows that physical pain is easier to cope with than mental pain. At 27, she is still extremely anxious all the time. She has not worked since leaving school and only now is she well enough to attend college, where she is studying horse management. Like most abused kids, she has been through a period of promiscuity. You’d think that abused kids would want nothing more to do with sex; but the fact is, they do not know, have not experienced, any other way of relating to men. Child sex abusers do not believe that what they do is wrong. They convince themselves that the child wants it to happen as much as they do; indeed, it is not uncommon for them to blame the child for leading them on. It is in this denial that the danger to other children lies. If an abuser does not believe that what he does is harmful, he has no reason not to do it again. Of course, we as a society are also in denial. We warn our children about ‘stranger danger’, but the truth is that the vast majority of abused children are abused by relatives or close friends. We would much rather objectify offenders and think of them as shadowy figures, totally unlike those we know. Until we stop burying our heads in the sand nothing will change. This is the bottom line. And one abused child is one too many. This is an edited extract from How Could He Do It? by Emma Charles (Preface Publishing, £12.99). To order a copy post-free, call the YOU Bookshop on 0845 606 4204 or visit you-bookshop.co.uk

Since returning to the tour this September, Bencic has won 28 of 31 matches and four of the seven tournaments she’s played. (AP) It’s been one of the most unfortunate stories in recent memory—after breaking the Top 10 as an 18-year-old,  Belinda Bencic  was almost immediately hit with two big injuries, first a back injury that sidelined her for two months in 2016 and then a left wrist injury that required surgery and kept her out for five months in 2017. Having once been as high as No. 7, she fell as low as No. 318 this September. But in the last three months, Bencic has completely flipped that script. Since returning to the tour this September, she’s won 28 of 31 matches and four of the seven tournaments she’s played, picking up two titles at the WTA 125K Series level (Hua Hin and Taipei) and two ITF Circuit titles (St. Petersburg and Dubai, which are among the biggest ITF Circuit events). Her win in Dubai this past weekend, where she beat fellow injury-returnee Ajla Tomljanovic for the title, pushed her up to No. 74 in the world, a far cry from the No. 318 she came back to the tour as. Still just 20 years old, could the talented young Swiss be primed for another run to the top of the game in 2018? If her past accomplishments are anything to go by, the answer is probably yes. Here are a few reminders of what she’s already done in her career—first, when she made it all the way to her first Grand Slam quarterfinal at the US Open in 2014, when she was just 17 years old: Then there was her first WTA title at the Premier event in Eastbourne in 2015, when she took out one of the most accomplished grass-court players on the tour—Agnieszka Radwanska—in the final: And then what’s been largely considered her crowning achievement—not just winning the biggest title of her career at the Premier 5 event in Toronto in 2015, but stunning Serena Williams along the way. Williams wasn’t just World No. 1 at the time, she had also won the last four Grand Slams in a row: Can the former World No. 7 get back to her previous heights in 2018? We’ll certainly find out soon.

For months, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have privately counseled their more militant members to forswear talk of impeaching President Trump, telling them the political support for such a step simply doesn’t exist in the GOP-controlled Congress. But 25 House Democrats, including the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, are now pushing an equally radical alternative: They are backing a bill that would create a congressional “oversight” commission that could declare the president incapacitated, leading to his removal from office under the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution . At 12:56 p.m. Thursday, barely four hours after Trump tweeted attacks against MSNBC cable host Mika Brzezinski in crude, personal terms, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the chief sponsor of the bill, sent out an email to his colleagues, urging them to get behind the measure, writing it was of “enduring importance to the security of our nation.” “In case of emergency, break glass,” Raskin told Yahoo News in an interview. “If you look at the record of things that have happened since January, it is truly a bizarre litany of events and outbursts.” Asked if Trump’s latest tweets attacking Brzezinski and her co-host Joe Scarborough — which were roundly condemned by members of both parties as beneath the dignity of his office — strengthened the grounds for invoking the 25th Amendment, Raskin replied: “I assume every human being is allowed one or two errant and seemingly deranged tweets. The question is whether you have a sustained pattern of behavior that indicates something is seriously wrong.” After Trump’s Thursday morning tweets, four more Democrats signed on to Raskin’s bill, his office said Friday. (Brzezinski and Scarborough’s response to Trump’s tweets ran in today’s Washington Post under the headline, “ The President is not well .” White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended Trump’s tweets Thursday, saying he “ fights fire with fire .”) To be sure, even Raskin acknowledges Congress and the country are in largely uncharted waters. The 25th Amendment was adopted in 1967 in response to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and past presidential medical crises — including the heart attacks of Dwight Eisenhower and the illnesses of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson — to deal with instances where presidents become incapacitated and unable to perform the duties of their office. One of its provisions, known as Section 4, empowers the vice president along with a majority of the Cabinet to make a determination that a president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties” of the office, and then provide it in writing to Congress, resulting in the president’s removal. It’s a step that has never been taken. But Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, has seized on some largely overlooked language in Section 4 as the basis for his bill. It turns out it doesn’t have to be the Cabinet that makes a finding of presidential incapacity. The section also permits “such other body as Congress may by law provide” — along with the vice president — to reach the same conclusion. Yet in the 50 years since the 25th Amendment took effect, Congress has never set up such a body. Raskin’s bill would do so. It calls for the creation of an “Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity.” The commission would be a nonpartisan panel appointed by congressional leaders composed of four physicians, four psychiatrists and three others — such as former presidents, vice presidents or other former senior U.S. government officials. The commission, if directed by Congress through a concurrent resolution, would be empowered to conduct an examination of the president “to determine whether the president is incapacitated, either mentally or physically.” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., speaks at the “March for Truth” protest in Washington, D.C., June 3. (Photo: Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images) The 25th Amendment itself says nothing about the guidelines for making such a determination, much less what kinds of perceived mental illnesses would make a president unable to perform his duties. But Raskin, who first introduced his bill in April, said that he’s been getting increased interest in the legislation among colleagues, including Republicans who have privately approached him about it on the House floor. “I’ve had tons of inquiries, and lots of colleagues have been talking to me about it,” he said. “I’m convinced most Americans believe we are living in a very strange reality. … The question is, what are the escape routes we have, and the 25th Amendment is one of them.” Raskin’s bill so far has been quietly picking up support in the Democratic caucus. Among the co-sponsors who have signed are Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee (and the only member of Congress who was around when the 25th Amendment was enacted), and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., the former chair of the Democratic National Committee. But despite some talk of the 25th Amendment option in conservative circles — New York Times columnist Ross Douthat recently urged that it be considered and National Review contributing editor Andrew McCarthy tweeted about it Thursday — so far no Republican members of Congress have signed on to the idea. “It’s really a political decision,” said Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., who has also co-sponsored Raskin’s bill. While many of his GOP colleagues are, in the privacy of the House cloakroom, “shaking their heads” and “embarrassed” by the president, “they can’t say anything publicly” given the core support Trump has so far retained among their base, he said. Indeed, in some respects, the political obstacles to executing the 25th Amendment are even greater than impeachment, notes Joel K. Goldstein, a professor of law at St. Louis University. Under its provisions, if a president challenged a finding of incapacity and demanded that he or she be reinstalled in office, it would require two-thirds of both chambers to block the commander in chief from doing so. (By contrast, it only takes a majority of the House to impeach a president, although two thirds of the Senate must vote to convict and remove the president.) Moreover, as Goldstein notes, even if Congress were to create the body called for in Raskin’s bill, it couldn’t act to declare the president incapacitated without the concurrence of the vice president. That means Vice President Mike Pence could effectively block any move to invoke the 25th Amendment option. “The vice president is a necessary party. He effectively has a veto,” said Goldstein. “He’s a deal breaker.” Still, Raskin is undeterred. “The question is, where are we going to be six months, 12 months, 18 months from now? The presidency is considered extremely stressful for people with the strongest mental health. We need to be prepared for all eventualities.” Read more from Yahoo News:

Leave a comment