October 31, 2016
In light of Hillary's troubles, I profer a prediction as to how she will address this. Look for an accusation of forcible rape against Donald Trump - quite possibly by a minor - in the next week.
It may be the only way to turn the page on the scandals that are threatening to finsih her as a candidate.
In the incestuous relationship between Democrats and the mainstream media there is a revolving door where political operatives move into the roll of "journalist" and move back out to hatchet man. George stephanopoulis is a prime example, although there are plenty more; tingly legged Chris Matthews worked for Ed Muskie, Jimmy Carter, and Tip O'Neill before becoming a journalist. The late Tim Russert, former host of NBC's Meet the Press and Washington bureau chief, worked for both Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Mario Cuomo, both Democrats.
And then there is Donna Brazille.
Donna Brazille worked as a political consultant who ran Al Gore's losing campaign in 2000. She is on The Situation Room on CNN. She has never fully turned journalist, but instead remains very active as an open Democrat (rather than pretending she's neutral as the rest of the media Dems.)
Well, it turns out she was giving Hillary Clinton debate questions.
Gateway Pundit has the scoop:
"Thanks to Wikileaks we now know current DNC Chair Donna Brazile admitted to releasing additional debate questions to the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Brazile sent several questions to the Clinton campaign early:
"I’ll send a few more.”
It has also come to light that CNN was sharing poll results with the Clinton camp before releasing them to the public.
The American media is worse than Pravda in the old USSR; at least there everyone knew they were full of it. How can we have an "unbiased" media when it is full of Democrat operatives?
Writing at American Thinker Peggy Ryan discusses the problems of electronic vote fraud. Ms. Ryan states:
"Donald Trump's enemies (government) will do anything to stop him, so I doubt they'd refrain from tampering with the voting machine's code. Nah! As sure as Hillary's taking a nap right now, they've got their evil, corrupt fingerprints all over these machines.
Okay, it would be naive to rule out vote-tampering, but what can we do to protect our ballot? Sounds like they have a lock, right? Well, if we continue on our present course, yes, they'll at least have a good shot at success. In reported vote-switching incidents to date, a person votes a straight Republican ticket, and before he posts that vote, magic circus, it flips to Clinton-Kaine at the top of the ticket. The voter then reports the problem to a poll worker, who assists to get the correct ballot accepted. Then the process moves on to the next voter"
The Democrats and their media allies insist there is no vote fraud in the U.S. - zero, nada, the null set. And yet we know there have been problems with vote flipping computers, and that somebody hacked the computer systems in several states. We also know Mr. Obama won over a hundred percent of the vote in several precincts in Pennsylvania last election, making him the only person capable of getting better than a perfect vote. No vote fraud? Rigtht.
Here is what I fear could happen. If Donald Trump looks to win this despite polls showing him behind, I suspect Hillary and Obama will challenge this by claiming the Russians hacked our voting system and stole the election for Trump. They will claim the election is so tainted that it cannot be allowed to stand - and calls will be made to ignore the election results. Either Mr. Obama will agree to stay on "for the good of the country" until a new vote with a secure system can be taken OR the election will be sent to the House of Representatives where Paul Ryan will cut a deal to crown Hillary President - likely for a minor tax cut or some such. Either way, I suspect the plan is progressing at this point. They have already tried to blame the Russians for the Hillary e-mail scandals, and suspending the election results will not be hard in the event of chaos on election night.
And don't expect help from the Supreme Court; it's now a purely partisan body and a stalemate will unquestionably result if this goes before them. A stalemate throws the issue back to lower courts - which will undoubtedly be an Obama appointed judge.
Buckle up, guys; this is going to be a wild ride.
A recent bill to authorize the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty was defeated in the Senate on a largely partisan vote October 18. No less than 46 Democrats and independents voted for the treaty, which would override the U.S. Constitution and allow gun control and confiscation inside the U.S. The Senators who voted to eliminate the Constitution are as follows:
Kaine (D-VA) DEMMOCRATIC VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
Gun registration and control are at the core of the treaty. According to Joe Wolverton II at the New American:
Specifically, the Chair's Summary calls for "strengthening 3D printing regulations in the context of 3D weapon printing,” for "ensuring export licenses [are] in place for 3D printers,” for drawing global attention to "the need to pay attention to the resale of such printers,” and for "strengthening controls over 3D printing technology.”
"Paragraph 33 of the Chair’s Summary of the meeting calls for urgent tracking of civilian-owned firearms, recommending that manufacturers be forced by the UN to install "RFID and biometric technologies in limiting the access to the weapon to authorized users only,” with authorized users defined as state actors (UN member nations).
That’s right. As part of the Programme of Action (the foundation upon which the Arms Trade Treaty is built — a treaty nearly half of the U.S. Senate supports), the United States has committed to passing legislation that will require domestic firearms and ammunition manufacturers to equip their products with RFID chips and biometric technologies that will help the government slowly but surely disarm civilians.
That’s not all. At the end of that paragraph, the UN suggests governments look into combining RFID chips, biometrics, with GPS tracking technologies to be sure to prevent regular people from getting their hands on guns."
And according toJoe Wolverton and the Millennium Report:
• Article 2 of the treaty defines the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions. The right to own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer all means of armed resistance, including handguns, is denied to civilians by this section of the Arms Trade Treaty.
• Article 3 places the "ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2” within the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions, as well.
• Article 4 rounds out the regulations, also placing all "parts and components” of weapons within the scheme.
• Perhaps the most immediate threat to the rights of gun owners in the Arms Trade Treaty is found in Article 5. Under the title of "General Implementation,” Article 5 mandates that all countries participating in the treaty "shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list.” This list should "apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.”
• Article 12 adds to the record-keeping requirement, mandating that the list include "the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms,” as well as the identity of the "end users” of these items.• Finally, the agreement demands that national governments take "appropriate measures” to enforce the terms of the treaty, including civilian disarmament. If these countries can’t get this done on their own, however, Article 16 provides for UN assistance, specifically including help with the enforcement of "stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes.” In fact, a "voluntary trust fund” will be established to assist those countries that need help from UN peacekeepers or other regional forces to disarm their citizens
This is in direct conflict with the Second Amendment, but treaties have the force of law in the U.S. and can in some cases override the Constitution (a little known fact). In essence these traitors voted to suspend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Without the protections afforded by the Constitution we become an empire, ruled by force of arms. America has become the very thing we fought the Cold War to stop.
October 30, 2016
First, a North Carolina epidemiologist raised alarms about barely detectable 0.07 parts per billion chromium in some of the state’s waters. Then Erin Brockovich got involved, along with the hyper-activist Environmental Working Group. Then the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights weighed in, attempting to turn the matter into a civil rights issue. But its report includes a solid 30-page dissent that demolishes the Commission’s findings and recommendations. Now even the NC governor’s race is battling over these issues.
My article exposes the junk science and junk civil rights, and explains how the proposed non-solutions to this imaginary problem will bring no health or environment benefits – but will send electricity prices skyrocketing and create REAL job, health and civil rights problems for numerous poor and minority families.
The chemicals anxiety machine
Candidates, Civil Rights Commission and greens use phony health threats to scare voters
Rank politics and baseless health scares are driving anxiety, North Carolina election campaigns, civil rights claims and plans for class action lawsuits, all of which could bring electricity rate hikes that will cause real job, health and civil rights problems for families – for no health or environmental benefits.
As I noted in an earlier article, North Carolina state toxicologist Ken Rudo has publicly disagreed with the US Environmental Protection Agency and other NC "tox” experts, who say levels of chromium-6 detected in some NC waters are safe. The contaminant comes from coal ash deposits and other sources.
Not surprisingly, Erin Brockovich has sided with Dr. Rudo. She became rich and famous by promoting "toxic chromium” scares, co-authored a recent letter with the radical Environmental Working Group raising Cr-6 alarms, and will speak on election eve at Catawba College in NC to stir things up still further.
The issue is also playing prominently in the NC gubernatorial campaign. Democrat candidate Roy Cooper says well water is unsafe and is hammering the Duke Energy power company for creating the deposits and sitting Governor Pat McCrory (who once worked for Duke) for rescinding a "do not drink” order.
Not to be outdone, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) claims chromium-6 is seeping out of ash deposits, contaminating drinking water supplies and "disproportionately affecting” minority families. Communities near "waste disposal” and "industrial” facilities have "extremely high” rates of cancer, heart and other health issues, a Commission report asserts, lumping those facilities in with coal ash sites.
The contaminants get into well water, drinking water, and even "recreational waters” that are "heavily used for fishing, boating and swimming,” the Commission report states. The problem "extends for miles” around communities near coal ash deposits, which are "disproportionately located in low-income and minority communities,” making this a civil rights issue that government must address.
The USCCR wants the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and NC Department of Environmental Quality to examine the civil rights implications, classify coal ash as a "hazardous waste,” force utility companies to relocate deposits, and compensate people for healthcare expenses and land devaluations.
A persuasive and well-documented dissent by Commissioner Gail Heriot (pages 113-142 of the report) demolishes the USCCR assertions. Her analysis deserves widespread attention both on environmental and civil rights matters, and on how some people deliberately use these issues to generate racial animosity.
No one on the Commission, she notes, has any expertise in waste disposal, toxicology, epidemiology or medicine, and thus had no business issuing pronouncements on coal ash toxicity. There is "strong” evidence that coal ash facilities "are not disproportionately located” near racial minorities. Lumping coal ash together with other facilities that involve dangerous chemicals, and then blaming coal ash, is invalid.
Ms. Heriot is also perturbed that USCCR Chairman Martin Castro suggested that NC communities are bring "victimized by environmental racism.” These kinds of "incendiary allegations” are inappropriate, she says; they "fan the flames of racial resentment” based on insufficient or false information.
Interestingly, tests in 2014 consistently found Cr-6 in city water supplies above 0.07 parts per billion, unnecessarily triggering "do not drink” advisories to some well water users, the Greensboro News & Record reported. However, May 2016 tests could not even detect the chemical, the paper noted.
The 0.07 ppb standard is equivalent to 7 seconds in 3,300 years. The EPA and NCDEQ safety standard for Cr-6 in drinking water is 100 ppb, and a 2012 scientific paper in the Journal of Applied Toxicology concluded that regularly drinking water with 210 ppb poses no health or cancer risks. That safe, non-carcinogenic 210 ppb level is 3,000 times higher than the 0.07 ppb "trigger warning” level. http://www.investors.com/epa-clean-power-plan-will-cause-minorities-to-lose-jobs-and-income/?fromcampaign=1
There is no evidence that Cr-6 levels found in U.S. drinking water cause any of the laundry list of health problems presented by the USCCR. For the EWG to say barely detectable 0.02 ppb levels are dangerous and carcinogenic in water that 218 million Americans drink every day is disingenuous and incendiary. Moreover, coal ash is mostly inert, with most metallic components in tiny amounts and/or bonded tightly in crystalline (glassy) sand particles. Very little leaches out. Moreover, chromium-6 occurs naturally in rocks and soils throughout the USA. It is not solely a byproduct of coal burning or industrial processes.
Saying grave health concerns arise from such minimal Cr-6 levels as 0.02 or 0.07 ppb in drinking water is groundless; saying health impacts arise from its its presence in recreational waters is absurd. Indeed, Ohio’s EPA director dismisses the EWG claims as "scare tactics” to raise money.
All this suggests that the USCCR and EWG claims are just part of the campaign to eliminate coal-fired power plants and the reliable, affordable electricity they generate. The claims could also be setting the stage for more collusive sue-and-settle lawsuits between the USEPA and environmentalist groups – with those who will be most affected having no opportunity to testify and no voice in the outcome.
Forcing utility companies to spend billions relocating huge ash deposits to "lined, watertight landfills” (in someone else’s backyard) will bring no health or environmental benefits. But it will bankrupt companies, send electricity prices soaring, reverberate through our economy, and raise true civil rights issues. As Ms. Heriot notes, "driving up the cost of power has its own disparate impact” on minority families.
Black and Hispanic families spend a 10-50% greater share of their income than white families on heating, air conditioning, lights and other electrical costs, National Black Chamber of Commerce president Harry Alford points out. They are also more likely to suffer still lower living standards and even lose their jobs, as employers respond to higher electricity prices by laying more people off.
If rates nearly double from current costs in coal-reliant states like North Carolina and Virginia (9 cents per kilowatt-hour) to those in anti-coal New York (16 cents) or Connecticut (17 cents), poor families will have to pay $500-1,000 more annually for electricity. Hospitals, school districts, factories and businesses will have to spend additional thousands, tens of thousands or millions. Where will that cash come from?
Will businesses have to lay off dozens or hundreds of employees, or close their doors? If they pass costs on to customers, where will families find that extra cash? If hospitals cut services or raise fees, how will that affect patient costs and care? Might the EWG and USCCR provide financial assistance? Fat chance.
By necessity, hospitals are energy intensive. The average U.S. hospital uses 31 kilowatt-hours of electricity per square foot per year. For facilities like the 665,000-square-foot Inova Fairfax Women’s and Children’s Hospital in Northern Virginia, that translates into $1,855,000 per year at 9 cents/kWh, but $3,505,000 at 17 cents. That’s a $1.6-million difference.
Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center’s Comprehensive Cancer Center in Winston-Salem, NC is 530,600 square feet. That’s $1,480,000/year at 9 cents/kWh or $2,796,000/year at 17 cents: a $1.5-million gap.
Ohio State University’s James Cancer Center and Solove Research Institute in Columbus is1.1 million square feet. That’s $3,069,000/year at 9¢/kWh versus $5,797,000 at 17 cents: a $2.7 million shortfall!
Those cost increases would result in lost jobs and reduced patient care. Now try to imagine the impacts on schools, factories, churches, grocery stores, malls and thousands of other major electricity users – to address health problems that exist only in the fertile minds of a few activists and regulators.
The war on coal, petroleum, nuclear and hydroelectric power is an eco-imperialist war on reliable, affordable electricity – and on poor and minority families. Policies that drive energy prices up drive people out of jobs, drive companies out of business, drive families into green energy poverty.
An yet these fundamental "civil rights” and "environmental justice” issues are rarely mentioned by the USCCR, EWG, EPA, NAACP, Democratic Party or self-appointed "civil rights leaders.” Too many of them also oppose charter schools for minority kids who are getting shortchanged by public schools, and regulatory reforms to spur job creation in minority communities. Will common sense ever prevail?
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death and other books on the environment.
In the Presidential debate Monday Donald Trump warned America that she's "become a Third World country" http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Donald-Trump-tax-IRS-audit/2016/09/26/id/750286/ to the guffaws and disdain of the liberals, the media (but I repeat myself) and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who later accused Trump of talking smack about the country she wants to loot, er, lead.
One must ask, is Trump correct or do we continue to occupy the apex of the First World? Is there evidence to support Mr. Trump's claim?
Let me offer exhibit A. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-officials-considering-opening-a-special-hospital-to-treat-tuberculosis/article_afae095b-fe4d-51a0-a3fb-ccd858aac7b5.html
According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
"Two years after the University of Missouri closed the state’s lone hospital for treating tuberculosis and other infectious diseases, state health officials are looking at opening a new facility.
The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services is seeking bids for a study that could provide officials with a roadmap for opening a new treatment center to replace the current process of sending patients to other states.
It comes amid a nationwide increase in the number of people contracting the airborne bacterial disease that attacks the lungs.
According to the request, Missouri has averaged 90 active tuberculosis cases in each of the past three years"
Missouri has been more fortunate than many other states in this regard. Why? Because Missouri a series of strict laws against illegal alien encroachment, going back to 2007. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/06/why_sue_arizona_and_not_missou.html
As a result Missouri has avoided many of the pitfalls - including Third World diseases - that are plaguing other states. But the power of the central government has grown to the point where they have managed to circumvent many of the laws put in place by the state Congress (see here for example https://thinkprogress.org/missouri-rejects-lawmakers-attempt-to-block-immigrants-from-receiving-scholarships-34689dba184a?gi=94aca96179a0) and so the problems plaguing other states are starting to dribble in.
Let's face it; tuberculosis is now a Third World disease. In the U.S. the number of cases of TB. were cut in half between 1953 and 1968 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/plague-timeline/ due to better antibiotics and better medical care. (It is interesting to note that Operation Wetback repatriated up to 2 million trespassing aliens starting in 1954, thus helping to reduce the number of such cases.) The reduction in TB rates turned around in the mid '80's as a result of the HIV/AIDS epidemic (which was not handled like any other infectious epidemics where authorities follow the chain of contagion and restrict the activities of the infected; AIDS was allowed to burn through the populace out of fears of stigmatizing homosexuals.) Still, rates remained low. Only now we see them rising - and HIV is fairly under control, so that is not the cause.
According to the CDC 88% of all antibiotic-resistant TB in the U.S. comes from immigrants.
And that is just one infectious disease. Consider that last year we had 15 cases of Bubonic Plague in the U.S.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/22/health/plague-cases-2015-cdc/ Bubonic Plague is clearly a Third World disease, one long absent in America.
Another facet of Third Worldism is the export of raw materials rather than manufactured goods. America is now almost completely an exporter of coal, because the Federal government has used regulatory power to strangle the industry. In 2008 then President Obama famously stated:
"If someone wants to build a new coal-fired power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
He has since gone on to crush an entire Industry http://canadafreepress.com/article/ending-national-sovereignty-one-industry-at-a-time; Peabody Energy and Arch Coal - the largest and second largest coal companies on Earth - both went into bankruptcy recently. We now export raw coal because we can't use it for anything.
And Lead. The Doe Run smelter - the last in America - closed a couple of years ago as a result of pressure from the Federal government. America now cannot smelt lead, but rather is forced to sell the raw materials to others who process it. That is Third World.
Meanwhile, Mr. Trump scolded Ford for moving all its small car manufacturing to foreign countries. Well, that is what they are doing. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/14/ford-moving-all-small-car-manufacturing-out-of-detroit-and-into-mexico/ It's what happens when you are providing an unfriendly environment to manufacturing businesses.
Then there is language. One of the characteristics of a Third World country is the preponderance of languages; multiple languages exemplify disunity, thus dividing the nation. Well, the U.S. is at least the fifth largest Spanish speaking country on Earth and may well be second only to Mexico with between 35 and 50 million speakers. https://web.archive.org/web/20090425163238/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_DP2&-context=adp&-ds_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_&-tree_id=306&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-format=
In fact, one in five households do not speak English at home. http://cis.org/record-one-in-five-us-residents-speaks-language-other-than-english-at-home While this is not solely the fault of Barack Hussein Obama, the problem (and it IS a problem) has clearly metastasized under Il Duce.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is calling for more spending on infrastructure, despite Osama’s trillion dollar stimulus which supposedly funded "shovel ready jobs" and rebuilt these ailing roads and whatnot. If we can't make basic repairs to infrastructure with a trillion dollars, how do we differ from a Third World country?
And violence. As I have noted East St. Louis has levels of violence comparable to Honduras and other hell holes. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/08/is_violence_driving_central_american_invasion.html We all know how many murders are happening in Chicago, for instance, and we know of the rioting in Baltimore, in Charlotte, in Ferguson. How does this differ from the war-torn, strife-filled Third World?
Well, partly there is the rule of law. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama simply ignores the Rule of Law when it inconveniences him, granting an amnesty to illegals despite laws duly passed by Congress, for instance. He has simply gone ahead with many things he wanted, such as military action in Libya without Congressional approval, or forced Boeing to shut down a factory for being non-union in 2011, or gave Mexican criminals thousands of illegal weapons in Fast and Furious. What about the drone strikes killing American citizens without due process? What about his use of executive orders to release people duly imprisoned by courts of law? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/us/us-to-release-6000-inmates-under-new-sentencing-guidelines.html How about his circumventing Congress to seize land? http://investmentwatchblog.com/obama-signs-executive-order-bypasses-congress-and-legalizes-all-blm-land-grabs/
And under Mr. Obama wealth has concentrated to just a few crony fat cats while everyone else lives hand to mouth due to underemployment. Even the liberal Huffington Post had to admit this fact. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/wealth-concentration_b_4002539.html Rich oligarchs are another example of Third Worldism.
No Third World country is complete without vote fraud to keep the ruling junta in power. Consider the fact that fraud may well be the reason Obama won re-election last time. http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2012/11/11/obama_likely_won_reelection_through_election_fraud
A nation without the Rule of Law is a banana republic. Banana republics are inherently Third World.
So Hillary and the Left may dismiss Mr. Trump's argument that America is becoming Third World, but the facts belie their claims. Ask not from whom the smell flows, it flows from we.
Timothy Bird now
In Wednesday's debate Donald J. Trump refused to answer a loaded question from moderator Chris Wallace demanding to know if he will accept (roll over) an unfavorable election result. Trump, who understands that an all-out effort is being made to steal this election, wisely stated he would have to review the matter after the fact. The media, suffering one of their frequent memory lapses, conveniently forgot Al Gore in 2000 and the many Democrats who claimed Bush stole the election of 2004, had what can only be described as a conniption, claiming that never in history has a candidate for President refused to accept the result of a vote. (Perhaps they should review Tilden v. Hayes as well.) They demand that Trump accept his fate as did Richard Nixon in 1960, who spared the country the agony of a contested election (although Nixon's former boss Dwight Eisenhower urged him to contest the voting in Illinois and other states where the Democratic machine appeared to have little irregularities.)
Trump has every reason to fear; hacked e-mails show that the Clinton machine is working diligently to rig the election. She and the Democratic Party colluded to cheat Bernie Sanders out of the nomination http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-23/leaked-dnc-emails-confirm-democrats-rigged-primary-reveal-extensive-media-collusion and a Project Veritas sting showed how plans are progressing to steal votes in the general election. http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/18/commit-voter-fraud-massive-scale-part-ii-project-veritas-investigation-clinton-network/ Hillary, by the way, likely received the questions to be asked in the second Presidential debate, according to Wikileaks.
Hillary has a history of lying and not playing fair. She was fired from the Watergate Committee for it. See here.
This brought to mind another example of how the sacred election process has be despoiled, and how accepting the will of the People is not always the high priority the media is making us think it is.
My brother Brian Birdnow is a professor of American History and author of the book Gerald R. Ford, The All-American President https://www.amazon.com/Gerald-Ford-All-American-President-Presidents/dp/1612096700 He reminds us of this little pastiche in American history:
"Democrats like Bella Abzug argued to not confirm Gerald Ford as Vice President, and Tom Eagleton voted against Ford in the December, 1973 vote so that Carl Albert, House Speaker from Oklahoma, would take the Presidency when they threw Nixon out."
And while Ford was confirmed with only three nay votes, it was not as close as the ultimate tally would have us believe. There was a faction of leftist Democrats who wanted a bloodless coup against Nixon, and they put quite a bit of pressure on Albert to prevent his confirmation. In the New York Times Abzug argued that:
"...We already have a designated official to replace the President in the absence of a Vice President..."
That official was a Democrat.
(Thomas Eagleton had been George McGovern’s running mate until he was forced to resign for psychological reasons in the previous election of 1972.)
The New York Times did not condemn this move by some Democrats to overturn the results of an election. They are strangely disturbed about Mr. Trump's refusal to agree to have his election stolen.
Yesterday I had the pleasure of going to the DMV. A few doors down was an early voting polling place, and it was jammed full of people. Most were younger. I was disturbed because it was clear to me these people had no reason for early voting; they plan to vote again at their own polling place in November. We may witness an unprecedented level of vote fraud this year, and Donald Trump would do America a terrible disservice if he simply rolled "for the good of the country". Stealing an election is not good for the country in any way, and acquiescing to that simply means more of it. If no good comes of this but a contested election, Mr. Trump will have done our country a great service.
But for the love of all things holy stop with the fake outrage! Vote early, vote often is more than just a wry joke in many of the political machines across this country.
(By the way, the RNC cannot challenge vote fraud in court as a result of a plea agreement going back to the Reagan era.
Dear readers (the few who may be left):
After a time-consuming legal dispute the Aviary is back in business! Your's Truly enjoyed a hiatus courtesy of a national law firm and a Jersey client who forced The Aviary into a protracted legal negotiation over a photograph from a newspaper. That issue has now, gratefully, been settled.
To be on the safe side I will keep the archives down until I have had a chance to review all of them (a huge task since this blog goes back to 2007) Only photographs that have been taken by one of the contributors or that I have express permission to post will be allowed up in future.
But be of good cheer; the fine writing talents who have graced these pages will return! Jack Kemp, Dana Mathewson, Paul Driessen, Daren Jonescu, Bill Been, Selwyn Duke, and all of the rest will be back for your enlightenment and enjoyment.I expect next year to be the best one ever for the Aviary.
Thank you for your patience.
37 queries taking 0.2115 seconds, 119 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.