Sunday, July 13, 2014

As The Feds Ship Illegals To Massachusetts From The Southern Border...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


As the crises on our southern border continues illegals are being shipped to Massachusetts by plane according to the Boston Globe. Apparently the feds have been keeping this operation "under the radar." Local law enforcement officials in the Bay State are growing increasingly concerned, as they rightly should.

Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson is calling for sheriffs across America to "“mobilize” on the red-hot immigration issue and confront the feds over their failure to communicate with local officials."

Illegal immigrants are being secretly flown to Massachusetts and kept in local lockups in an under-the-radar operation that has alarmed lawmen who are raising health and security concerns amid recent spikes in detainees coming up from Texas during the latest border crisis.

“We’re all becoming border sheriffs now with these people being carted all over the country,” said Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson.

“The blame goes all the way up. It’s a travesty and people ought to be upset,” Hodgson said. “This is un-American and has raised the stakes to the public health and public safety threat.”

Hodgson said buses from his facility were recently used to transport six planeloads of illegals sent up from San Antonio to Hanscom Field in Bedford en route to the Plymouth County 
Correctional Facility.

The sheriff said he’s also heard of 100 immigrant children recently arriving in his county. But he couldn’t say if they are part of the deluge of 50,000 unaccompanied kids crossing the nation’s southern border.

On the receiving end of the buses from Hodgson’s facility was Plymouth County Sheriff Joseph D. McDonald Jr., who said he’s seen a jump in illegal immigrants arriving at his jail and had to deal with “scenarios where we’ve had 100-plus detainees coming in at the same time.”

Hodgson called for sheriffs across the United States to “mobilize” on the red-hot immigration issue and confront the feds over their failure to communicate with local officials.

He said he’s heading to the Texas border Tuesday with other sheriffs from around the country to meet with ranchers and immigration officials to address the porous border crisis.

After weeks of denying an increase in flights to the Bay State, federal immigration officials finally admitted this weekend that four planes filled with detainees captured at the southern border have been flown to Hanscom and Logan International Airport since April as part of a “large-scale nationwide response” to the crisis.

President Obama and his administration certainly seem NOT to grasp the growing storm that mat very well be spreading across America over the issue of illegal immigration. While the President is not responsible in full for an issue that has been around for nearly 40 years the problem now rests on his shoulders.

It would do the President and his administration well to listen to, and compromise with the opposition party and their leaders. Compromise is not caving, if the President moves wisely to resolve this issue and the repubs refuse to cooperate... the President will have strengthened his hand. 2014 mid term elections are coming up. He would be wise to gain the high ground and act soon.

Find the rest of the story HERE.

Via: Memeorandum

54 comments:

  1. RN,

    I don't mean to rain on your parade. I know you want to tell the truth. But this story is not from the respected Boston Globe. It is from the Boston Herald which was purchased by Rupert Murdoch in 1981. The second hit, if you googol the quote from Sheriff Hodgson, "Buses from my facility were recently used to transport six planeloads of illegals sent up from San Antonio to Hanscom Field in Bedford en route to the Plymouth County 
Correctional Facility," is breitbart.com. There does not appear to be any legitimate news source involved in this report.

    I read the Globe as often as I can. It arrives in my mailbox every morning. I can't find any trace of this in politics or metro. My guess is that this is all one huge lie meant to deflect attention from the fact that Arizona is housing these children in more or less a dog pound with concrete floors, chain-link fence cells and aluminum foil blankets for comfort.

    On the surface, it seems extremely difficult to swallow to me. Aliens "rendered" to prisons across the U.S.? Bull-caca meter going haywire. Also the familiar chant of blaming it on Obama.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Flying Junior, I'll check the Herald's storyline our further. If there is in fact no truth to the story I'll run a follow up.

      Usually don't use the Herald unless I see multiple news sources running the same story. I was on limited time Sunday so O went with it.

      Ema notwithstanding I stand by my closing in any case.

      Thanks again.

      Delete
    2. RN,
      in re: your post, the "problem" has been around for much longer than 40 years, see Eisenhower's deporting or illegals to make room for vets. See Truman's similar position. Wilson, also. Concerning an invader has been here since 2008 or before, their arrival was not Barry's fault (other than the tiny portion for his even tinier Senate stint) but the fact that they are still here is his failure to uphold any law he doesn't feel like enforcing.
      Regarding compromise, Barry's version of compromise is for the other side to do exactly as he says and kiss his ring upon bowing to his radiance. Your last sentence sums it up well for both sides. Playing politics while failing to see the long term is what they do best.

      in re: unnamed fanatical commenters to your post, It would seem that if it is in the paper of their favor it is automatically true, and conversely, if they don't like the paper, it is a lie. It is too bad that they won't extend that privilege to their opponents.

      in re: in the posted article, it is very revealing that Sheriff Hodgson speaks of the use of buses, supposedly under his control, being used, seeming against his preference, to transport these little invaders about his state. When big brother gives you money for a bus (or whatever else) when he wants to use it, he uses it. Or no more buses.

      Delete
    3. Keith said: "It would seem that if it is in the paper of their favor it is automatically true, and conversely, if they don't like the paper, it is a lie. It is too bad that they won't extend that privilege to their opponents."

      Well said... It is on full display here.

      "... in the posted article, it is very revealing that Sheriff Hodgson speaks of the use of buses, supposedly under his control, being used, seeming against his preference, to transport these little invaders about his state...."

      The Herald article is full of such specifics and quotations. If it is all a lie, they have woven a tangled web. I'd be very surprised, based on this, if it turns out to be not true at all.

      Delete
    4. KM, your points were fine until you strolled into the hyperbole that you usually do.

      But thanks for stopping by.

      Delete
    5. RN: Yes, Keith lost me with the " Barry's version of compromise is for the other side to do exactly as he says and kiss his ring upon bowing to his radiance" and in general for using his pet-name for Obama. The President doesn't call himself "Barry". I don't have a problem using the man's real name.

      Delete
    6. dmarks,
      You missed the point in regard to Sheriff Hodgson remark. The buses (the article implies that the buses were property of or controlled by the Sheriff's Dept.) were being used for transporting the people in question. The article implied, through quotes attributed to Sheriff Hodgson, that Sheriff Hodgson was not happy that the buses were used for this purpose. But they were "his" buses. Why would they be used for something that he doesn't approve?
      The USG says so. Federal dollars flow into the sheriffs' departments nation wide and strings are attached.
      That was as simple as I could make it for you without using your crayons to draw you a picture.

      Delete
    7. RN,
      Unless there has been a change in the definitions, I suspect that you mean sarcasm (in re kissing Barry's ring)
      The use of the name Barry: in my opinion, he acts like a petulant little child, so I refer to him as such
      kudos to dmarks for the capital P in President when referring to POTUS, unfortunately it is, in this case, Barry.

      Delete
    8. dmarks,
      Is it your contention that Barry, the little Hussein, has been open to negotiation and compromise with his opponents as opposed to presenting a "my way or the highway" attitude?

      Delete
    9. What you think of the President is of little to no concern to me KM.

      I meant hyperbole because your rhetorical flair amounts to hyperbole aa well as disrespect.

      Delete
    10. RN,
      As you might surmise from a previous post, I respect the Office of the President, however, I have zero respect for the current occupant. From your postings, it appears that you feel similarly. However, you prefer to cloak yourself in mediocrity by taking both sides without a firm stance. That is your right. "Those who don't stand for something, fall for anything" (can't recall the author)

      Delete
    11. No KM, I do not "cloak myself in mediocrity", as having the ability to recognize the good as well as the bad in both political parties, or ideologies if you will is not mediocracy, except to extremists.

      BTW, it is actors like yoy and chuckles that fall for any BS shoveled your way.

      Have a delightful day.

      Delete
    12. RN,
      We were talking about an individual, not a party. If what you recognize as good and bad has a logic to it, super. If not, well it is still your choice.
      When you say that what I think of the President has little or no concern to you, then you take the time to comment on it, it sounds like you are trying to have it both ways. That is failure to take a stance.

      Delete
    13. On the later point KM it is your probleb, not mine.

      Delete
  2. .

    Having it both ways in hopes of scoring political points; here is Rational Nation USA ...

    "... compromise with the opposition party and their leaders. Compromise is not caving, if the President moves wisely to resolve this issue and the repubs refuse to cooperate ..."

    Republican'T Party REFUSE TO COOPERATE?!? Really? Who would of thunk it?

    RN USA can try to say this with a straight face? Is RN USA really trying to say that the TOTAL absolute lack of cooperation is not the fault of the Republican'T Party members of Congress?

    Right. Just when has the Republican'T Party not claimed that President Obama will not play nice with them and compromise for the sake of political points?

    So when is the Republican'T Party going to do something besides whine? Oh that's right, they are. The Republican'T Party is suing the President for doing something while the House Of Representatives does nothing.

    And who exactly writes immigration law? Ema Nymton seems to remember it it Congress who is responsible for writing the law ... except when the Republican'T Party is the majority in the House Of Representatives.

    So sue the President when he does something while the HOR has done nothing.

    And when the voters turn out to turn-out the Republican'T Party, RN USA can always fall back on to the Mississippi losers' claim of fraud.

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ema said: "The Republican'T Party is suing the President for doing something while the House Of Representatives does nothing."

      If it turns out that the President has broken the law by making an end-run around the Constitution to push through his unpopular policies which he lacks the talent or ability to sell the legal way, then it is very bad that the President was "doing something" in the matter of lawbreaking and Congress was "doing nothing" in the matter of stepping outside its legal role.

      That is, "if". We will see how this pans out. I'd rather have someone "do nothing", than do something bad and illegal.

      Delete
    2. Final point for Ema:

      "Republican'T Party REFUSE TO COOPERATE?!? Really? Who would of thunk it?"

      I know you are such a hypocrite on these issues, that if the Republicans in Congress were in complete lockstep with a Republican President, you would not make these arguments at all. You'd be moaning about a "rubber stamp" Congress. You'd never call the Democrats "DemNOCrats" for doing then what the Republicans do now: exercising their Constitutional duties and voting on legislation (or not voting) completely under the law.... even if it did not agree with the President's opinions.

      Delete
    3. Ema said: "."

      I welcome such comments. It is an improvement. For once, it didn't include your rabid hatred of Murdoch bumper-sticker slogans and cutesy, Limbaugh-esque names for political opponents.

      Delete
    4. dmarks,
      in re: your 07:52:00 post,
      As you state, the malfeasance and misfeasance of the President is, perhaps, illegal.
      The lack of action by Congress is not illegal and at times, preferable. The non-action of the Congress, though, appears from one house doing something followed by inaction on the matter by the other house (this going both ways). This is the ways the process was meant to happen, as the resident Constitutional scholar, Les, can comment.

      Delete
    5. KM: Correct. I reject the assertion made by one left-wing commenter here that because Pres. Obama is unable to pass much of his agenda the legal, Constitutional way (due to the unpopularity of his ideas,and his poor skills as much as anything), that we must ignore the Constitution and break the law because the idea of "Just Do Something!" takes precedence over all.

      Delete
    6. dmarks,
      Even if Barry couldn't get much of his agenda passed (because he can't literally pass it himself) and this was due to an obstructionist congress. That's the system. If the people don't like the President's view or the Congress's view, they can throw out which one they disapprove. So it sounds like we are in a 99% agreement?

      Delete
  3. Ema Simpleton, thanks for stopping in. Your childlike smugness and triteness is always welcome here at RN USA. We love progressive comedy as much as. anyone.

    Have yourself a fine day now, ya hear?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The double-standard and hypocrisy of Flying and Ema is on full display. It's the intolerance on the Left for anything other than left-wing media (such as the Globe), and it often goes to the extreme of pushing to censor Fox News. In this, the Right and the Left are not similar: you won't find right-wingers with bumper stickers to get rid of CNN and MSNBC like you do for left-wingers trying to get rid of Fox. Flying betrayed this obsession when he mentioned Rupert Murdoch, always mentioned by those on the Left who want strict and left-wing only ideological conformity in their media outlets.

    If this had come from the left-leaning Boston Globe instead of from the right-leaning Herald, rest assured there would have been not a peep from Ema and Flying, Regardless of the merits of the article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point dmarks. No doubt Ms Simpleton would be doing exactly that.

      Delete
    2. Not to fret dmarks, I'll be doing my best to verify the veracity, or lack thereof of this Herald article later today.

      Delete
  5. Replies
    1. RN: The first link you point to has, as its sources, two Murdoch newspapers and no others. The second link is of a video of a Murdoch broadcasting outfit. The third is from the website of the broadcast outfit in the second link, also Murdoch.

      As you know, I am the last one to give voice to Ema's contempt for the First Amendment and paranoia about Rupert Murdoch. I also find no problem with having one conservative media organ among many left-wing ones, and I also would never hate journalism so much to have a bumper sticker trying to silence any station I disagree with like the anti-Fox kooks do. Even MSNBC.

      However, I would be very interested... as I am guessing you are... to find reports on this story from other sources. Non News Corp/Murdoch/Fox.

      Delete
  6. "Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut was notably more guarded when it was his turn to speak. Mr. Malloy, who could face a competitive re-election this year, called for treating the migrants in the “most humane way we can while respecting our own laws.”

    Mr. Malloy added, with not much more clarity: “I stand with anyone who says we should be in a position to protect our own borders.”

    Above excerpt taken from The New York Times.

    Above excerpt taken from The New York Times

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN,
      Regarding both statements that you have attributed to Gov. Malloy, they could be parsed out to mean anything that he wants. From putting the wee ones up in the Ritz-Carlton to putting them in jail or any method of transport back to there country of origin.
      His "stand with anyone...." line has enough ambiguity that there is no meaning.
      Both statements sound like what you might want them to be (based on the quotes that you paste about the page) with enough leeway to make la Raza happy. Typical Politician

      Delete
    2. Do you have a blog I again ask. I'm thinking not KM. Not surprising.

      Delete
    3. "Do you have a blog I again ask. I'm thinking not KM. Not surprising."

      No idea, but he is on the Dondelo blog, bashing one of the participants for being a homosexual.

      Delete
  7. Keith said: "That was as simple as I could make it for you without using your crayons to draw you a picture. "

    No, that particular comment was actually well written, avoided code word riddles, and other blunders which have made an incomprehensible mess of several other of your comments in this item. I commend you.

    The problem is definitely not mine, it is with your unclear sloppy writing. But you are capable of better, which you have shown.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly, you are neither capable of better nor understanding even simpler.

      Delete
    2. No, I am capable of understanding clear statements and arguments. The times when you refuse to do so, and instead of clear language speak in riddles and use disrespectful, even racist epithets such as "Little Hussein" are entirely your problem. Not the problem of those who try to sift through such muddled messes you leave behind.

      Such "arguments" work on the playground, or on "Crossfire", but not in the big-leagues.

      Delete
    3. dmarks,
      Two points;
      One,
      a failure on your part to understand proper punctuation, is just that, a failure on your part.
      Two, Barry's middle name is Hussein. To differentiate, for you, between Barry and Saddam, I am denoting Barry as little. Their is no racism implied or stated. My contempt for Barry, stemming from he conscious or unconscious attempts to irreparably harm this country, knows no bounds. Whether I have thoroughly expressed that situation, I believe, is without question.
      With all due respect to Les for the time and effort he has and continues to put in here,If you equate this blog as the big leagues and a nationally broadcast show being the bush league, I think you should do a little self-examination.

      Delete
    4. Two points, and complete fail on both.

      (1) I do understand proper punctuation. Better than you perhaps. It is curious and amusing that you go all grammar/punctuation Nazi right after spilling obtuse word salad like "better nor understanding even simpler.", which is pretty hard to parse. No failure on my part at all.

      (2) You start off wrong the second word in. His name is not "Barry" On to "Little Hussein" I looked this one up, and found that its precedent is in a racist monkey doll named after Barack, using this name. Regardless of the racist monkey with the name, accuracy is entirely lost. Pres. Barack H. Obama is a tall man. I am guessing he might be taller than you. Perhaps you are too stupid or ignorant to get Pres. Obama's name correct. Or are in the second grade. Regardless, getting such basic facts wrong turns your arguments into more of an incoherent grunt than anything rational or factual.

      Anyway, the "Little Hussein" mention first came up in a sloppy, poorly written paragraph in which you maybe talked about the President, or maybe his supposed protege Elizabeth Warren. In this first instance, it was definitely unclear as to which one the nickname applied to.

      And (3) since you carelessly muddled two points into your (2):

      "...you equate this blog as the big leagues..."

      Using immature playground taunts instead of serious rational argument is bush league behavior, regardless of the success of the business model.

      Delete
  8. Is it my contention that "Barry, the little Hussein" is open to negotiation and compromise with his opponents as opposed to presenting a "my way or the highway" attitude. Also, that Republicans are NOT open to negotiation or compromise, which is why they scream about securing the border FIRST, when it already secure. They want to make it LOOK like they're being reasonable and willing to compromise once we address the border issue first... but it's all a lie. Their actions have nothing at all to do with the President "lacking the talent or ability to sell the legal way" because the Republican goal is that NOTHING be done. No amount of "talent" could convince them not to obstruct.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. THE FACTS: [1] Illegal border crossings were at their lowest levels in 40 years as of early 2013 (I don't know by how much what has been going on recently changes that). [2] 33–50% of illegal immigrants are visa overstays (source). A smaller number are Border Crossing Card violators. These are people we allowed to enter the US. They simply did not leave when they were supposed to. "Securing the border" would not address this issue. [3] These children being sent across the border by themselves were stopped/detained AT THE BORDER (Our border security worked).

      LOGICAL CONCLUSION GIVEN THESE FACTS: The border is quite secure. On this I am in agreement with the Economist article I previously linked to, and in (some) disagreement with Rep. Jackson Lee, who never said the border was "secure", despite untruths about her saying this on another blog.

      ON OBAMA'S EXPERIENCE: He currently has 5+ years of POTUS experience (the "inexperience" meme is a moot point now). As for how much experience he had when first elected; the primary voters vetted him and found him to be their man. The opinion about Bill Clinton being able to get more of his agenda accomplished due to his "many years of executive experience prior to his election to the Presidency" is nonsense. Republicans are currently obstructing more, not being convinced less due to any deficiency of Obama. Obstructing Obama, even in regards to issues they previously stated support for, is their stated strategy.

      Delete
  9. While your mature tone is appreciated, Dervish Sanders, your arguments are severely undermined by you citung as your sources, not credible journalistic sources, but partisan opinion blogs.

    Such sites are never sources of fact, and instead just let you know opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It is flawed and misleading to describe any of the four links in my prior post as leading to "partisan opinion blogs".

    [link one] Wikipedia. Not a blog. If you believe the info is inaccurate please share what you think the accurate information is.

    [link 2] Link to my own blog which contains a transcript of what Rep. Jackson Lee actually said. A transcript isn't an opinion. The transcript shows she did not say something another "partisan opinion blog" is claiming she said (the author presented incorrect information).

    [Link 3] Article from The National Memo. Wikipedia notes that The National Memo is a six-times a week political newsletter website. It is a left-liberal site, however it pledges to avoid extreme partisan affiliation". In any case, the National Memo shows and describes the obstructionist nature of the Republican Congress member's actions. Lindsey Graham confirms obstruction was the goal (and it wasn't simply that Congressional Republicans did not like the nominees) when he said (in regards to Obama's NLRB nominees and the effect that rejecting any and all of them) that "inoperable is progress". And so on... the article contains other factual examples of unprecedented obstruction. Factual, despite your inaccurate claim that "such sites are never sources of fact".

    [Link 4] Huffington post article titled "Robert Draper Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration". This is true. I heard Newt Gingrich admit it on Thom Hartmann's radio program with my own ears. I can email you the audio if you would like. This is another example of how your claim that "such sites are never sources of fact, and instead JUST let you know opinions" is false. The opinions on such sites might be disagreeable to me or to you, but there are usually facts (unless flat-out lies are being presented). I did not link to any article or blog that contained flat-out lies.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The second two... half your links... are the type that distort and avoid showing their side doing what they attack their enemies for. Not valid at all

    One of the two remaining ones is part of personal attack blog group, from someone proud of his bias, slant, and filter. Which leaves only one possible good link : Wikepedia.

    By the way, Les... I did find a non Fox source for this story...

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The commenter above really needs to read more carefully. Obviously the name "Thom Hartmann" clouded his thinking and caused him to jump to incorrect conclusions. I was talking about what Newt Gingrich said (about the Republican strategy to obstruct Obama on the night he was inaugurated). Yes, the statement was made on the Thom Hartmann program, but I referred to nothing that Thom Hartmann said. I referred only to statement from the Republican Newt Gingrich.

    I am talking about confirmed facts, not "opinions". In this case, confirmed by a Republican. It matters not when he left Congress... he was at the meeting. Also, Lindsey Graham is still in Congress. And he confirmed obstruction was the goal (and it wasn't simply that Congressional Republicans did not like the nominees) when he said (in regards to Congressional Republicans rejecting ALL of Obama's NLRB nominees) that "inoperable is progress".

    That is two confirmations that the Republicans strategy was obstructionism for no other reason than to make it so nothing could be accomplished. That would be opposed as obstructing because Democrats aren't willing to compromise. They are. The Republicans don't want compromise. They want nothing to be accomplished simply to make Obama look bad.

    The only one playing games is YOU. All day long, too... despite your denials. BTW, the quality of the conversation will always be poor if one of the participants insists truth is "biased" and facts are "opinions".

    ReplyDelete
  14. You presented nothing but opinions, and confused them with facts. And still stick with your presentation of the opinions of Newt, a commentator who is an outsider... not even in Congress for many years.

    As for facts being opinions, you have presented precious few facts for me to label as such.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The commenter above me is obviously too confused to continue this conversation. Note his reference to a "radio canardo" when I never cited one as being a source for the FACTS I presented (even IF you accept that "canardo" is a word, which it is not). I referred to statements by Newt Gingrich, who is not an "outsider". An outsider would not have been at the meeting where the plan to obstruct President Obama was discussed. And you ignored my citing Lindsey Graham for obvious reasons... you can't even pretend he is an "outsider" (as you do with Newt) without eliciting laughter.

    YOU do not get to decide who an "outsider" is. The GOP decides, and they decided that this man (a man who was a contender in during the last presidential election) is not an "outsider". Also, remember when you said "I avoid trendy neologisms", yet with your continued use of the non-word "canardo" (and variants) you attempt to create a neologism... and you using "canardo" as if it was a real word is even lamer than someone seriously using Limbaugh's "feminazi" in a discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  17. American Heritage Dictionary:
    ca·nard
    Top
    Home >Library >Literature & Language >Dictionary
    (kə-närd') pronunciation
    n.
    An unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story.
    A short winglike control surface projecting from the fuselage of an aircraft, such as a space shuttle, mounted forward of the main wing and serving as a horizontal stabilizer.
    An aircraft whose horizontal stabilizing surfaces are forward of the main wing.
    [French, duck, canard, probably from the phrase vendre un canard à moitié, to sell half a duck, to swindle, from Old French quanart, duck, from caner, to cackle, of imitative origin.]


    Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/canard#ixzz38Qcj71sQ

    Well Dervish, looks like there is a reality here you wish not revealed eh? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Enlightening, RN. I expect a lot more self-righteous whining in reaction to this...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Canard is a word. Canardo is not. This whole thing started when *I* used the word canard, so of course I know it's a word. I expect embarrassment or non-publishing due to embarrassment.

    I say canard.

    RN says canardo.

    Another commenter, acting in a fan-girlish adoring manner picks up the baton and runs with it, saying "El Canardo".

    ReplyDelete
  20. Last word on Canard, which of course was/ is used to indicate 'a false or untrue story.'

    In was in that context that the word Canardo, picked up from another fine wordsmith and operator of another blog was used. Therefore, Canardo is a name created to denote one 'who persists in creating false, or deliberately misleading stories.' On other words a liar.

    RN did not create Canardo, I, the owner of RN, simply borrowed and used Canardo in the manner it was intended.

    Discussion is now ended.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.