I forget the exact day, I have it scribbled somewhere, which I will find and update this post with, but it was within a couple days of the late November storm that dumped a foot of snow in these parts. I was driving in Henry County Illinois, home of three “wind farms’ developments comprising over two-hundred units. The latest greatest big ones.
It was damn cold but the wind was dead calm. Every one of the units I could see, and I could pick out 50 or more , were dead to the world as far as exporting energy. This a day when electric and forced air furnaces in homes and businesses needed electricity, as did factories, and every other civilized structure. Why even “pollution free”* electric cars needed to charge.
Now did anyone suffer the cold? No! Not because of back-up energy, as the concept does not apply. The core energy – fossil and nuke – had to be built, up and running. And thank God that is what we depend on, not these ugly contraptions scarring the land. They are not even serious back-up energy. They are superfluous or undependable energy which is a waist of investment that would not take place but for tax payer subsidies and people at the trough.
And as many people do not realize these behemoths suck energy in the cold as they are kept online, to insure operational readiness. Operational readiness, what a joke.
Here are a few pictures from my vehicle. Again I warrant, attest, certify, swear that in the five minutes or so I parked and watched, none of the blades moved on the fifty or so units I could observe unaided. The picture of one blade in transit (three per unit) shows how big each of these boondoggles are.
The Neighbor (sequel to “The Trial” by Franz Kafka)
FBI 302, (Date redacted):
7:05 Hours, Special Agent (SA) (name redacted) arrived at home of (name redacted);
SA (redacted): Good morning. My name is (redacted) and I ‘m with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Do you have a few minutes?
(redacted); ” Well, yes, but I’m getting ready for work. What is it?
SA (redacted): “I’d like ask you a few questions, if you don’t mind. It’s about a routine matter and we’re just trying to clear up what we believe is a relatively minor misunderstanding. It doesn’t affect you except to the extent you might be able to help us get answers to a few questions. Okay?”
(redacted): “Yeah, I guess.”
SA(Redacted): “Thank you. Now..can I ask if you know this person? (shown photo).
(Redacted): Why, yes. That’s my next door neighbor. Has he done something?”
SA(redacted): “No. No. We just need to get some information to help us wrap this up. He’s done nothing. But let me ask you how long have you known him?
(redacted): “Since we moved here. About 5 years I guess.”
SA (redacted): ” Do you know where he works?”
(redacted): “I think he works at your place. The FBI… doesn’t he?”
SA(Redacted): “Do you remember the last time you saw him?”
(redacted): “Uh, I think…yeah. Last Tuesday. I was getting my newspaper from the driveway and he was just coming out to get in his car. I assume he was going to work.”
SA (redacted): “Did you talk with him?”
(redacted): Just said, “good morning”.
SA (redacted): “Do you recall what he said?”
(redacted): ” I think he just waved and nodded. I think he might have been running a little late”.
SA (redacted): “Did you or he say anything else?”
(redacted): “No. Like I say, I just saw him getting ready to leave and I said, ‘good morning’ and that was it. What’s this about?”
SA (redacted”: “Just as I said. It’s routine…no big deal.Just one more question if you don’t mind. You seemed that you were pretty certain that this was last Tuesday. Can you tell me if there was something else about that day that triggered your memory?”
(redacted): “Yes. Tuesday was the day we had that bad thunderstorm; my car was damaged by the hail. I was thinking that (redacted) was lucky that he probably got to work and got his car in the parking garage before the storm.”
SA (redacted): “Were you aware that a storm was coming, and due to hit later that morning?”
(redacted): ” I heard it on the radio that one was expected. They predicted it would be a strong one but I didn’t realize it would be as severe as it was.”
SA (redacted): “I know this might seem like a silly question, but did you hear that prediction before you talked to (redacted) in his driveway?”
(Redacted): “Yes. I think so…yeah, I’m sure?”
SA (redacted): “So, you knew when you spoke to (redacted), you were aware that what you understood to be a ‘strong’ storm was on the way. Is that correct?”
(redacted): “Uh, yeah. I guess so.”
SA (redacted): ” So…knowing that a bad storm was imminent, you told (redacted) that it was a ‘good’ morning? Is that right?”
(redacted): No! I mean…it was just a greeting…a friendly greeting neighbors make. I didn’t mean…”
SA (redacted): ” Mr. (redacted), if you thought that the morning the worst storm in decades was about to hit this community was a ‘good’ one, what would your idea of a ‘bad’ morning be?”
(redacted): (note to file: At this point the interviewee became quite agitated; he seemed very nervous, possibly, that he had said something he shouldn’t have.)
(redacted): “No, no! You’re twisting my words. I was just trying to be friendly…I didn’t mean…what are you trying to do…?”
SA (redacted): “Mr. (redacted), I think you’d better come with me.”
(redacted): “But…why? I haven’t done anything. You said…”
SA (redacted): ” You are aware, Mr. (redacted), that lying to an FBI agent is a felony, aren’t you?”
(redacted): “But… I didn’t lie to you!”
SA (redacted): “No you didn’t. But you did lie to your next door neighbor, Mr. (redacted), whom you knew was an FBI agent. You obviously intended to assure him that it was a “good” morning, knowing full way the day was sure to be one of the worst weather mornings/days this area has seen in a long time. Is that correct?”
(Redacted): “NO!, I mean, yes, but I didn’t mean…I was just being friendly…I didn’t mean…”
SA (redacted): “Turn around Mr. (redacted), and put you hands behind your back, please…”
(redacted): “I…I want a lawyer…”
SA (redacted); ” I think you are going to need one, Mr. (redacted).”
(Interview ended at 7:35 hours; written and signed as of this date (redacted)
(Note to file) Mr. (redacted) has agreed, in return for leniency regarding his violation under Title 18,US Code, section 101*, to be a key witness in the trial of his ‘former best friend’ (name redacted), known as “Suspect#1” charged with embezzlement and fraud. “Suspect #1” is also known to the Bureau as a possible close associate of “Global Culprit #1”. He is known to have stayed in a hotel owned by “Global Culprit #1” at least twice in the past 5 years and has an insatiablele taster for vodka.)
*Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is “within the jurisdiction” of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy. Though the falsehood must be “material” this requirement is met if the statement has the “natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it is addressed.
We made mention of this travesty earlier this week. This is overwhelming evidence of the total corruption of the Mueller Investigation! Yet, we’ve noted very little attention paid to it by the national media…even in the conservative media.
Unless this kind of tactic is properly addressed by our Courts, America can ‘write off’ any reputation it seeks to preserve as a “nation of laws”. In fact that term will be good only as a punchline for late night ‘comics’. DLH
Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office (SCO) destroyed a
potential treasure trove of evidence about the “insurance policy”
Trump-haters Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were implementing against the
Trump administration as it prepared to take office and establish itself
in its first few months. Whatever the purported lovebirds texted each
other and others during the tumultuous period, the SCO thought it was
not worth scrutiny by outsiders not on the team.
Given the scandalous earlier texts between the two released by the OIG, this claim is so arrogant that it would be laughable, but for the profound implications of a rogue law enforcement operation covering its tracks, secure in its belief that it will never be prosecuted thanks to Deep State operatives throughout the FBI and DoJ.
We learn of this destruction of evidence only now thanks to the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General, headed by Michael Horowitz, who issued a report on its investigation of the “gap” in the text messages of the two from 12/15/16 to 5/17/17. . . .
But relax: according to the SCO, none of Strzok’s text messages would be of any interest, so we should just chill out. We are supposed to trust the merry band of Clinton donors, because we can rely on the integrity of people like Andrew Weissman. . . .
This is absolutely outrageous coming from team Mueller, so anxious to construe crimes related to the president, but blithely deep-sixing whatever data it wishes, telling the public to trust them. . . .
Well truly sadly such an event has come to pass. But the feeding frenzy in social media from the left is just incredible. It seems as if they must be doing high Fives All Around… George, Tom, Caravan Organizers and Abettors!
The “egg” is broken, the Trump “omelet” is cookin’
For the depraved advocates for “Open Borders”, what could be better?
A story that will fill the airwaves and front pages for the next days and weeks:
“A 7 year old Guatemalan girl died last week, about a day after she and her father were arrested for crossing the Mexican border illegally, US Customs and Border Security said Thursday.” Wall Street Journal, 12/14/18
We noted a few weeks ago that there are people in America who would celebrate a tragic event like this, not openly, of course, but behind closed doors and in the company of only other ‘true believers’ who support “Open Borders” as the solution to all the ills of the world and all the evils the US has visited on our planet.
We heard from some who read those comments and criticized them for their ‘insensitivity’, their disregard for the sufferings of people, and for the “immoral” characterization of ‘good’ people who care only about helping those far worse off than themselves to escape the terror and poverty rampant in their homeland. “None of these are depraved and evil” as we suggested with our comments, they said.
In other words, there are no people like Mao Tse Tung who saw a better world as an “omelet” which could be achieved only by “breaking a few ‘eggs'” ( ‘some must suffer and die if the multitudes are to prosper in peace and comfort’).
So let’s watch as the news of this tragedy is interpreted for us by the liberal media: “This is the price of President Trump’s ‘border security’; instead of providing succor to the least of our brethren, we are content to let the most innocent to die in the desert for the ‘sin’ of their parents…seeking only for them a better life”.
And, of course, while the little girl’s parents are grieving, “immigration lawyers” will be fiing their wrongful death suits on ‘their behalf’. The media will be actively dancing on that little girl’s grave, hoping this will serve to show how “uncharitable”, “insensitive”, “uncaring” all of those “border security” fanatics are.
Seven years old…sad, but necessary to make a ‘global omelet’. (There are details in the Journal’s story that are pertinent to putting context to this tragedy): DLH
“A 7-year-old Guatemalan girl died last week, about a day after she and her father were arrested for crossing the Mexican border illegally…”
The girl and her father were arrested in a group of 163 people near Lordsburg, N.M., a remote desert area about 160 miles west of El Paso, Texas, at around 10 p.m. on Dec. 6.”
“The girl reportedly hadn’t eaten or had anything to drink for several days and began suffering seizures about eight hours after being taken into custody…”
“The agency (Customs and Border Protection) said emergency medical personnel discovered the girl had a fever of 105.3 degrees and she was flown to a hospital in El Paso…”
“It is unclear if the girl received any food or water after her arrest or if she was given medical attention before the seizures started.
Migrants are generally given brief medical exams after their arrests. The agency said her father told authorities the girl was fine.”
“The area where the girl and her father were arrested is a remote patch of desert in southern New Mexico where migrants can walk for hours or even days without being spotted.”
Every year hundreds of migrants die trying to cross the Mexican border. During the 2017 budget year, 294 people died.
“In the El Paso Sector, which includes New Mexico, eight deaths were reported.
“It is unclear how long the girl and her father had been in the U.S. or when they left Guatemala.”
By the way, while we anticipated the left’s reaction back in October it is not lost on other conservatives as well who have documented the frenzy:
(because without “a wall”, in time you will be living “elsewhere”, it won’t be the same country)
Obviously wall opponents care little about national boundaries, rule of law, security, honest immigrants, not to mention tax payers so why not enjoy the cultures you find so enchanting up close and personal?
Democrats and Paul Ryan are concerned about a lousy $3 billion in wall money!!??
They are happy to piss that away on more actual boondoggles than you can shake a stick at
We always preferred that attention to the rule of law would be “wall” enough. That alone is way too fungible a concept given the axis of cheap labor interests and Democrat party builders
Legal subversion is usually baked into the cake by those elements
Given that the cost of a strategically placed wall is relative pocket change, and the opponents are big government spend thrifts, they must fear deeply that it will work
Illegals are costing American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars a year. (And 64% of Immigrants in general are on welfare so a handle has to be placed on that attraction). Billions are spent on incarceration of illegals who are violent criminals as well.
Congressman Ted Budd of North Carolina wrote an article appearing in The Daily Signal that we set forth below. Our only demurral is his adoption of the term “partisan issue” as if both sides had the good of the country at heart (country understood as a nation) and just had some policy disagreement over how to best achieve that. The Democrats are interested in radical change, the quicker the better.
The United States is the most generous, pro-immigrant country in the world. Annually, we take in more immigrants than any other country on the planet.
Couple that with the fact that immigration has been a driving issue in the last two campaign cycles, and it is more than reasonable to demand that the next funding bill include commonsense border security measures.
With only days left before Congress gavels out and the power in the House of Representatives shifts from Republicans to Democrats, we, as members of Congress, must fulfill the promises we made to the American people to uphold the rule of law and secure our borders.
Congress must fund President Donald Trump’s border wall and close the “catch and release” loopholes in the upcoming must-pass spending bill. We must do it now.
The statistics are frightening. This fall, Border Patrol arrested a massive number of people coming across the border, as loopholes in our immigration laws continue to pull illegal aliens into the United States—more than 100,000 people in October and November alone.
These significant illegal immigration attempts are giving immigrants a bad name. Historically, immigrants to America have come here legally to seek a better life and contribute to our economy. In the case of illegal immigrants, their very first act on U.S. soil is to break the law.
That’s why it is critical that we stop the inflow. Doing so will allow us to focus on reforms that prioritize legal immigration and reward law-abiding people for doing the right thing. And we know how to do this: a border wall, and ending catch and release.
Catch and release is the natural result of a series of loopholes in current U.S. asylum laws that encourage lawbreaking. Because of various legal settlements and the unintended consequences of a 2008 law, when families come to the U.S. to claim asylum, they are released out of legal custody into the country to await a hearing. Many never show for their hearings, and simply disappear into America.
Armed with this knowledge, illegal immigrants game the system to get into the U.S. and plant roots, undermining our laws. Fixing this and making it easier for border agents to send illegal immigrants home will discourage illegal immigration and encourage people to immigrate the right way.
We need to pair this with a border wall, so that illegal immigrants cannot physically cross our border in the first place. And we know border walls work. When Israel constructed a barrier along its southern border, it cut down on illegal immigration by 99 percent. Along the U.S.-Mexico border, in the places where we currently have strong barriers, illegal crossings have also been drastically reduced.
Like so many entrenched, partisan issues in our country, the problem of illegal immigration is solvable, but will require compromise.
A good place to start will be with border security measures that Democrats have historically agreed to, and closing loopholes in current laws. Then, we can get back to doing what we have historically done best: welcoming legal immigrants from around the world with open arms
“They (Page and Strzok) returned the phones issued to them (Page and Strzok), and they were both reset to factory settings and had no content from their use.
“The FBI employee who received Mr. Strzok’s phone says she didn’t remember it containing any substantive messages. Ms. Page’s phone couldn’t be located for several months, but when it was finally found this September it had also been reset and had no messages.
“The deputy attorney general (ed. note – apparently with a straight face) told the inspector general that such resets are standard procedure when a user returns a device and it is to be reissued to another user.”
YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS !?
Well, yes, you can be if you’re the FBI and you believe the American people are extraordinarily gullible and stupid!
Seriously dishonest, that is.
From this day forward, we predict, that old joking excuse for failure to deliver on one’s commitments…”the dog ate my homework”…will be replaced by the even more childish implausibility for explaining unacceptable performance: “I’m with the FBI…sucker”.
THIS(?) is America’s “premier law enforcement agency??? (Inspector Clouseau would have been embarrassed !! DLH
Investigators weren’t able to find any text messages between fired agent Peter Strzok and former bureau lawyer Lisa Page from their time on the Mueller probe because by the time their phones were recovered, they’d been reset for others’ use, an inspector general said Thursday. The report also said the FBI still isn’t reliably collecting text messages of all of its employees — despite the black eye the bureau has suffered from Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page.
The revelations came in a report Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz released to detail the efforts his team made to try to recover the texts between the two, who traded anti-Trump messages during the course of an affair they were having.
Investigators have already released many of the controversial messages, including one in which Mr. Strzok promised they would “stop” Mr. Trump from winning the White House.
But there was a gap in the text messages, or what the inspector general dubbed a “collection tool failure,” and the new report detailed investigators’ efforts to try to recover those messages directly from the Samsung Galaxy phones issued to both Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page.
While messages were recovered from some phones, the inspector general said that wasn’t the case for the phones assigned to the two during their time on the special counsel’s probe. (scroll down)
Ms. Page joined that office on May 28, 2017, and left on July 15, 2017. Mr. Strzok joined in early June and was ousted from that team in late July, with his final clearance from the team coming Aug. 11, 2017.
They returned the phones issued to them, and they were both reset to factory settings and had no content from their use.
The FBI employee who received Mr. Strzok’s phone says she didn’t remember it containing any substantive messages. Ms. Page’s phone couldn’t be located for several months, but when it was finally found this September it had also been reset and had no messages.
The deputy attorney general told the inspector general that such resets are standard procedure when a user returns a device and it is to be reissued to another user.
Not exactly a shocker, the WSJ editorial board does not approve of President Trump’s “Oval Office Pantomine” as they call it. The paper is referring, of course, to the “meeting” (their quotes) Tuesday between President Trump and Democratic leaders, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.
The Journal, a notorious advocate for illegal immigration, reflecting its business constituency’s insatiable appetite for cheap labor, termed the meeting, which was held in the presence of the White House media and televised ‘live’, an “entertaining spectacle” and an “embarrassment” (for President Trump, of course).
Unmentioned in the editorial is the undeniable fact that the Journal doesn’t want the “Wall”. It’s impossible to not conclude from the piece that the paper also is not a fan of a ‘government shutdown’ and is critical of Trump’s willingness to take the blame for one in order to get the funding for border security, as enhanced by ‘his’ Wall.
In what we believe to be a somewhat misleading description of Mr. Trump’s efforts to reach a compromise with Democrats earlier this year the Journal claims it was the president’s “changing positions” on what he would and would not support that caused that effort to fail.
The editorial acknowledged that Trump’s offer (which they describe as a “House compromise bill”) was defeated by Republicans feuding over “details”.
That’s not quite how we recall and interpret that effort. First of all, failure to pass a bill limiting illegal immigration and strengthening border security, we believe, was primarily due to the purposeful failed leadership of the GOP Speaker of the House, the sanctimonious Paul Ryan.
Trump’s offer to give ‘amnesty’ to more DACA recipients than Democrats even demanded (which we thought was a bit more generous on Trump’s part than necessary), in return for full funding of the “wall”, seemed to us to be the very definition of “compromise”. Mr. Ryan’s unenthusiastic “support’, deserves the credit for allowing “Republican feuding over the details” to scuttle it.
Compliments to President Trump for bringing real ‘transparency’ to government, Good riddance to Paul Ryan, and a Bronx Cheer to the Wall Street Journal ed board! DLH
We posted an initial report last night. We were told this morning that “Republican” PR election firm Victory Enterprises was retained by the Bettendorf School Board to poll prior to their dramatically loosing effort. This is not the only time Victory Enterprises has done business with efforts to promote big spending bond issues and other such efforts.
“So I blow the whistle on the FBI, get raided by the same FBI, and now they want to keep the FBI’s reasons (for the raid secret). Do we now live in a secret police state? Feels a little like 1984.”
“Just following orders, sir”.
Remember all those ‘rank and file’ FBI employees…the ones who are just dedicated, committed, freedom-loving folks, ‘putting it all on the line’ for their country?
That would, of course, be the ‘36,000 employees of the ‘world’s greatest law enforcement agency’, not to be confused with that ‘handful’ of ‘Deep State’ characters at the leadership levels of the Bureau. You know the ones…products of both corrupt (as in Obama’s) and inept (most other GOP and Democrat) administrations.
No commentator of any stripe ever begins an analysis of the FBI’s role in the Deep State tactics and strategies to take down the duly elected presidency of Donald Trump without first dutifully exonerating all those ‘rank and file’ employees.
However, when one reads of the raids on the homes and offices of a president’s personal lawyer (with apparently little practical regard for ‘lawyer-client privilege), or on a ‘cooperating’ former member of a presidential election campaign at 2 AM, or on that of a ‘protected’ whistle blower, it is not the bureau’s ‘leadership’ who performs the activity, guns drawn.
No. It’s those ‘rank and file’ folks…’doing their duty’…apparently oblivious to any apparent legal ramifications, contradictions, or excesses.
Let’s face it folks. There are undoubtedly, good men and women who serve admirably and courageously and patriotically in our FBI. There is undoubtedly another kind as well. We would suggest that in the 8 years of the Obama administration it is quite likely many of that “other kind” were recruited into the ranks of the bureau…people who shared the ideology of that “Deep State Leadership’.
But nevertheless, on a given day, it doesn’t matter what the “commitment” or ideology of the rank and file is.
For most, what matters is their commitment to the ‘job’…their livelihood…for their families and themselves. Their ‘duty and commitment’ is to the paycheck, the career….
If “the Boss” says, “At 2 AM tomorrow morning, you’ll be part of a raid on a residence at 2018 Happy Lane”, the typical Special Agent (with very rare exception) checks his/her body armor, reviews his/her specific assignment, and readies him/her self for the order.
Nobody says, “this doesn’t seem right…”
Make no mistake…for a ‘free’ country, it’s all in the Leadership! DLH
Posted on December 10, 2018by sundance
An interesting legal development (full pdf below) in the aftermath of the mysterious FBI raid on protected FBI whistleblower Nate Cain. [Backstory]
The DOJ wants the details behind the search warrant to remain under
seal, and the whistleblower target of that warrant -who was not
arrested- is accusing the DOJ-FBI of being a police state:
[Tweet Link – – Daily Caller Story Link]
Something about this entire story is
just not adding up. The whistleblower came forward to the IG with
information about how the FBI covered-up for the Clintons during
investigations about the Clinton Foundation. The IG gave the
whistleblower protection, confirmed anonymity, and passed on his
documentary evidence to the Senate Intelligence Committee (SSCI). Then
the whistleblower gets raided.
From the outset the DOJ and IG claims don’t match the DOJ and FBI conduct. Even Senator Chuck Grassley has questions.
Results are in on the school tax increase plebiscites for Davenport and Bettendorf school districts. According to the just posted figures* Davenport School District voters overwhelmingly voted to continue and increase the tax levy and Bettendorf School District voters overwhelmingly voted down the bond issue proposal there. Here are the Scott County Auditor’s office graphics:
So the Davenport District approved theirs virtually two to one at 64.59% for to 35.41% against and Bettendorf turns theirs down virtually two to one at 64.40% against to 35.60% for. The percentage mirror is almost uncanny but look at the vote turnout. Bettendorf had a 15.38% turnout and Davenport a whopping (snark) 4.64% turnout and that is considered super good for that district. So Davenport’s turnout was less than one-third of Bettendorf’s.
id the vote results or the turnout have anything to do with the merits of the issues? We think they were both assaults on taxpayers resulting from poor financial management and policy matters come home to roost.
We think Bettendorf’s failed because of higher turnout (more generated interest) and in part because it is majority Republican. The Davenport District had theirs pass because it was still a pathetically low turnout and voting in such elections is dominated by the usual suspects, Democrats and others at the trough.
With such dependable low turnout, if strategized well, those with gain in mind primarily at others expence (whether self-righteous dogooder or selfish feeder at the public trough) can successfully impose their will if care is taken not to gel opposition. Opposition in Bettendorf gelled.
Consider that in the Davenport Community School District (DCSD) there are over 1400 teachers and it has over 3000 total employees thus substantiating the claim that it is one of the top ten employers in the Quad Cities. If John Deere were a taxing body how do you think its referendums would fair? Certainly not the same but then some of the influences could be quite similar.
Not all the DCSD employees are eligible to vote in the related election but we bet they are to a very great extent and if they are of like mind, and substantially the ones willing to vote we bet are, they could easily dominate a low turnout election.
So there are 3000 employees in the DCSD and there were only 3629 voters in the entire district who voted today. Given that with the same turnout only 1815 votes would have been needed to sustain/impose the tax increase, well you see the implication. In such times they can vote themselves whatever they want and the usual suspects will herald the “high” voter interest and “record turn-out” or other boob bait. Indeed just one third of the employees with their spouses could have carried the day in Davenport.
This is why not only should super majorities for tax increases be required (Bettendorf requires a 60 % approval vote, Davenport only 50% plus 1) consideration should be given to requiring some practicable level of turnout for a tax increase to take effect. A one half of one percent turnout in either case could have produced the same result for all taxpayers. Is that right?.
Superficial supporters of “majority rule” who support tax increases will be inclined to say when they win that, however small the turnout, “that is fair’. When they loose they often lament that “a small number of greedy malcontents blocked progress” or similar rot. If majority is to rule the others, shouldn’t something like a majority actually vote? No? How about a reasonable quorum to do such business — at least a third?
*we noted that the returns were quite speedy given that the votes were not machine voted at the polls. Rather it was conducted rather old school of sort – paper ballots in a collection box. We realize there was only one question and not the perhaps dozens as in a general election. And it could be anticipated the turnout would be nothing like a general election, more like the fraction it was. As the ballots were probably machine readable perhaps they were machine counted at the Auditor’s office.