_____
I haven't been paying much attention to the big Texas polygamy scandal and arrests.
There are a lot of twisted men out there who will abuse children and young women using the fig leaf of religion.
_____
One wonders that if the subject had been pro-Obama instead of pro-Clinton whether the blogger would rake a fellow blogger over the coals by digging into the blogger's past.
No doubt there is some resume inflation here; I had never heard of her at all until I came across her website, but I think this post is an example of envy.
Of course Marsh tries to get the last word in. Sticks and stones and all of that.
_____
I don't know why Priscilla Presley ever got cosmetic surgery in the first place, but now it appears she was a victim of a quack.
She never should have had any surgery at all. She didn't need it.
_____
A Reno man makes a fool out of himself by filing a lawsuit claiming Hillary Clinton can't be president because it is unconstitutional:
The constitutional argument aside, several technical hurdles also stand in the way of Wallace's suit. For one, Clinton has yet to qualify for any Nevada ballot. The Democratic nomination has yet to be settled.
"The caucus was a presidential preference," said Matt Griffin, deputy secretary of state for elections. "As far as the general election ballot, no one has qualified yet."
If the lawsuit has legs, it could interfere with Clark County's do-over county convention on Saturday. The lawsuit seeks to keep the Nevada Democratic Party from supporting Clinton's candidacy.
Democratic spokeswoman Kirsten Searer had no comment on the lawsuit.
Wallace said he is not affiliated with any of the presidential campaigns but acknowledged he does not support Clinton.
"My preference is not for Hillary as I am one of those who feel that a two-family dynasty occupying the White House for possibly 28 years is an affront to the citizen government contemplated by the framers," he said, adding that he doesn't support any of the candidates.
Legal scholars said the courts rarely rely on archaic interpretations of the Constitution's language, unless the context requires it.
"Given where we are in terms of constitutional development, it's just not conceivable any court would take this seriously," said Sylvia Lazos, a constitutional law professor at Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
