Overwhelmingly passed

Donald Trump Projected Winner Of 2024 Presidential Election

'Trading in a lot of hope for a lot of hurt'

The post New Bylaw Proposes Mandatory “Chipping & Snipping” for Cats in New Zealand Which Could Protect Native Birds by Nicole Cosgrove appeared first on Catster. Copying over entire articles infringes on copyright laws. You may not be aware of it, but all of these articles were assigned, contracted and paid for, so they aren't considered public domain. However, we appreciate that you like the article and would love it if you continued sharing just the first paragraph of an article, then linking out to the rest of the piece on Catster.com. The Far North District of New Zealand (situated in, you guessed it, the far north of the country) is set to debate a significant change in animal regulations, with a proposed bylaw that would require all cats over the age of four months to be both microchipped and desexed. The new rules, if adopted, would be the first animal regulations in the district since 2019, when the previous bylaw lapsed. As a result, pet management has become an increasing challenge, especially for cats, which are not covered by any current regulations. While the bylaw would regulate desexing, there would be no limit on the number of cats per household. The bylaw also proposes restrictions on other animals, including bans on roosters and pigs in urban areas. New Zealand has been in the international news for its view on feral cats in the past when the announcement of a feral cat-hunting contest for kids went viral. The public anger led organizers to withdraw the event, though they maintained that the junior hunting tournament to kill feral cats was about “protecting native birds and other vulnerable species.” So, where do feral cats fit in societies, especially in Island nations like New Zealand or Australia, where the expanding populations are threatening and endangering native animal species? While house cats are popular and beloved in New Zealand, a country with only 5.2 million people, there are an estimated 2.4 million feral cats. Thus, seeing new bylaws proposed that are ‘fences at the top’ instead of ‘ambulances at the bottom’, like hunting competitions, could hopefully be the way of the future and give the cats and the public a chance to align. The issue of feral cats has been a tense topic for many years between animal lovers and authorities globally, due to the impact they have on other wildlife. In New Zealand, one such species threatened by feral cats (but not limited to) is the kiwi, the country’s currently endangered national bird. Kiwi birds have an estimated population of 68,000, which is decreasing by 2% each year – roughly 20 kiwis per week. A Gap in Pet Management The lapse of the previous bylaw in 2019 left a regulatory gap, meaning the district has had no formal control over pet populations other than dogs, which are regulated under a separate bylaw. The absence of rules has made it difficult for the Far North District Council to respond effectively to residents’ complaints about nuisance or stray animals, and animal welfare organizations have been stretched incredibly thin trying to manage issues caused by the uncontrolled breeding of stray cats. Under the proposed new bylaw, the council would gain tools to manage not only the behavior of pet owners but also the environmental and community impacts of unregulated animal populations. Key Provisions for Cats Image Credit: New Africa, Shutterstock The proposed “chipping and snipping” requirement for cats over four months of age is one of the bylaw’s central features. This new rule is designed to tackle the growing population of stray and unowned cats, a pressing issue in the Far North District, which has a mild climate that enables nearly year-round breeding for cats. Animal rescues, like Coast to Coast Cat Rescue based in Kerikeri, are flooded with kittens and stray cats. As of September 2024, Coast to Coast has taken in nearly 2,100 cats and kittens since 2021 alone. According to Sam Stewart, the founder of the organization, very few of these animals were desexed or microchipped when they arrived, and many were either strays or had been abandoned by their previous owners. Microchipping and desexing are seen as crucial steps in both managing the cat population and ensuring the animals’ welfare. Microchipping provides a permanent form of identification, increasing the chances that lost or stray cats can be returned to their owners and reducing the number of unidentified strays ending up in rescues. Desexing helps reduce unwanted litters and inhumane treatment of them, which is especially important in regions where mild climates make for long breeding seasons. Exceptions would be made for registered breeding cats or if a veterinarian certifies that desexing would be harmful to the cat’s health. In addition to microchipping and desexing, the bylaw leaves out a cap on the number of cats per household, under the reasoning that cat hoarding only becomes a problem if the animals are not managed responsibly. Protecting Native Bird Populations The flightless endangered national bird of New Zealand, the kiwi | Image by Roberto Dani, Shutterstock With animal welfare in mind, one of the most urgent reasons for this bylaw is the impact of stray and feral cats on New Zealand’s native wildlife. Cats, whether owned or feral, are natural predators of birds, and they pose a serious threat to New Zealand’s unique bird species. With some species already endangered, hunting cats add significant pressure to these fragile populations. The tūī, kākā, fantail, and aforementioned kiwi are among the vulnerable species that roam or nest in areas frequented by cats. The hunting instinct of even well-fed domestic cats can harm native bird numbers, especially in regions like the Far North, where many birds are ground-dwelling and thus more accessible to predators. Cats have been introduced to an environment where native species evolved without land-based mammalian predators, making them especially vulnerable. For example, the kiwi bird is flightless and nocturnal, aligning their wake time with the feral cat population. One of their main adapted defenses is ‘freezing’, which isn’t fine against predatory birds who use sight to hunt, but not so helpful against cats, who use scent. In the video below you can see the kiwi ‘freezing’. The feral cat was too busy eating to worry about the kiwi on film. The bylaw’s focus on desexing and managing stray cats could reduce these risks, helping to create safer environments for New Zealand’s birds and supporting broader conservation efforts. Community Impact and Moving Toward Responsible Pet Ownership Image Credit: Ivonne Wierink, Shutterstock Those proposing the bylaw hope it will be a turning point and have a lasting positive impact on pet ownership behaviors in the Far North region, aiming to educate and encourage responsible pet ownership. By requiring basic steps like microchipping and desexing, the bylaw could help reduce the number of stray and unwanted animals and lead a cultural shift in how pets are managed. The bylaw proposal excludes the need for a limit on the number of cats per household, as long as they are desexed, microchipped, and cared for responsibly (responsible care being the key phrase). Hoarding situations only become an issue when the number of animals a person keeps exceeds their ability to care for them responsibly, so those would still be addressed by the SPCA, mental health services, or council inspectors. Consultation and Next Steps The public has until November 18 to submit their views on the bylaw, with consultation open since September. If passed, the Far North District would join other districts in the country in enforcing compulsory microchipping and desexing to reduce cat overpopulation and its impacts. What are your thoughts on compulsory chipping and desexing? Do you believe this bylaw will help protect New Zealand’s native birds? How important is this for conservation? We’d love to hear from you in the comment section below (beneath the feedback stars, keep scrolling down!). The post New Bylaw Proposes Mandatory “Chipping & Snipping” for Cats in New Zealand Which Could Protect Native Birds by Nicole Cosgrove appeared first on Catster. Copying over entire articles infringes on copyright laws. You may not be aware of it, but all of these articles were assigned, contracted and paid for, so they aren't considered public domain. However, we appreciate that you like the article and would love it if you continued sharing just the first paragraph of an article, then linking out to the rest of the piece on Catster.com.

This election it appears that more Hispanics have voted for Donald Trump than in past elecxtions. This year, in the state of Pennsylvania, Trump picked up more Latino votes than in 2020, according to an exit poll conducted by NBC. Four in 10 Hispanics from the state voted for Trump versus three in 10 four years ago.    NBC’s exit polls also showed Trump getting 45% of the Hispanic vote. In 2020, Trump only got 36% of the Hispanic vote, according to Pew Research Center.  “Latino men are breaking for Trump by a 10-point margin, 54% to 44%, in a major reversal from four years ago, according to the NBC News Exit Poll. In 2020, Latino men backed [Joe] Biden over Trump by a 23-point margin, 59% to 36%,” reports NBC News.  Mike Gonzalez, author of “A Race for the Future: How Conservatives Can Break the Liberal Monopoly on Hispanic Americans,” says there are several reasons why Hispanic voters may favor Trump this election.   “If it turns out that Trump outperforms with Hispanics, a lot of it can be attributable to the Left’s relentless pushing of woke issues. On race, on sex, on climate, etc.” Gonzalez told The Daily Signal. “The Left took extreme positions. This turned off Hispanics, who know people cannot change sex and that boys should not be competing in girls’ sports or using female bathrooms.”   Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, also suggested that Hispanics dislike the term “Latinx” and says the Left pushed the controversial descriptor too hard.  A September survey conducted by a Latino advocacy organization, The LIBRE Initiative, showed that three quarters of Hispanics think the country is headed in the wrong track. September Libre InstituteDownload In a July LIBRE Initiative survey, Hispanics also didn’t seem to favor the Biden-Harris administration, with 59% saying they disapproved of President Joe Biden, and 49% thinking they worse off than they were four years ago.   The Hispanic vote has historically leaned Democrat.   In 2020 roughly 36% of Hispanic voters supported Trump versus 61% whom supported Joe Biden, according to Pew Research Center.  In 2016, 28% of Hispanics voted for Trump and 66% for Hillary Clinton.   In 2012 71% of Hispanics voted for President Barack Obama versus 27% who voted for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, according to Pew Research.    Famed Latino singer Marc Anthony endorsed Harris this year and so have other prominent Latino celebrities such as Cardi B, Jennifer Lopez, and Ricky Martin, according to ColumbiaOne news.   Carlos Trijillo, senior adviser for the Trump campaign, focuses on Latino issues for the campaign and has recently embraced some other observations that many Hispanics who support Trump have fled from dictatorships, even though plenty of Americans today refer to Trump as a “would-be-dictator.”   Trijillo’s family fled from communist leader Fidel Castro, a Cuban so-called dictator back in the mid 1960’s.  “A dictator doesn’t leave office. A dictator persecutes their political opponents, their opponent’s supporters, and weaponizes institutions,” Trijillo told a reporter for The New Yorker. “Trump never did that. Democrats have.”  The post Why More Hispanics Voted for Trump appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Voters in Western states and the District of Columbia voted on some form of ranked choice voting or “jungle primaries” that includes ranking the final candidates in the general election. Meanwhile, Alaska voted to do away with ranked choice voting, after adopting it just four years ago.  District of Columbia voters approved Initiative 83 to allow unaffiliated voters to vote in a party primary. It also would establish ranked choice voting for general elections beginning in 2026.  Washington, DC, adopts ranked choice voting after passing ballot measure.https://t.co/Hbtnu3LzXf pic.twitter.com/WHGJV3tpFi— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) November 6, 2024 South Dakota voters rejected a measure to replace party primaries with a ranked choice voting system, Ballotpedia reported. South Dakota voters rejected Amendment H, which would have replaced partisan primaries with top-two primaries for state executive, state legislative, congressional, & county offices. As of 12:29 AM, 32.1% of voters approved the amendment; 67.9% of voters rejected the amendment.— Ballotpedia (@ballotpedia) November 6, 2024 Supporters of ranked choice voting outspent opponents by at least 2 to 1, and often 10 to 1, according to campaign finance reports cited by Ballotpedia. Ranked choice voting has been implemented in marginally different ways in various jurisdictions. Generally, though, voters are asked to rank their first, second, and third choices on the ballot.  If no candidate gets more than 50% to finish in first place, a second round of counting occurs. Gradually, candidates who come in last place after each round are eliminated.  The voter’s second choice will be counted if his or her ballot lists an eliminated candidate as the first choice. More rounds of voting continue until one candidate has a majority. Other states that considered ranked choice voting measures included the swing states of Arizona and Nevada. It was also on the ballot in Montana, Colorado, Idaho, and Oregon. This story will be updated as more result come in. The post Ranked Choice Voting Sees Mixed Results in State Ballot Initiatives appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Donald Trump secured North Carolina’s 16 electoral votes Tuesday night in what looks like a successful bid to reclaim the presidency he lost in 2020. Trump, the Republican nominee, and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, held multiple rallies in the swing state before Election Day. Trump was leading Harris by 51% to 47.8%, with 98% of the North Carolina vote counted. “We’re running a campaign of solutions to save America, an America which they have virtually destroyed,” Trump said of the Biden-Harris administration last Wednesday at a rally in Rocky Mount, North Carolina. Trump narrowly won North Carolina in 2020 with 49.9% of the vote, defeating Democrat Joe Biden. who earned 48.6% but went on to win the White House. Trump also won North Carolina in 2016, defeating Democrat Hillary Clinton. In a pre-election analysis, pollster Frank Luntz told Fox News that Harris needed to win North Carolina or Georgia to secure the presidential election. CBS News, NBC News, and Fox News declared Trump the winner in Georgia early Wednesday morning. North Carolina’s 1st Congressional District, which contains 19 counties, was expected to determine which candidate won the state. Nash and Pasquotank counties are both in that district and Biden won both by fewer than 200 votes in 2020. However, Trump earned nearly 1,000 more votes by Tuesday than Harris did in both counties. Scotland County was expected to be a bellwether county in North Carolina. In 2020, Trump won Scotland County by fewer than 300 votes out of 14,855 cast. This time, Trump won it by over 1,000 votes out of 14,548. Trump also made inroads with black voters in North Carolina. NBC News reported that blacks make up about 19% of the state’s electorate and that Trump won over 12% of the black vote. His margins increased by 12 percentage points among black men, NBC said. Economic issues were front and center for many North Carolina voters. “In talking with my friends, neighbors, and business associates, most of us felt that a vote for Kamala Harris was a vote for four more years of the same,” North Carolina business owner Fred George told The Daily Signal on Tuesday night. “Inflation, stagnation, rampant illegal immigration, and pushing values that are just not in keeping with our way of life,” George said. “We were mostly better off under Trump’s first term and prefer to go back to that.” The post How Trump Won Swing State of North Carolina appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In perhaps the least surprising election outcome of this election cycle, Democrat George Gascon got a shellacking Tuesday from his opponent, independent Nathan Hochman, in the race for Los Angeles County district attorney, losing by 62% to 38%.    The writing was on the wall for Gascon, as LA voters not only twice unsuccessfully tried to recall him but 74% of primary voters also voted for candidates other than Gascon in April. It turns out that voters do indeed want a safe county, unburdened by violent crime. Voters correctly blamed Gascon for the tsunami of crime he unleashed through his pro-criminal policies.   Hochman, a former Republican running against Gascon as an independent, prosecuted drug dealers, human traffickers, and corrupt public officials as an assistant U.S. attorney in California. He ran the Justice Department’s tax division in the final year of George W. Bush’s eight-year presidency. Gascon, one of the highest-profile rogue prosecutors whose campaigns got fundraising boosts from liberal financier George Soros, stubbornly maintained that crime had fallen during his tenure overseeing the largest district attorney’s office in the nation. But that wasn’t true, and everyone knew it. During the one and only debate last month between Gascon and Hochman, moderators cited statistics on violent crime from the California Department of Justice and the Los Angeles Police Department for 2019 to 2023 that showed crime rose each year under Gascon’s tenure.  As we wrote here, you know you’re in trouble politically when, as a left-wing candidate, the media figures moderating a political debate essentially call you a liar. Gascon’s loss was inevitable the moment he unveiled his sweeping pro-criminal, anti-victim, cop-hating directives during his first week in office. It was only a matter of time. The utter scope and breadth of Gascon’s policies were stunning. Each of them inured to the benefit of criminals and ignored or punished victims. No civil society, even one with uber-liberal values, could tolerate for long the degradation of law and order that came as a result of the district attorney’s policies. Over the years, Gascon has been sued by dozens of his own prosecutors, including for creating a hostile work environment, for workplace retaliation, and for discrimination, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Gascon has lost almost all of those cases, costing Los Angeles County millions of dollars. A whopping 97.2% of the front-line prosecutors who are members of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County, voted to support Gascon’s recall in 2022. The union, which consists of over 900 prosecutors, also sued Gascon several times, including for allegedly violating the state’s public records act and for forcing prosecutors to violate state law by not charging enhancements or allegations in appropriate cases. These lawsuits won at the trial court level and await a decision by the California Supreme Court. Before Gascon’s policies disappear into a memory hole, we thought it would be helpful to list some of his most insane directives, which we wrote about here, discussed in our book “Rogue Prosecutors,” and discussed at length here in The Heritage Foundation’s documentary on crime.  Gascon’s directives, applicable to all 900-plus prosecutors in his office: Prohibited prosecutors from charging 13 specific misdemeanors and gave them discretion to refuse to prosecute hundreds of other misdemeanor crimes on the books. Prohibited prosecutors from requesting cash bail for any misdemeanor, nonserious felony, or nonviolent offense, regardless of the accused’s criminal history. To make matters worse, prosecutors couldn’t oppose a defense counsel’s motion to remove or modify a defendant’s condition of release; nor could prosecutors oppose a defense counsel’s request that a judge not issue a bench warrant against a defendant for not showing up.  Prohibited prosecutors from filing sentencing enhancements or allegations, regardless of the underlying facts in a case. The California Legislature passed dozens of sentencing enhancements to be used when a criminal commits a crime against specific classes of individuals, such as children, women, the elderly, and others, and when aggravating circumstances exist such as using a firearm or being a repeat offender.  Prohibited prosecutors from charging violent juveniles as adults, regardless of the crime, including murder and child rape. Established a unit in the District Attorney’s Office to look for cases of “injustice” and “racial injustice” in convictions the office earned over the decades.  Prohibited prosecutors from asking for the death penalty in any case. Established a unit called the Conviction Integrity Unit to work “independently” to unwind and dissolve the office’s convictions over the decades in cases where the “interests of justice” require review and reversal.  Established a resentencing unit requiring prosecutors to “reevaluate and consider for resentencing people who have already served 15 years in prison.” This applied to murderers, child and adult rapists, gang members, and anyone convicted by the office and sentenced to life without parole, life, or a determinate sentence of decades.  The directive also required prosecutors to “join the defendant’s motion to strike all alleged sentence enhancements” for pending cases.  Prohibited prosecutors from attending parole hearings. Required prosecutors “to support in writing” a convict’s request for grant of parole if he or she “already served their mandatory minimum period of incarceration.”  Gascon’s political demise is the natural and probable consequence of his policies, which are emblematic of the broader rogue prosecutor movement underwritten by Soros, the liberal financier. This movement continues to be the worst social experiment of recent decades. It is an avoidable social pandemic.  Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Hatami, an outspoken and brave critic of Gascon, provided us with the following statement: “The four-year reign of George Gascon is finally over. He will go down as the worst DA in LA County history. It is now time to get back to what a real DA is supposed to do—follow the law, support victims, prioritize public safety, and prosecute crime. I stand ready to work with Nathan Hochman to do just that.” Hatami was featured at a Heritage Foundation-sponsored crime symposium in Los Angeles, as shown here, along with Deputy District Attorney Eric Siddal and former Deputy District Attorney Kathleen Cady.  Gascon joins a long list of rogue rejects, including Chesa Boudin, Marilyn Mosby, Rachel Rollins, and Kim Gardner, who were either recalled, lost their election, or resigned in disgrace. Kim Foxx of Chicago, the first Soros-funded rogue prosecutor to be elected, chose not to run again as rising crime rates in Chicago became a political albatross for Democrats, who in August held their national convention in her city.  Of the eight most notorious Soros-funded rogue prosecutors featured in our book, only Larry Krasner of Philadelphia and Alvin Bragg of New York remain in office. The other six have been vanquished. Krasner and Bragg won’t be far behind them, if voters in their cities also hold them accountable for rising crime rates as a result of their ill-conceived policies.  The post Rogue Prosecutor George Gascon Loses Reelection as LA County District Attorney appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Donald Trump’s hard-fought win in Pennsylvania was key to his apparent victory Tuesday over Kamala Harris in the presidential race.   Fox News first called Pennsylvania for Trump at 1:22 a.m. Wednesday. Decision Desk HQ called Pennsylvania at 1:21 a.m. This put him at 267 electoral votes, three away from the 270 needed. Together with the red state of Alaska, with its three electoral votes, Pennsylvania put Trump over the top. At 1:50 a.m., Fox News called Wisconsin for Trump, bringing his total to 277 electoral votes.  Several factors may have played into Trump’s win in the ultimate battleground state of Pennsylvania. One unexpected factor was the Amish vote.  Amish residents of Pennsylvania registered to vote in record numbers, the New York Post reported. This particular conservative faith community rallied based in part on the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture’s raid on Amos Miller’s farm in January, according to Lancaster Farming. Like most Trump voters, Stan Navola, a Brighton Township resident, said he voted for the former president because of the economy.  “Trump I trust more on the issues,” Navola told The Daily Signal last week after casting his ballot early. “The economy is the number one issue. I don’t think Harris is qualified for the job.”  Several other Pennsylvania voters who spoke to The Daily Signal last week said they backed Trump primarily because of the economy—pointing to the Biden-Harris administration’s record on inflation, taxes, and spending.  “The economy is a train wreck and crime is high. I’ve had to fire people just to have enough money in the budget to hire additional security,” Pittsburgh resident David Nelle told The Daily Signal. “We can’t have a good economy without restoring safety.”  In 2020, Democrat Joe Biden beat Trump by 50% to 48.8% of the vote in Pennsylvania. In 2016, Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton 48.2% to 47.5%, the first Republican presidential candidate to win the Keystone State since George H.W. Bush in 1988.  Nancy Roderick, 89, of Pittsburgh, said she considered the stakes to be high. “I think if we don’t win this time, it’s all over,” Roderick, a resident of the North Hills suburbs of Pittsburgh, told The Daily Signal.  Susan Nightingale, 81, of Pittsburgh, said her biggest motivation was the Biden-Harris administration’s poor performance.  “I think Pennsylvanians can overall see what is going on now needs to stop,” Nightingale told The Daily Signal. “They didn’t finish the border fence. It’s a shame they are just letting that fence material lie there [as] waste.” Charles Schrankel of Ross Township said he isn’t usually strictly partisan. “I voted the straight Republican ticket, and I don’t always vote straight party,” Shrankel told The Daily Signal outside the polling station in Wexford, Pennsylvania.  Wexford resident Mike Quigley said he looked at both the economy and the border.  “Trump and all the Republicans,” Quigley told The Daily Signal about who he voted for. “The border, the economy; I liked the way it was four years ago.”  The post Why Trump Carried Pennsylvania on Path Back to Presidency appeared first on The Daily Signal.

BREAKING: Fox Calls PA For Trump; DDHQ Calls Election; UPDATE