When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
The amount of money being poured into this mid-term election is breaking all kinds of records.
Here at WGN, we are completely sold out of all advertising during every single break during every single newscast between now and Tuesday. We've added additional breaks, and lengthened them all to 3 minutes. Every single spot on the log (during news) for the next few days is a political ad.
i dont know who to vote for because everyone is bad and evil.
At least you have some choice in the matter. The vast majority of the lines on my ballot (including my state senator and representative) have only one candidate running. In none of those is the only candidate not a democrat. (A few others have two candidates, and the other candidate is always a member of the Green party, which is even more socialist.)
@IB Nolan, I wish those photos were readable. They are readable in their original form on my PC.
I might have a say in my district, but vote hardly matters in this area as well. I live too close to big city -- but i just vote the crimson wave and dont really care otherwise.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Washington, D.C., City Council is preparing to vote on a bill to lower the voting age to 16 for all elections, both local and federal.
WTOP-FM reports the bill won 3-0 approval in the Judiciary and Public Safety committee Thursday and will get a final vote before the full council this month.
The 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizens 18 and older the right to vote, but scholars have said it doesn't prevent a state, or in this case, the nation's capital, from setting a lower age.
Council member Charles Allen says his bill will "enfranchise the District's young people and bring their voices into the political process."
GOP lawmaker calls for Biblical law: Washington state Rep. Matt Shea publishes manifesto calling for the execution of all males who refuse to follow “Biblical law.”
In a disturbing development, Washington state Rep. Matt Shea releases a four-page Christian manifesto titled “Biblical Basis for War.” The document calls for “Biblical law”, and suggests that those men who support gay marriage and abortion rights should be executed.
NBC News reports on the four page manifesto released by Shea:
It’s a radical Christian call to arms, outlining 14 steps for seizing power and what to do afterward in explicit detail. It calls for an end to abortions, an end to same-sex marriage, and if enemies do not yield and everyone obey biblical law, all males will be killed.
Vice News reports:Washington state Rep. Matt Shea admitted Wednesday that he wrote and distributed the four-page document, called the “Biblical Basis for War,” which includes 14 sections on how biblical war can and would unfold. Shea, a Republican who represents Spokane in the state’s House, is up for re-election in the midterms next week. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Rep. Shea’s Christian manifesto calling for Biblical law states: If they do not yield – kill all males.
In an email to The Spokesman-Review newspaper, Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich said that he sent the manifesto to the FBI for investigation, noting:
The document Mr. Shea wrote is not a Sunday school project or an academic study. It is a ‘how to’ manual consistent with the ideology and operating philosophy of the Christian Identity/Aryan Nations movement and the Redoubt movement of the 1990s.
The goal of these groups has always been to create a white homeland consisting of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington. The ideas presented in the (biblical war) document are how these groups intend to seize control, by force, should there be a governmental collapse or civil war.
However, Rep. Shea sees nothing wrong with his manifesto calling for Biblical law and the execution of those who oppose it. In a Facebook Live video released earlier this week Shea defended his manifesto while making ridiculous claims that he is being persecuted and that the U.S. is really a Christian nation:
Bottom line: Washington state Rep. Matt Shea has published a Christian manifesto calling for the execution of all males who refuse to follow “Biblical law.”
Location: Detroit (the part with no rules or laws)
Posts: 5,683
Total Cats: 805
So, felony charges incoming?
Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has referred another Kavanaugh accuser to the FBI for possible prosecution after she admitted she made up claims that Kavanaugh had raped her in a car:
You have to #AlwaysBelieve women who accuse a man of rape, even if they later recant this testimony and admit that the allegation was false. If you don't, then you are a part of the rape culture.
Police at a Florida university have arrested a student who allegedly assaulted at least one College Republican, according to a Friday announcement.
Florida State University police arrested FSU student Shelby Anne Shoup after the release of a viral video in which Shoup threw her drink at a College Republican and kicked over a Ron DeSantis campaign sign.
“FSU is a diverse community that values and respects each person,” the school posted on Twitter Friday. “FSU expects each member of the community to embrace the values of civility and ethical conduct and obey the law. Regarding Tuesday’s incident, the individual was identified, arrested and charged with battery.”
Having mastered fake news, now the media are trying out a little fake history.
In the news business, new topics are always popping up, from the Logan Act and the emoluments clause to North Korea. The all-star panels rush to Wikipedia, so they can pretend to be experts on things they knew nothing about an hour earlier.
Such is the case today with "anchor babies" and "birthright citizenship." People who know zilch about the history of the 14th Amendment are pontificating magnificently and completely falsely on the issue du jour.
If you'd like to be the smartest person at your next cocktail party by knowing the truth about the 14th Amendment, this is the column for you!
Of course the president can end the citizenship of "anchor babies" by executive order -- for the simple reason that no Supreme Court or U.S. Congress has ever conferred such a right.
It's just something everyone believes to be true.
How could anyone -- even a not-very-bright person -- imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution?
The first question would be: Why would they do that? It's like being accused of robbing a homeless person. WHY WOULD I?
The Supreme Court has stated -- repeatedly! -- that the "main object" of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment "was to settle the question ... as to the citizenship of free negroes," making them "citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside."
Democrats, the entire media and House Speaker Paul Ryan seem to have forgotten the Civil War. They believe that, immediately after a war that ended slavery, Americans rose up as one and demanded that the children of illegals be granted citizenship!
You know what's really bothering me? If someone comes into the country illegally and has a kid, that kid should be an American citizen!
YOU MEAN THAT'S NOT ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION?
Give me a scenario -- just one scenario -- where the post-Civil War amendments would be intended to grant citizenship to the kids of Chinese ladies flying to birthing hospitals in California, or pregnant Latin Americans sneaking across the border in the back of flatbed trucks.
You can make it up. It doesn't have to be a true scenario. Any scenario!
As the court has explained again and again and again:
"(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th) amendments, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him."
That's why the amendment refers to people who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States "and of the state wherein they reside." For generations, African-Americans were domiciled in this country. The only reason they weren't citizens was because of slavery, which the country had just fought a civil war to end.
The 14th Amendment fixed that.
The amendment didn't even make Indians citizens. Why? Because it was about freed slaves. Sixteen years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court held that an American Indian, John Elk, was not a citizen, despite having been born here.
Instead, Congress had to pass a separate law making Indians citizens, which it did, more than half a century after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. (It's easy to miss -- the law is titled: "THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.") Why would such a law be necessary if simply being born in the U.S. was enough to confer citizenship?
Even today, the children of diplomats and foreign ministers are not granted citizenship on the basis of being born here.
President Trump, unlike his critics, honors black history by recognizing that the whole purpose of the Civil War amendments was to guarantee the rights of freed slaves.
But the left has always been bored with black people. If they start gassing on about "civil rights," you can be sure it will be about transgenders, the abortion ladies or illegal aliens. Liberals can never seem to remember the people whose ancestors were brought here as slaves, i.e., the only reason we even have civil rights laws.
Still, it requires breathtaking audacity to use the Civil War amendments to bring in cheap foreign labor, which drives down the wages of African-Americans -- the very people the amendments were written to protect!
Whether the children born to legal immigrants are citizens is controversial enough. But at least there's a Supreme Court decision claiming that they are -- U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. That's "birthright citizenship."
It's something else entirely to claim that an illegal alien, subject to deportation, can drop a baby and suddenly claim to be the parent of a "citizen."
This crackpot notion was concocted by liberal zealot Justice William Brennan and slipped into a footnote as dicta in a 1982 case. "Dicta" means it was not the ruling of the court, just a random aside, with zero legal significance.
Left-wing activists seized on Brennan's aside and browbeat everyone into believing that anchor babies are part of our great constitutional heritage, emerging straight from the pen of James Madison.
No Supreme Court has ever held that children born to illegal aliens are citizens. No Congress has deliberated and decided to grant that right. It's a made-up right, grounded only in the smoke and mirrors around Justice Brennan's 1982 footnote.
Obviously, it would be better if Congress passed a law clearly stating that children born to illegals are not citizens. (Trump won't be president forever!) But until that happens, the president of the United States is not required to continue a ridiculous practice that has absolutely no basis in law.
It's often said that journalism is the first draft of history. As we now see, fake news is the first draft of fake history.
One of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accusers admitted this week that she made up her lurid tale of a backseat car rape, saying it “was a tactic” to try to derail the judge’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.