News
News items.
Federal authorities investigate giant ‘8647’ markings on National Mall…
“Any threat against the President is taken very seriously by the Department, and our U.S. Park Police will investigate this incident and hold those responsible accountable,” the spokesperson said.
Giant markings of the numbers 8647 appeared Thursday on the National Mall in Washington, prompting an investigation by federal authorities and claims of “political violence” by the White House .
Women Report Not Enough Info Given About Bleeding, Pain, Mental Anguish Before Taking Abortion Pill
Researchers noted that gaps in informed consent and post-abortion examination were more apparent in cases of mail-order mifepristone.
Read More
Federal Judge Bars Texas AG Paxton’s Lawsuit Against ActBlue
A U.S. District Court in Boston found Paxton’s initial legal action to be retaliatory against ActBlue in support of Paxton’s Senate rival.
Read More
Federal Government Pauses Funding to Los Angeles Homeless Agency Citing Fraud Allegations
LOS ANGELES—The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on June 11 suspended federal funding to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), cutting off millions of dollars to the L.A. region, over allegations of fraud and widespread mismanagement. HUD action to suspend federal funding comes in the wake of an investigation into LAHSA, […]
Read More
US Supreme Court Declines Alabama Request to Use Nitrogen Gas Execution Method
The high court on Thursday evening voted to decline the state’s petition and did not provide an explanation for its decision. Three justices dissented.
Read More
Hundreds Of Noncitizens Found On New Jersey Voter Rolls After Senate GOP Helps Block SAVE America Act
Requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote would prevent noncitizens from slipping onto the rolls. Still for some reason, RINO’s are joining Democrats to block this legislation.
Read More
Illinois’ doomed plan to tax social media
Illinois can tax income — not speech. Its new social media fee targets platforms for user content, inviting a First Amendment fight.
Read More
Judge Foils Dems’ Bid to Allow ‘Never Residents’ to Vote in NC
Democrats’ bid to skirt previous court decisions in order to allow people who have never lived in North Carolina (“never residents”) to continue voting in the state was slapped down by Superior Court Judge Hoyt Tessener in a ruling released this week.
A North Carolina law allowing “never residents” to cast ballots in the state for federal elections violates undisputed court rulings, Judge Tessener ruled in his decision.
“Never residents” are adults born outside the United States whose parents or guardians once lived in the state.
In March of this year, the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the North Carolina Republican Party filed a court challenge to the state law on the grounds that precedent already prohibited “never residents” from voting in the state and that North Carolina can’t legally carve out an exemption for federal elections.
Last year, the state’s Board of Elections issued guidance stating they people who never lived in North Carolina could vote for federal elections as if they were legal residents there.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC), as an Intervenor-Defendant, joined with the North Carolina State Board of Elections to oppose the challenge to the law, calling it an effort to “disenfranchise” voters. The Democrats also argued that one element of the case should be transferred to a three-judge panel.
Judge Tessener rejected all of the Democrats’ claims, granting Republicans’ motion for summary judgement and noting that the issue had already been decided by previous court rulings:
“Although the State Board of Elections is acting consistently with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-258.2, the matters raised in Count I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint have been addressed by our State’s appellate courts, and no genuine disputed material facts exist.
“Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on Count I of the Verified Complaint as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I of the Verified Complaint is GRANTED. All other Motions brought before the Court are DENIED.”
Thus, Democrats cannot use the challenged law to make people who have never lived in the state eligible to vote in the state, the judge explained in his decision:
“Persons who have never resided in North Carolina and who are only eligible to register and vote in North Carolina because they satisfy the definition of a ‘covered voter’ in N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 163-258.2(1)(e) of North Carolina’s Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act are not eligible to register and vote in any North Carolina election contest, including state or federal contests.”
“JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of Plaintiffs on Count I consistent with this Order,” Judge Tessener ruled.