There’s no way around it, the open borders issue has become the key social issue of the 2024 election cycle and perhaps the most concerning problem of our era.  Nearly every election poll shows the economy and immigration as the deciding factors in who Americans will vote for. 

Foreign policy has recently become a close third on the list with fear of escalating war with Russia, and Democrats have tried to distract by adding abortion to the mix but the public isn’t taking the bait (Note to Democrats: Parking a mobile abortion clinic outside your convention is a bad look no matter how you spin it).  The immigration debate continues to dominate US discourse and the vast majority of conservatives and independents want the flood of illegals to stop.

Most Democrats, on the other hand, still consider immigration to be a non-issue and continue to support making it easier for illegal migrants to become citizens.

In cities like New York, Washington DC and Chicago the dangers of open immigration are readily apparent.  Democrat sanctuary cities are cesspools with rising crime, rising homelessness, crippled welfare programs and fleeing businesses.  Things are so bad that NYC is paying migrants up to $5000 a pop just to get out of the packed homeless shelters and find permanent housing elsewhere. This is, of course, after Mayor Eric Adams warned that New York cannot take in more migrants.

So, leftist politicians admit the migrant crisis is destroying their cities, yet they offer even greater incentives for migrants to illegally enter the country?  The political left refuses to change course in the face of overwhelming evidence that immigration is a net negative.  Why?

The situation in Ohio might give us some insight into the suicidal psychology of the average progressive.  After Donald Trump mentioned reports of Haitian migrants in Springfield eating the local park wildlife (a reality confirmed by the Ohio Attorney General), along with people’s pets disappearing, the media went into overdrive trying to “debunk” the claim.  Democrats are desperate to mitigate the immigration issue as much as possible and any negative news is quickly attacked and obscured.  (It should be noted that migrants in NY have taken to cooking rats in BBQs on city sidewalks, further showcasing the reality that these people are never going to assimilate to western culture).

🚨 NEW: Illegal migrants caught skinning, grilling and EATING cats just minutes from Springfield

This video was obtained by @realchrisrufo, who has verified it.

The mainstream media LIED ONCE AGAIN, and of course, Trump was right.

MASS DEPORTATIONS NOW
pic.twitter.com/LQtyWF8kYx

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) September 14, 2024

Organized progressive activists show up wherever there’s a story damaging to the multicultural narrative.  They swiftly appeared in Aurora, CO to “debunk” the stories of Venezuelan gangs taking over the city (which ended up being true).  Now they’re organizing in Ohio to show America that they are a part of one big happy multicultural family with slogans like “Hate Has No Home Here” and “We’re Not Eating Cats…”

Suicidal empathy. Springfield liberals print “hate has no home here” and welcome their new Haitian inhabitants. pic.twitter.com/KUGq9ujf4D

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 15, 2024

They’re chanting “we’re not eating cats”

We broke them 😂😂😂🤭🤭🤭

pic.twitter.com/fl8OrifUC0

— Chale (@Chale333) September 13, 2024

There are multiple reasons why progressives ignore the truth about immigration. 

First, Democrats don’t care about freedom or foreign people gaining freedom, they proved that during the pandemic lockdowns.  What they do care about more than anything else is power, and in their minds those millions of migrants are useful in leveraging power.  They represent millions of future Democratic votes, bought and paid for with American tax dollars.  If they can’t win on policy or ideology, they’ll simply import voters that will agree with their policies in exchange for handouts.  

Second, they think the US is a “melting pot” and is traditionally required to allow an endless cycle of migrants in.  This is false and it’s the same attitude that has led to the ongoing destruction of Europe.  Times change, policies change, and what might have been advantageous to America a hundred years ago is now detrimental.  No foreigner has a right to US soil.

Third, they are incapable of admitting when they’re wrong.  Even when they do realize they’ve made a terrible error in judgement that has put their comfortable lives at risk, they would rather pretend to be happy in their suffering than give their enemies a win.

Fourth, they want to “stick it to conservatives” no matter the cost and they don’t care if they self destruct in the process.  Leftists are like suicide bombers; they will happily virtue signal themselves into an early grave if it means they can take their political enemies down with them.   

Springfield, OH, a city of 60,000 people, has just been overrun with over 20,000 third-world migrants with no inkling of how western culture functions.  This is the real story, and the cooking of park animals and pets is a side issue.  This kind of cultural replacement cannot be allowed.  Progressives have abandoned reason for madness in their endless quest to get an edge over conservatives.    

Authored by Siyamak Khorrami via The Epoch Times

Thousands of Californians have lost their home insurance coverage in recent years, a topic host Siyamak Khorrami recently featured on Epoch TV’s “California Insider.” 

To help understand the complex issue, Khorrami invited an insurance broker with 40 years in the business as well as a couple who have recently lost two homes to California wildfires, the more recent of which was uninsured. 

Additionally two California lawmakers give detail solutions and their take on how to turn the problem around.  

Caps on Rate Increases

The issue began in 1988, when California residents approved Proposition 103, which capped rate increases for auto insurance—and eventually for homeowners’ policies—and established the state’s insurance commissioner. 

Since then, the commission has approved rate increases for residential and commercial property based on historical data and capped them at 7 percent. If a carrier requested more, the approval process was opened up to challenges by residents and watchdog groups. The result, experts say, is that increases, if approved at all, could take up to two years. 

Such kept homeowners’ rates in California artificially low, while other costs for insurers were on the rise.

A Freeze on Rate Increases

Insurance broker Harry Crusberg said the crisis of so many insurance carriers canceling policies or leaving the state began during the COVID pandemic, when the state’s insurance commissioner froze all rate increases, resulted in carriers losing money. 

“Carriers started losing $1.15 to $1.25 per dollar they took in,” Crusberg said.

“When you talk about multi-millions of dollars and billions of dollars, these losses just mounted substantially for carriers.”  

As a result, carriers large and small started issuing nonrenewals or dropping out of the California market all together. 

“You can only lose money for so long,” he said. 

Suddenly, many homeowners lost their insurance and had only two options: going with one of the so-called non-admitted carriers—which are not regulated or guaranteed by the state—or getting insurance through California’s Fair Plan, established more than 50 years ago as a last-ditch emergency resort. 

While pricing can vary, both are usually much more expensive than traditional insurance, as much as 10 times higher in some cases, experts say.

The Fair Plan is not funded by the government, as some believe, but instead by the state’s regulated insurance carriers, who pay proportionally into it. According to Crusberg, today they have accumulated about $400 billion in risk for their contributions to the plan. 

With a freeze on rate increases, contributions to the Fair Plan, the need to have their own costly insurance—called “reinsurance”—and more claims for wildfire and disasters, the industry became destabilized, Crusberg said.

“They [had] to back off. They just [didn’t have] the capital to sustain that,” he said.

Crusberg said the confluence of issues is rare.

“I’ve been in the business for a little over 40 years … and we’ve never been faced with such a situation,” he said. 

A New Insurance Plan

According to Crusberg and others, there is now “light at the end of the tunnel,” thanks to recent changes by the state’s insurance commission that will allow for wildfire and risk-based premiums determined by recent events. Also, under the commissioner’s recent plan, an insurance carrier’s requested rate increase must be decided within 90 days. 

“Once that comes in, the carriers [will start] to get a breath of fresh air,” he said.

“If we can do this and get our right rates, we’re going to be able to help solve this problem by coming back into the marketplace.”

But with the new plan—called the “sustainable insurance model”—not yet in place, some have chosen a third option: to forgo home insurance altogether. 

One Couple’s Losses

Such is the case of Michael and Christy Daneau, who lost a home in the 2018 Camp Fire in Northern California’s Butte County, and then, most recently, another in July’s Park Fire, which originated in Chico, about a 20 minute drive west from their first home.

The couple said they had insurance before the first fire for $86 a month. But after they moved to the Chico area, their first year of insurance through the Fair Plan—the only insurer that would carry them—was $7,000—roughly $580 a month—payable in one lump sum. 

They also had to purchase additional coverage for their new home, as the Fair Plan offers only fire insurance. 

They said the price increased to $10,000 in the second year, again due in one payment, and finally $12,000 in the third year, which they said they could no longer afford. 

Ultimately, the couple said, they had to go without, an especially hard decision as they had already lost one home to fire. They never expected they would be hit twice.

The price was “too unobtainable for us,” Daneau said. 

Now after the Park Fire, he said they have little left. 

“We went from being homeowners, owning our house outright, to now having literally just some clothes and a few personal possessions,” Daneau said. 

Other Solutions

California state Sen. Bill Dodd, who represents the state’s Third Senate District including Napa, Contra Costa and Sacramento counties, told Khorrami their choice to not have insurance was not a good one. 

“All you can do is hope and pray, and hope and prayers are not a great strategy,” he said. 

He said he has faith in the commissioner’s new insurance strategy since it will allow insurers to increase rates using climate and catastrophic models and will allow them to factor in their cost for reinsurance.

Not being able to do so previously, he said, was a “disservice to the ratepayers of the state of California.”  

Because insurers’ rate increases have been capped at 7 percent for so long, he said, allowing them to catch up with increases between 25 percent and 40 percent will ultimately stop so many carriers leaving the state. 

“Thirty-five percent rate increases across the board are a heck of a lot better than cancellation of policies or rates that are three to four to 10 times more than [people] are paying now,” Dodd said.

“That is at least affordable.

“It’s doable and ultimately creates a more stable insurance market and perhaps competition over time could bring those prices down.” 

He said the number of policies written for the Fair Plan more than doubled over the last year, and that is “a critical problem.”

“It’s got way too many clients to really withstand the type of risk that it is,” he said. 

He said as things change, property owners currently on the plan or those using non-admitted providers will decrease as more typical carriers return to the market and pick up those lost customers. 

Additionally, Sen. Dave Cortese, who represents the state’s 15th Senate District, which encompasses Santa Clara County, discussed the possibility of what’s known as “partial” insurance, where a carrier, for example, would insure only a portion of a property, which he said needed more study. 

He added that there may be bills introduced in the next legislative session—beginning in January—that, if passed, would make the insurance process better for homeowners, especially in terms of fire risk, like being rewarded for hardening their property and creating defensible space around their homes. 

Then, he said, the homeowners could go back to the insurer and say, “‘We’ve reduced your risk. Can you underwrite insurance on those now?’” he said. 

He also said the Legislature needs to consider a state-funded backup financial safety net for the Fair Plan. As it is today, if there were a couple of major losses, it could become insolvent. 

By doing so, he said, “Fair Plan won’t be able to tell [people who have catastrophic losses], ‘Sorry, we ran out of money,’” Cortese said. 

He closed by saying both chambers of the Legislature have created their own insurance working groups to come up with solutions to get the insurance market to “shift back naturally to where it should be.”

“The Legislature is taking this issue very, very seriously,” he said. “We know that people who have invested their entire lives or life savings in their homes and their properties can’t be left at risk without insurance coverage.” 

Finding the balance between protecting property owners and ensuring insurance companies are profitable enough to do business in the state is the challenge. 

“That’s the balance and that’s the trick,” Cortese said. “That’s what we’re trying to accomplish.” 

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Last January, I received a letter threatening me with a defamation lawsuit if I continued my criticism of Hunter Biden, including allegations of criminal conduct. It all seemed part of a “Legion of Doom” defense hatched by Biden supporters reportedly to target critics and even potential witnesses. I proceeded to write three more columns repeating the claims, but did not hear again from the Biden team.

Now, it is the Biden defense that is being targeted with defamation lawsuits. IRS investigators Gary Shapley and Joe Ziegler are suing attorney Abbe Lowell over public allegations of criminal conduct on their part.

Lowell was hit with a $20 million defamation lawsuit that alleges “clear malice” in public allegations of criminally leaking grand jury material and other offenses.

Due to their extensive public interviews, Shapley and Ziegler would be considered “public figures” for the purposes of defamation. That will make the case challenging, particularly because Lowell will argue that he was zealously defending his client.

The case will also trigger massive fights over attorney-client privilege and other defenses. However, if allowed significant discovery, the case may shed light on the media reports of a scorched Earth strategy of the Biden team targeting critics and witnesses.

The whistleblowers claim, however, that Lowell “falsely and maliciously” accused them of “the illegal disclosure of grand jury materials and taxpayer return information — despite the fact that they never publicly discussed return information that was not already public.” Those constitute per se categories of common law defamation, which include allegations of criminal conduct. The alleged misconduct would constitute federal felonies.

One of the allegations is that Lowell or the team accused them of  leaking information to the press revealing that an investigation was taking place, apparently in violation of federal law. However, months earlier, they allege, Hunter himself publicly disclosed that he was the subject of a criminal tax investigation.

Lowell will likely argue that he was seeking congressional action on allegations to establish if his client was the subject of unlawful conduct by the government. He will argue that such defamation lawsuits chill communications with government.

There is an obvious irony in that defense given the scorched Earth tactics of the Biden team to target those of us who have written on the corruption of the First Family.

The suing of Lowell may offer another opportunity to review the standard for public figures, which I have previously questioned.

In New York Times v. Sullivan, Justice William Brennan wrote for a unanimous court in declaring that the First Amendment required a higher standard of proof for defamation than simple negligence for public officials.

News outfits were being targeted at the time by anti-segregation figures in lawsuits to deter them from covering the civil rights marches. Imposing a high standard for proof of defamation, Brennan sought to give the free press “breathing space” to carry out its key function in our system.

The court believed that public officials have ample means to rebut false statements, but that it’s essential for democracy for voters and reporters to be able to challenge government officials. To achieve that breathing space, the court required that public officials had to prove “actual malice,” where the defendant had actual knowledge of the falsity of a statement or showed reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.

That standard was later extended to public figures. The Court noted that celebrities are powerful in our celebrity-driven culture, have ample means at their disposal to protect themselves and chose their lives of notoriety.

Two justices have indicated that they might be open to the idea of revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan: Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.  Gorsuch notably objected to the denial of certiorari in Berisha v. Lawson, in which author Guy Lawson published a book detailing the “true story” of three Miami youngsters who allegedly became international arms dealers.

A central figure in the story was Shkelzen Berisha, the son of Albania’s former prime minister. He sued Lawson alleging defamation and claimed that he was not, as portrayed, an associate of the Albanian mafia and that Lawson used unreliable sources for his account.

Berisha is a public figure rather than a public official.

The problem is that there is one missing element to imposing a higher burden on public figures like Berisha or the two whistleblowers: furthering the democratic process. In teaching defamation, the actual malice standard rests convincingly on a democratic rationale that a free people and a free press must have breathing space to criticize the government and their leaders. It helps protect and perfect democracy.

As I discussed earlier, I have struggled in class to offer the same compelling rationale for applying the standard to anyone who is considered a public figure. It takes very little to qualify as a public figure, or a “limited-purpose public figure.” However, why should private success alone expose someone like the IRS whistleblowers or athletes to a higher burden of proof for defamation? Writing about hot-dog-eating champion Michelle Lesco does not protect core democratic principles or even support core journalistic principles. To succeed, a Kardashian would still have to prove that a statement was false and unreasonable to print. Moreover, publications are protected in most states by retraction statutes limiting or blocking damages for corrected stories. Finally, opinion is already protected from defamation actions.

Clearly, the public figure standard is an obvious benefit to the media. However, without a compelling argument for a constitutional standard for public figures, it seems more like a judicially maintained subsidy or shield.

Notably, the media, including the New York Times and CNN, have lost key court battles in defamation cases. Those cases also could bring a new review of the public figure standard.

Here is the complaint: Shapley v. Lowell

Climate alarmist journalists at leftist corporate media outlets sounded the alarm early this hurricane season in the Atlantic and Caribbean region that “literal hot water” and “unprecedented ocean heat,” fueled by “human-caused climate change,” would unleash a very active and devastating hurricane season.

Yet, 3.5 months into hurricane season and peak season realized last week, John Shewchuk, a certified consulting meteorologist, wrote on X that the number of named storms in 2024 (as of Sept. 14) totals 7, compared with 20 at this exact point in 2020. 

The 2020 vs 2024 hurricane scoreboard has been updated. Maybe the oceans aren’t hot enough? pic.twitter.com/p5COdugtHW

— John Shewchuk (@_ClimateCraze) September 15, 2024

So what happened to AP News, PBS, Vox, and other leftist corporate media outlets pushing climate doom headlines 24/7, igniting climate anxieties for America’s heavily medicated population who believe the propaganda that Earth is doomed in several years unless fossil fuels are banned and more solar and windmills are purchased from China.

It’s embarrassing for these woke media outlets to focus so much on imminent climate doom and, like Al Gore’s climate prediction over the last several decades, never actually play out.

“Get used to it. Forecasters predicted months ago it was going to be a nasty year and now they are comparing it to record busy 1933 and deadly 2005 — the year of Katrina, Rita, Wilma and Dennis,” AP journos wrote earlier this hurricane season, who tried to scare the hell out of readers. 

Shewchuk noted the low hurricane activity is “not unexpected” – because “Not only does global warming make the tropical atmosphere more stable, thus inhibiting tropical convection (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/08/global-warming-inhibits-hurrican…) — but Tonga’s unprecedented global warming spike further contributes to tropical suppression.” 

This is not unexpected. Not only does global warming make the tropical atmosphere more stable, thus inhibiting tropical convection (https://t.co/p0rBHzPiTz) — but Tonga’s unprecedented global warming spike further contributes to tropical suppression. pic.twitter.com/Q8dxMpZl0k

— John Shewchuk (@_ClimateCraze) September 15, 2024

Instead of focusing on cow farts and Taylor Swift’s private jet, maybe, just maybe, it’s time for corporate media to focus on the massive 2022 eruption of the underwater volcano in Tonga, known as Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai, that catapulted plumes of soot, water vapor, and sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. It’s likely been one of the major drivers in recent Earth’s warming trends. To totally ignore this massive eruption demonstrates bias and agenda-driven within ‘trust the science’ leftist corporate media, as well as several federal agencies focused on weather. 

By Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

Move On:

“Congratulations on becoming the richest man in the world,” said JP Morgan to Andrew Carnegie in 1901, merging various industrial firms into US Steel. The new firm was capitalized at $1.4bln and became the world’s most valuable company (the US federal budget in 1901 was $517mm for comparison). Carnegie was born in Scotland in 1835. His mom was an impoverished weaver, disrupted by mechanized weaving. She moved Andrew to Pennsylvania. At 13 he went to work in a cotton mill, earning $1.20 for a 12hr day. Morgan paid him $492mm.

Carnegie spent the last 20yrs of his life giving away 90% of his fortune. Beginning in 1880, he built 2,500 libraries in the US, Canada, Britain – feeding hungry young minds. The 1st was in his hometown of Dunfermline, Scotland. By his death in 1919, half the US public libraries had been built by Carnegie. Colonel James Anderson let apprentices and working boys borrow books from his personal library when Carnegie was a kid. “To him I owe a taste for literature which I would not exchange for all the millions that were ever amassed by man.”

US Steel was so dominant that it inspired anti-trust laws. In 1943 it employed 340k workers, supporting the war effort. In 1953 it produced 35.8 million tons of steel, while Europe and Japan struggled to rebuild their productive capacity. But it was slow to innovate and relied on old technology. It now produces 14.5 million tons and is the world’s 27th largest producer. In 1991 it was kicked out of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Japan’s Nippon Steel is trying to buy US Steel for $14.9bln. Our politicians seem to care. But America moves on.

Whatever it Takes:

Draghi in his argument for a new EU industrial strategy calls for 800bln euros of new annual investment spending. At 4.7% of GDP, it’s double the scale of the Marshall Plan relative to the size of the economy. Imagine that bureaucratic trough. And setting aside the fact that the Germans, who would have to shoulder yet more Italian debt, will never agree to anything remotely close to this, it is worth asking why Europe would turn to a former central banker to draft plans for an economic renaissance? Perhaps they misunderstand their problems.

In the 12yrs since Draghi’s “whatever it takes” speech [here], Europe’s benchmark Euro Stoxx 50 index has rallied +108% ex dividends (+67% in real terms). The S&P 500 is +196% higher (+126% on a real basis). When it comes to producing real prosperity, manipulating money is never the answer. In 2012, EU GDP was $14.6trln and has grown to $18.4trln (2023). US GDP over that period has grown from $16.3trln to $27.4trln. The divergence is utterly staggering. And now, of the globe’s top 25 largest companies, just one is European [here].

Update (1615ET): The former president has issued a statement confirming he is “safe and well” and declaring “nothing will slow me down”…

AP reports that the alleged shooter fled in an SUV and was later apprehended in a nearby county by local law enforcement, the officials said. The officials were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity about an ongoing investigation.

An AK-style firearm was recovered at the scene near Trump’s golf course, one of the officials and a third law enforcement official said.

The golf course was partially shut down for Trump as he played, and agents were a few holes ahead of him when they noticed the person with the firearm, the officials said.

The person appeared to push the muzzle of the rifle through the fence line and that’s when agents fired, the officials said

CNN reported that police have recovered a backpack and a GoPro camera.

They think the attempted Trump shooter wanted to film it.

The following clip shows a heavy police presence on the roads leading to the golf club…

BREAKING: Donald Trump *was* the intended target of the shots fired at Trump International Golf Club according to CNN.

Agents opened fire on a man who was at the Trump International Golf Course after they saw what appeared to be a gun according to the NYP.

“Officials believe… pic.twitter.com/06JKTXeMO6

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 15, 2024

*  *  *

The Trump campaign on Sunday said that former President Donald Trump is safe after reports of gunshots in his vicinity outside the Trump International Golf Course.

“President Trump is safe following gunshots in his vicinity,“ a brief statement released by Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said.

”No further details at this time.”

The U.S. Secret Service wrote on social media platform X that it is working with the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office to investigate the incident, adding that it occurred before 2 p.m. ET.

“The former president is safe,” the federal agency said.

The sheriff’s office will provide more details about the incident “soon,” the agency added.

CNN is reporting the shots were intended for the former president…

BREAKING: CNN has said: “Officials believe the shots fired at Trump International Golf Club were intended for former President Donald Trump.” pic.twitter.com/FhHpOSGy1p

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) September 15, 2024

CNN goes on to report that a person has been detained in connection to the incident at Trump International Golf Club on Sunday, according to a law enforcement source.

Secret Service fired at the suspect, according to multiple sources.

A long gun (Don Jr confirmed it was an AK-47) has been recovered, according to the source.

Officials believe an armed individual intended to target former President Donald Trump at his golf club, according to sources briefed on the matter.

However, The New York Post said two people exchanged fire at Trump golf club in Florida, targeting each other (a narrative that has since been deleted).

The White House was quick to express their “relief” that Trump was not hit:

“The President and Vice President have been briefed about the security incident at the Trump International Golf Course, where former President Trump was golfing. They are relieved to know that he is safe. They will be kept regularly updated by their team.”

As the above suggests, no one is really sure WTF happened for now.

However, one thing we know for sure, the same rhetoric that likely prompted the first assassination attempt has not stopped…

Legacy media has spent the week hyperventilating over conservatives “inciting threats” for expressing their opinions on the migrant issues in Ohio.

Meanwhile they didn’t stop calling Trump a “n*zi” and a “threat to Democracy” for one second since J13.

Now, here we are. Again.

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) September 15, 2024

Though, of course, everyone will quickly decry political violence…

You called him a threat to democracy and a day 1 dictator. You own this.

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 15, 2024

…but, weren’t we told that “words are violence” too?)

Some of us are old enough to remember that virtually every election in US history has been decided the same night – sometimes stretching into the wee hours, but we always woke up to the winner. That all changed in the 2020 ‘mail-in ballot’ election, when several major Democrat cities stopped counting ballots at 9PM – in one instance because an alleged ‘burst pipe’ forced an evacuation in Fulton County, Georgia. Then there were ballot-counters in Detroit who covered windows with cardboard so that observers couldn’t watch the count.

A brief review of election night malarkey from 2020:

• Fulton County, Georgia (Atlanta):

  • Fulton County, where Atlanta is located, temporarily paused counting ballots around 10:30 p.m. on Election Night due to a burst water pipe earlier in the day that delayed the processing of absentee ballots at the State Farm Arena. While there were initial reports that the counting had stopped, election officials clarified that counting continued but at a slower pace with some workers leaving for the night.

• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:

  • Philadelphia, a critical city in Pennsylvania, saw intermittent pauses in the ballot-counting process. Officials announced they would stop counting for the night around 9 p.m. and resume the next morning. However, counting continued throughout the night at a reduced pace to process the large volume of mail-in and absentee ballots.

• Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh):

  • Allegheny County also paused counting around midnight on Election Night due to a court order involving around 29,000 ballots that required special handling. Counting resumed the following day after the specific issue was resolved.

• Milwaukee County, Wisconsin:

  • Milwaukee, another key city, saw Donald Trump leading Joe Biden by 109,000 votes – until an overnight count of roughly 170,000 mail-in votes gave Biden a lead of 11,000 votes.

• Maricopa County, Arizona (Phoenix):

  • In Maricopa County, GOP chairwoman Linda Brickman on Nov. 30 testified before members of the Arizona State Legislature that she personally observed votes for President Donald Trump being tallied as votes for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden when input into Dominion machines.

Now, the NY Times is preparing voters for more of the same – warning that thanks to more Americans using mail-in ballots, the “election results could take awhile,” and that it may initially give the “false impression” that Donald Trump is the winner…

For the second straight presidential election, it is becoming increasingly likely that there will be no clear and immediate winner on election night and that early returns could give a false impression of who will ultimately prevail.

Large swaths of Americans have changed their voting habits in recent years, relying increasingly on mail-in ballots, which take more time to count than those cast in person on Election Day. States with prolonged vote-counting processes, such as Arizona, have become suddenly competitive. And the race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump appears extremely close.

According to the Election Project, Democrats turned in 18 million mail-in ballots in the 2020 election vs. 10 million from Republicans in the 20 states that reported party registration by ballot. By the 2022 midterms, Democrats turned in 7.6 million ballots vs. 5.1 million from Republicans.

For this election, the Trump campaign and the RNC have begun a program called “Swamp the Vote” designed to encourage voters to cast early ballots – including by mail. The campaign has also released a memo warning of a “blue mirage,” saying that “early Democrat leads in absentee and vote by mail are not at all predictive of victory on November 5th.”

That said, last month at a Montana rally, Trump said “We want to go back to one-day voting and paper ballots.”

According to pollster Nate Silver, Trump has a clear advantage over Harris. Until election night, we assume.

🚨 BREAKING: Trump remains the 60% favorite in JUST UPDATED Nate Silver 2024 election forecast

ELECTORAL COLLEGE ODDS:
🔴 Trump: 60.1% (+20.4)
🔵 Harris: 39.7%

SWING STATE ODDS:
🔴 ARIZONA: 76.1%
🔴 GEORGIA: 67.7%
🔴 NORTH CAROLINA: 66.3%
🔴 PENNSYLVANIA: 61.7%
🔴 NEVADA: 59.4%… pic.twitter.com/pW38MMICSC

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 14, 2024

Battleground States

With the election just over 6 weeks away, two critical battleground states – Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – are facing potential delays in reporting full results.

Democrats have called for reforms to allow election officials to open and flatten ballots, known as “preprocessing,” before the polls open on Election Day. State lawmakers have refused to budge.

According to the Times, the delays are likely to be most pronounced in the aforementioned cities of Philadelphia and Milwaukee, which are home to large numbers of Democratic voters. These cities could take longer to count their ballots than less populous counties simply due to the sheer volume of votes. Paulina Gutierrez, executive director of the Milwaukee Election Commission, estimates around 80,000 mail ballots in Milwaukee alone—up significantly from the 30,000 received during the midterms. “I will prioritize the security and the integrity of the election over speed any day,” she said.

The slow vote-counting process means Wisconsin will not have full results on Election Night. Ann Jacobs, the Democratic chair of the Wisconsin Election Board, anticipates Milwaukee to finish counting at 3 a.m. or later. The potential delay in Pennsylvania is also raising concerns about premature assumptions of victory. As Michael McDonald, a political science professor at the University of Florida, explained, “In Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, that’s where we’re going to see the potential for this red mirage and the ballot dumps and all of those conspiracy theories that will arise from it.”

Arizona and Nevada, two other battleground states, are also likely to face delays, although for different reasons. Both states rely heavily on mail-in voting. In the 2020 presidential race, Nevada wasn’t called for Joe Biden until four days after the election, while Arizona took nine days. While both states allow local officials time to preprocess ballots, high voter turnout and the logistics of counting large numbers of mail-in ballots mean that a final call in either state could still take time.

Of course, it seems nothing can be done when Democrats engage in ‘legal’ election manipulation…

FLASHBACK: Never forget when Democrats stole the 2020 Presidential election and later issued a public confession in a TIME Magazine article called “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election”:

“In a way Trump was right. There was a conspiracy… pic.twitter.com/y2eBuHH12z

— ZNO 🇺🇸 (@therealZNO) June 9, 2024

Authored by Dave Huber via The College Fix,

The Harvard Law professor who co-authored a “what if?”-style graphic novel about the January 6 “insurrection” succeeding is sending free copies to every public high school in Pennsylvania.

Alan Jenkins, formerly president of the Harvard “social justice communication lab” Opportunity Agenda, and his co-author Gan Golan are giving out gratis copies of  “1/6: A Graphic Novel” in order “to convey the risks facing American democracy,” The Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

“The forces that led to that insurrection … the white supremacy, disinformation […] are all very still much with us,” Jenkins said.

He added that he hopes students will see January 6 as “not unlike the 9/11 terrorist attacks.”

Jenkins said he chose Pennsylvania because it’s faced a lot of book “bans.” He noted it’s possible “1/6” might get banned “but [he’s] ready for that.”

“We think the truth always is stronger than censorship,” he added.

But one may wonder how a completely fictitious tale of alternative history counts as “truth.” Here’s a sample from “1/6’s” first issue, according to the Inquirer:

[…] a society controlled by armed militias who take over a TV network — declaring it to be “an enemy of freedom.” At a “patriots parade,” a speaker blasts the “thugs and criminals from Black Lives Matter” while adherents repeat white nationalist slogans, with the phrases “Blood and Soil” and “I will not be replaced” in word bubbles. Dissidents work covertly, avoiding the militias enforcing curfew while transporting Electoral College ballots — “the last evidence of our democracy.”

And were there Confederate flags flying around DC on Jan. 6? Jenkins’ book features it on top of the Capitol and Lincoln Memorial.

In the story’s second issue, “readers are taken through events leading up to and including Jan. 6 — starting with the 2017 [Charlottesville] ‘Unite the Right’ rally.” Jenkins’ “truth” includes the common — and devoid-of-context — Trump quote about “fine people on both sides” (Trump specifically condemned the neo-Nazis and white nationalists at the rally).

There’s also the missing-context phone calls to Georgia election officials in which Trump said “find 11,780 votes.”

Ironically, Jenkins (pictured below) said he expects “pushback” regarding the comic as many Pennsylvania parents have accused schools of “indoctrinating” students.

The state’s high schools also will receive a supplementary “action guide” for “1/6” which “lays out facts” about the insurrection, election “deniers,” increases in hate crimes, and legislators “banning” books —  “a hallmark of authoritarianism.”

Philadelphia-area schools did not respond to Inquirer queries about whether they would stock the book in their libraries or “how they would use it.” One district did note that “1/6” would first have to be reviewed by “a committee of librarians and administrators.”

Jenkins and Golan previously sent 150 copies to members of Congress who allegedly denied the 2020 election results.

According to his faculty page, Jenkins teaches courses on race and the law, communication, and Supreme Court jurisprudence. Along with his law degree, Jenkins has an MA in media studies and a BA in psychology and social relations.

Taylor Swift’s post-debate endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, appears to have completely backfired. A new post-debate poll from YouGov released Saturday found that while 8% of voters said Swift’s endorsement made them “somewhat” or “much more likely” to support the Democratic ticket, a significant 20% said they are “somewhat” or “much less likely” to vote for former President Donald Trump’s opponent after Swift spoke out.

The majority of respondents, however – 66% – said Swift’s high-profile endorsement made no difference in how they will vote in the upcoming November election, according to the NY Post.

The Grammy-winning artist made waves on Instagram to her 283 million followers shortly after Tuesday night’s presidential debate, stating, “I’ve done my research, and I’ve made my choice.” She encouraged her followers to do the same, emphasizing that “the choice is yours to make.” Swift praised Harris as “a steady-handed, gifted leader” who could lead with “calm and not chaos.”

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Taylor Swift (@taylorswift)

Despite Swift’s powerful platform, the endorsement seems to have mixed, and even negative, impacts on voter sentiment. While 32% of those polled believe her endorsement could have a positive effect on Harris’ campaign, 27% said they don’t think it will make a difference either way. A notable 41% – nearly 460 respondents – expressed the view that the “Shake It Off” singer shouldn’t speak publicly about politics at all, reflecting the persistent debate over whether celebrities should wade into political waters. Meanwhile, 38% felt she should make public endorsements, indicating that there remains a split on the role celebrities should play in shaping political discourse.

Most of the poll’s participants – 66% – reported not being fans of Swift, while 28% identified as fans and 6% as big fans. Unsurprisingly, the majority of her “big fans” were women and registered Democrats.

Trump, meanwhile, didn’t hold back after Swift’s endorsement of Harris, writing on Truth Social:

Swift’s endorsement may have stirred more than just political conversations; it also sparked a wave of civic action. Reports indicate that her call to action led to a flood of traffic on the voter registration website, vote.gov, well into Wednesday afternoon. A spokesperson for the site noted that 337,826 visitors came to vote.gov after clicking a custom link Swift shared on Instagram, showing that while her endorsement may not have swayed many votes, it certainly mobilized civic engagement.

That said, the YouGov poll reveals a potential disconnect between public celebrity endorsements and actual voting behavior. While 46% of respondents thought Harris won the debate, compared to 19% for Trump, only 6% said the debate caused them to reconsider their vote. A substantial 76% of respondents said it did not impact their decision, reflecting a possible gap between high-profile endorsements and tangible voting shifts.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a decision on Sept. 13 that upholds a requirement in the key battleground state that voters must include accurate dates on the exterior envelopes of their mail-in ballots for the votes to be counted.

The split 4–3 ruling vacates a previous Commonwealth Court decision that had halted enforcement of the legal requirement under Pennsylvania law that disqualified mail-in ballots if they were undated or featured incorrect dates. The Commonwealth Court found that the date requirement was unconstitutional when enforced against voters who submit their ballots by deadline.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the Commonwealth Court did not have the authority to review that case because the plaintiffs did not include all 67 county election boards as defendants. Even though they included Al Schmidt, the secretary of the Commonwealth, as a defendant, that alone wasn’t enough to give the Commonwealth Court authority to decide the case.

The high court also declined a request by the plaintiffs to use extraordinary jurisdiction powers (under 42 Pa.C.S. § 726) that allow the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to take over cases from lower courts when there is a significant public interest or an urgent issue needing immediate resolution.

In a dissenting statement, Justice David Wecht argued that the court should have ruled on the constitutional question presented in the appeal rather than vacate the lower court’s decision on technical grounds.

“A prompt and definitive ruling on the constitutional question presented in this appeal is of paramount public importance inasmuch as it will affect the counting of ballots in the upcoming general election. Therefore, I would exercise this Court’s King Bench authority over the instant dispute and order that the matter be submitted on the briefs,” wrote Wecht in dissent, with Chief Justice Debra Todd and Justice Christine Donohue joining.

King’s Bench authority is a broader and more powerful tool than the plaintiffs’ extraordinary jurisdiction request. It allows the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to step in and rule on urgent matters of public importance at any stage of a case, even if procedural hurdles exist.

Wecht and the other dissenting justices also argued that the case should have been decided based on the written legal documents already filed rather than on the basis of potentially newly scheduled oral arguments, highlighting their view that it is important to settle the constitutional question of whether Pennsylvania’s mail-ballot date requirement violates the Free and Equal Elections Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution, ahead of the fast-approaching Nov. 5 presidential election.

The case was brought by a coalition of nine advocacy groups, including the Black Political Empowerment Project, League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, and Pittsburgh United, with co-counsel from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Pennsylvania. The groups challenged the legality of enforcing the date requirement for mail-in ballots, arguing that it violated the Pennsylvania Constitution’s provision for “free and equal” elections. The Commonwealth Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, suspending enforcement of the dating rule in two key counties—Philadelphia and Allegheny.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to reverse this ruling allows enforcement of the rule that mail-in ballots with date errors can be invalidated. The decision could affect thousands of votes in what is expected to be a highly competitive presidential election in Pennsylvania, a key swing state.

ACLU of Pennsylvania, which was involved in the case, estimated that the handwritten date requirement has led to the disqualification of tens of thousands of Pennsylvania voters who were otherwise eligible, including more than 10,000 in the 2022 general election alone.

A request for comment on the ruling and whether ACLU of Pennsylvania intends to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court was not immediately returned.

Michael Whatley, chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), and co-chair Lara Trump, issued a joint statement praising the high court’s decision.

“This is a huge win to protect the vote in Pennsylvania that will secure commonsense mail ballot safeguards and help voters cast their ballots with confidence. The Keystone State will be absolutely critical in this election, and the Supreme Court has decided a major victory for election integrity,” they said.

In a legal brief filed in the case, the Democratic National Committee argued that the date requirement serves “no cognizable state interest” and that “a missing or incorrect date does not justify denying qualified Pennsylvanians of that critically important right” to vote.

The ruling underscores the ongoing tension between election integrity measures and voting access as the 2024 election approaches.