Filed under: Authoritarianism, Canada, Communism, Corruption, Ditsies, Fake News, Fascism, Leftism, Leftist Judges, Marxism, Media Bias, Sexism, Socialism, Voting | Leave a comment »
Jim Hagedorn is an important candidate in a tight race. Minnesota One is a swing district – though the majority of the district once voted for Obama, it’s neither solidly Republican nor Democrat.
This is a vital district in the upcoming midterms. According to political science professor David Schultz, “these are seats that if we go back a decade or so have actually proven flippable.”
This past election, the pendulum swung in President Trump’s favor. The president won a 15-point margin of victory in this district. Now this House race may impact whether or not the GOP holds onto a majority.
According to an ABC poll, Jim Hagedorn has a two-in-three chance of winning. His Democratic opponent, Dan Feehan, on the other hand, has only a one-in-three chance of winning.
Clearly, this district has the potential to elect someone who has the backing of the president. Unlike his opponent, Hagedorn has been a strong supporter of President Trump.
Recently, the president visited the district. Hagedorn then tweeted, “I am running for Congress to help President Trump pull the weeds of government.” Jim Hagedorn is indeed a candidate intent on draining the swamp.
While much of Minnesota is liberal, this district shows that it is far from a monolith. In fact, Minnesota now has a chance to elect a candidate who will stand with the president and make and keep America great.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/the_minnesota_one_race_.html
Filed under: Climate Change, Congress, Conservatism, Freedom, Minnesota Stuff, Voting | Leave a comment »
….and I am Very Proud of this Young American Conservative Who Voted for Donald J. Trump that November, 2016 for the same reasons I did….May God Bless him for his thinking, explaining, and voting….and May God Bless President Donald J. Trump in his efforts to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!! Aren’t you?? ghr.
Filed under: American Culture, Beauty, Conservatism, Democracy, Elections, Freedom, Heroism, Law and Order, Patriotusm, Truth, Voting | Leave a comment »
“To the surprise of many, the challenge to the Minnesota law banning political badges, political buttons, or other political insignia at polling places was successful in the U.S. Supreme Court case Minnesota Voter Alliance v. Mansky.
The High Court held that the law violates the First Amendment rights of voters because, as the law is written, it’s just too vague. The 7 to 2 majority opinion explains that the wording of law does not provide individuals, nor those tasked with working the polls, clear definitions as what qualifies as “political.” Reading through the opinion, though, it is clear that SCOTUS does see a path whereby such restrictions on apparel could cut Constitutional muster.
What Isn’t Political?
As commentators noted after the oral argument, the justices seemed to really grapple with the question of what apparel, or insignia, wouldn’t actually qualify as political. From MAGA hats and clothing, to #MeToo pins, to even hats with flashing lights.
The Court’s opinion pulled out the old Webster’s dictionary to quote part of the definition: “a word that can broadly encompass anything ‘of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of governmental affairs.'” From there, the Court analyzed how Minnesota interpreted the ban, and found a significant issue with the state’s guidance for “issue oriented material designed to influence or impact voting.” In short, the Court found that this category of banned apparel placed too high a burden on individuals and poll judges to suss out what is or isn’t political.
A bigger issue, according to the majority, was that the ban also encompassed apparel that is “promoting a group with recognizable political views,” like the ban on “issue oriented material.” The Court explained that this category also was too vague to be uniformly enforced.
Justice Undefined
The two dissenting justices, Justices Sotomayor and Breyer, explain that while they agree with much of what the majority held, the Court was too hasty. The dissent explains that the question of interpretation of the Minnesota state law should have been certified to the Minnesota Supreme Court before SCOTUS chimed in. Justice Sotomayor, authoring the dissent, explains that getting the state’s highest court’s input could have negated the majority’s “hypothetical line-drawing problems.”
Related Resources:
Filed under: Bureaucratic Miasma, Department of Justice, Elections, George Soros, Law and Order, Minnesota Stuff, Sports and Leisure, Voting | Leave a comment »
You must be logged in to post a comment.