Pregnant Woman Fatally Attacked, Partner Found Decapitated with His Head on a Stick
Athena Georgopoulos was five months pregnant at the time of the killings, per local outlets
Noble Gold
NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
Real Time US National Debt Clock | USA Debt Clock.com
Share this site:
Copyright 1987-2024
| United States National Debt | |
| United States National Debt Per Person | |
| United States National Debt Per Household | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities | |
| Social Security Unfunded Liability | |
| Medicare Unfunded Liability | |
| Prescription Drug Unfunded Liability | |
| National Healthcare Unfunded Liability | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Person | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Household | |
| United States Population |
Copyright 1987-2024
(last updated 2024-08-09/Close of previous day debt was $35123327978028.47 )
8/12/25
8/11/25
Trump says he will take control of DC police, deploy National Guard to capital
Buzz Patterson On Hillary Clinton
An Insider's account On Hillary Clinton While Working In The Whitehouse
Via Buzz Patterson on X/Twitter (@BuzzPatterson)
HILLARY CLINTON:
"As some of you know, I was the Air Force Military Aide for Bill Clinton, lived in the White House, traveled everywhere they traveled, and carried the “nuclear football.” As such, I was always in close proximity to both Bill and Hill.
Among the military who served in the White House and the professional White House staff, the Clinton administration was infamously known for its lack of professionalism and courtesy, though few ever spoke about it. But when it came to rudeness, it was Hillary Clinton who was the most feared person in the administration. She set the tone. From the very first day in my assignment.
When I first arrived to work in the White House, my predecessor warned me. “You can get away with pissing off Bill but if you make her mad, she’ll rip your heart out.” I heeded those words. I did make him mad a few times, but I never really pissed her off. I knew the ramifications. I learned very quickly that the administration’s day-to-day character, whether inside or outside of DC, depended solely on the presence or absence of Hillary. Her reputation preceded her. We used to say that when Hillary was gone, it was a frat party. When she was home, it was “Schindler’s List.”
In my first few days on the job, and remember I essentially lived there, I realized there were different rules for Hillary. She instructed the senior staff, including me, that she didn’t want to be forced to encounter us. We were instructed that “whenever Mrs. Clinton is moving through the halls, be as inconspicuous as possible.” She did not want to see “staff” and be forced to “interact” with anyone. No matter their position in the building. Many a time, I’d see mature, professional adults, working in the most important building in the world, scurrying into office doorways to escape Hillary’s line of sight. I’d hear whispering, “She’s coming, she’s coming!” I could be walking down a West Wing hallway, midday, busier than hell, people doing the administration’s work whether in the press office, medical unit, wherever. She’d walk in and they’d scatter. She was the Nazi schoolmarm and the rest of us were expected to hide as though we were kids in trouble. I wasn’t a kid, I was a professional officer and pilot. I said “I’m not doing that.”
There was also a period of time when she attempted to ban military uniforms in the White House. It was the reelection year of 1996, and she was trying to craft the narrative that the military was not a priority in the Clinton administration. As a military aide, carrying the football, and working closely with the Secret Service, I objected to that. It simply wasn’t a matter of her political agenda; it was national security. If the balloon went up, the Secret Service would need to find me as quickly as possible. Seconds matter. Finding the aide in military uniform made complete sense. Besides, what commander in chief wouldn’t want to advertise his leadership and command? She finally relented because the Secret Service weighed in.
The Clintons are corrupt beyond words. Hillary is evil, vindictive, and profane. Hillary is a bitch. They’re both criminals."
#HillaryClinton #BuzzPatterson #Clinton
House Oversight Committee subpoenas Clintons for depositions and DOJ for Epstein files
8/10/25
What Is Redistricting? What Is The Purpose?
What Is Redistricting? What Is The Purpose?
Why Voting Districts Are Not Shaped the Same: The Complexities of Redistricting
Voting districts, also known as electoral districts or constituencies, are geographical divisions used to organize elections for legislative bodies. In many democracies, these districts determine political representation, influencing which communities have a voice in government. However, districts are rarely uniform in shape or size—some follow neat, geometric lines, while others appear irregular and sprawling. The differences in district shapes stem from a mix of legal requirements, demographic considerations, political maneuvering, and historical factors.
This article explores the key reasons why voting districts vary in shape, including:
1. Population Equality Requirements
2. Gerrymandering and Partisan Influence
3. Compliance with the Voting Rights Act
4. Geographical and Municipal Boundaries
5. Community Preservation and Representation
By understanding these factors, we can better evaluate whether district shapes serve democratic fairness or political manipulation.
1. Population Equality: The One Person, One Vote Principle
One of the primary reasons districts differ in shape is the legal mandate for population equality. The U.S. Supreme Court established in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) that electoral districts must adhere to the "one person, one vote" principle, meaning districts should have roughly equal populations to ensure fair representation.
Why Shapes Must Adjust
- Urban vs. Rural Differences: Densely populated cities require smaller geographic districts, while rural areas may need larger, more sprawling districts to achieve equal population counts.
- Population Shifts: After each census, district lines are redrawn to account for migration, growth, or decline in certain areas, leading to irregular shapes.
For example, a congressional district in a major city like Los Angeles may cover only a few square miles, whereas a rural district in Alaska could span thousands of square miles with far fewer residents.
2. Gerrymandering: The Art of Political Manipulation
Perhaps the most controversial reason for oddly shaped districts is gerrymandering—the deliberate manipulation of district boundaries to favor one political party or group over another.
Types of Gerrymandering
- Partisan Gerrymandering: Drawing districts to benefit a specific political party (e.g., "packing" opposition voters into one district or "cracking" them across multiple districts).
- Racial Gerrymandering: Manipulating district lines to dilute or concentrate minority voting power, which can be illegal under the Voting Rights Act.
Famous Examples
- North Carolina’s 12th District (1990s): A long, snaking district was drawn to group Black voters together, raising claims of racial gerrymandering.
- Maryland’s 3rd District (2010s): A bizarre, zigzagging shape was designed to favor Democrats.
While courts have struck down extreme gerrymanders, subtle manipulations still influence district shapes in many states.
3. The Voting Rights Act and Minority Representation
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) plays a major role in shaping districts, particularly in ensuring minority communities have fair representation.
Majority-Minority Districts
- Section 2 of the VRA prohibits voting practices that discriminate against racial or language minorities.
- Section 5 (before being weakened in 2013) required certain states with a history of discrimination to get federal approval for district changes.
To comply, mapmakers sometimes draw majority-minority districts—where a racial or ethnic minority makes up the majority of voters. These districts can appear irregular because they follow demographic concentrations rather than simple geographic lines.
Legal Battles Over Minority Districts
- Some argue that packing minorities into a few districts reduces their influence elsewhere (vote dilution).
- Others contend that without these districts, minority groups might never elect their preferred candidates.
Courts continue to debate how much race can be considered in redistricting without violating the Equal Protection Clause.
4. Geographic and Municipal Boundaries
Natural and political boundaries also influence district shapes.
Natural Barriers
- Rivers, mountains, and highways can serve as dividing lines, leading to jagged or uneven districts.
City and County Lines
- Some states require districts to follow county or municipal boundaries to keep communities intact.
- Others prioritize equal population over local borders, leading to splits that cross city lines.
For example, Texas often creates districts that stretch across multiple counties to balance population, while New England states tend to respect town boundaries.
5. Preserving Communities of Interest
Another factor in redistricting is keeping "communities of interest" together—groups that share cultural, economic, or social ties.
Examples of Communities of Interest
- Farming regions
- College towns
- Ethnic neighborhoods
If mapmakers prioritize these groups, districts may take on unusual shapes to avoid splitting them. However, defining these communities can be subjective, leading to disputes.
Conclusion: Fairness vs. Manipulation
Voting districts vary in shape due to a mix of legitimate and controversial reasons:
- Legal requirements (population equality, VRA compliance)
- Political tactics (gerrymandering)
- Geographic and community considerations
While some irregular shapes serve democratic principles—like ensuring minority representation—others distort political power for partisan gain. Reform efforts, such as independent redistricting commissions and algorithmic mapping tools, aim to create fairer districts.
Ultimately, the shape of a voting district is more than just lines on a map—it’s a reflection of who holds power and who gets a voice in democracy.
Further Reading & Sources
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
- Voting Rights Act of 1965
- Brennan Center for Justice reports on gerrymandering
- National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) redistricting guidelines
This article provides a broad overview of why voting districts differ in shape, balancing legal, political, and geographic factors. Would you like any section expanded or additional examples included?
#Redistricting #Trump #Census
8/9/25
Republicans Want Every CITIZEN to Vote. Democrats Want Every PERSON to Vote. Let That Sink In...
Republicans Want Every CITIZEN to Vote. Democrats Want Every PERSON to Vote. Let That Sink In...
In the heated debates over election integrity, voter ID laws, and ballot access, one fundamental distinction separates the Republican and Democratic approaches to voting: Republicans believe only citizens should vote, while Democrats advocate for expanding voting rights to as many people as possible, including non-citizens. This difference reflects a deeper philosophical divide over the purpose of elections, the meaning of citizenship, and the future of American democracy.
The Republican Position: Voting Is a Right Reserved for Citizens
The Republican stance on voting is rooted in the principle that the right to vote is intrinsically tied to citizenship. The United States is a constitutional republic where government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed—meaning those who are legally part of the political community.
Key Republican Arguments:
1. Citizenship Matters – The Constitution refers to voters as "citizens," not just residents or inhabitants. The 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments all protect the voting rights of citizens, not just anyone living in the country.
2. Preventing Foreign Influence – Allowing non-citizens to vote opens the door to foreign interference. If millions of non-citizens (including those on visas, green cards, or even illegal immigrants) could vote, foreign governments could exploit this to sway U.S. elections.
3. Election Integrity – Republicans argue that requiring proof of citizenship to vote ensures that only those with a vested, legal stake in the country’s future can shape its policies.
4. Assimilation & Responsibility – Voting is a privilege earned through citizenship, encouraging immigrants to fully join American society rather than remaining transient residents.
Many Republican-led states have passed laws requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, such as Arizona’s Proposition 200 (2004) and more recent efforts in states like Georgia and Texas.
The Democratic Position: Expanding Voting Access to All Persons
Democrats generally support maximizing voter participation, including policies that make it easier for non-citizens to vote in certain elections. While federal elections are restricted to citizens, some localities (like San Francisco and New York City) have moved to allow non-citizens to vote in **municipal or school board elections.
Key Democratic Arguments:
1. Taxation Without Representation – Some argue that if non-citizens pay taxes, they should have a say in local governance.
2. Inclusivity & Fairness – Democrats claim that excluding long-term residents (even if not citizens) from voting is undemocratic, especially in communities where immigrants form a significant part of the population.
3. Increasing Turnout – Many Democratic policies (automatic voter registration, mail-in ballots, same-day registration) aim to boost participation, which they believe strengthens democracy.
4. Pathway to Citizenship – Some Democrats support allowing undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, which would eventually grant them voting rights.
Critics argue that these policies dilute the votes of citizens and could lead to non-citizens deciding close elections, particularly in sanctuary cities where local governments resist federal immigration enforcement.
Legal and Historical Context
The U.S. has historically restricted voting to citizens, but there have been exceptions:
- From 1776 to the 1920s, some states allowed non-citizens to vote in local and even federal elections, as part of efforts to attract immigrants.
- Today, at least a dozen U.S. cities allow non-citizens to vote in local elections, including:
- Takoma Park, Maryland (since 1992)
- San Francisco, California (for school board elections)
- New York City (passed in 2021 but blocked in court)
However, no state currently allows non-citizens to vote in state or federal elections, and Republicans have pushed for laws explicitly banning the practice.
Why This Debate Matters
The question of who should vote goes to the heart of national sovereignty:
- If non-citizens can vote, what separates an American election from a global one?
- Should foreign nationals, temporary workers, or illegal immigrants influence U.S. laws?
- Does citizenship still have meaning if voting rights are detached from it?
Republicans warn that Democrats are undermining election security by opposing voter ID laws and supporting policies like ballot harvesting, same-day registration, and non-citizen voting. Democrats counter that Republicans are suppressing votes by making it harder for minorities and low-income citizens to participate.
Conclusion: Citizenship vs. Universal Suffrage
The Republican and Democratic positions reflect two competing visions:
- Republicans see voting as a privilege of citizenship, essential to maintaining a sovereign nation.
- Democrats see voting as a universal right, where more participation equals a fairer democracy.
As immigration and election laws remain hot-button issues, this debate will only intensify. The core question remains: Should American elections be decided solely by American citizens, or should anyone living in the U.S. have a voice?
Let that sink in...
#Voting #Census #Elections
Why Can't All Voting Districts Be Shaped The Same?
Why Can't All Voting Districts Be Shaped The Same?
Why redistricting is so important, in 3 charts
Why Can't All Voting Districts Be Shaped the Same?
The idea of having uniformly shaped voting districts might seem like a simple solution to ensure fairness in elections. After all, if every district were a perfect square or hexagon of equal size, wouldn’t that eliminate concerns about gerrymandering and political manipulation? Unfortunately, the reality is far more complex. Several factors—including geography, population distribution, legal requirements, and political considerations—make it impossible (and sometimes undesirable) for all voting districts to be shaped the same.
1. Population Equality Requirements
The most fundamental reason districts can’t all be uniform in shape is the legal requirement for equal population distribution. The U.S. Supreme Court’s "one person, one vote" principle (established in *Reynolds v. Sims*, 1964) mandates that legislative districts must have roughly equal populations to ensure fair representation.
- Cities vs. Rural Areas: Urban areas have much higher population densities than rural ones. A perfectly square district in a city might contain hundreds of thousands of people, while a rural district of the same size might only have a few thousand.
- Shifting Populations: Population changes over time due to migration, birth rates, and economic shifts. Strictly uniform shapes would require constant redrawing to maintain equal populations.
Thus, districts must be adjusted in size and shape to ensure each represents a similar number of voters, rather than being geometrically identical.
2. Geographic and Natural Boundaries
Geography plays a huge role in how districts are drawn. Natural features like rivers, mountains, and coastlines can make uniform shapes impractical.
- Physical Barriers: A district split by a major river or mountain range could create logistical challenges for voters and representatives.
- Existing Municipal Boundaries: Many districts follow county, city, or town lines to keep communities intact. Forcing uniform shapes could divide neighborhoods or municipalities in unnatural ways.
For example, Colorado’s districts must account for the Rocky Mountains, while Louisiana’s must work around the Mississippi River and Gulf Coast.
3. Legal Requirements for Minority Representation
Federal laws, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, require that districts must not dilute the voting power of racial or ethnic minorities.
- Majority-Minority Districts: In some cases, irregular shapes are necessary to ensure minority communities have a fair chance to elect representatives of their choice.
- Avoiding "Cracking" or "Packing": If districts were forced into uniform shapes, minority populations could be either split up ("cracked") to weaken their influence or concentrated ("packed") into a single district to reduce their overall representation.
Strict geometric uniformity could inadvertently harm minority voting rights, which is why courts sometimes uphold oddly shaped districts that protect these communities.
4. Political Gerrymandering
While uniform districts might seem like a solution to gerrymandering (the manipulation of district lines for political gain), the reality is more complicated.
- Partisan Interests: Even if districts were required to be uniform in shape, politicians could still manipulate boundaries by choosing which squares or hexagons to group together.
- No Perfect Neutral System: There is no mathematically "fair" way to draw districts that satisfies all political groups. Some degree of human judgment—and potential bias—is unavoidable.
While some reformers advocate for independent redistricting commissions or algorithmic approaches, no system can completely eliminate political influence.
5. Compactness vs. Functionality
Some reformers push for districts to be as compact (close to a regular shape) as possible. However, compactness alone doesn’t guarantee fairness.
- The "Bull’s-Eye" Problem: A perfectly circular district could still be gerrymandered if it’s centered in a way that splits key voter blocs.
- Community Ties Matter More: Districts should ideally keep communities with shared interests together, even if that means less geometric symmetry.
Maryland’s 3rd Congressional District (often called the "praying mantis" district) is famously irregular, but some argue it reflects real community connections.
6. Alternative Solutions to Gerrymandering
Rather than enforcing uniform shapes, many experts advocate for other reforms:
- Independent Redistricting Commissions: Taking map-drawing power out of politicians’ hands.
- Algorithmic Redistricting: Using neutral computer models to minimize bias.
- Proportional Representation Systems: Moving away from single-member districts entirely.
These solutions address the root problems of gerrymandering without relying on unrealistic geometric constraints.
Conclusion
While the idea of perfectly uniform voting districts is appealing in theory, real-world factors—population equality, geography, minority representation, and political realities—make it unworkable. Instead of focusing solely on shape, electoral reform should prioritize fair representation, community integrity, and nonpartisan redistricting processes. Only by addressing these deeper issues can we achieve a truly equitable system.
Would you support algorithmic redistricting or independent commissions as a solution? Let me know your thoughts!
#Redistricting #Voting #Census #Migrants #Illegals #Trump
8/8/25
.webp)
.webp)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)