'I'm a celebrity!'

It has been reportedly spending all its time in a small barn

More Girls Than Ever Are Caught In An OnlyFans Trap, But There's A Way Out

'I’m proud of Bobby'

'An appropriate dialing back of policy restraint'

Nevada’s largest jurisdiction investigated why voters were registered at commercial addresses such as Las Vegas casinos and strip clubs, finding at least 19 out of 90 suspect registrations that need further review.  The Public Interest Legal Foundation, an election watchdog group, dropped a lawsuit against Clark County Registrar Lorena Portillo after she agreed to investigate 90 names of county voters who registered at commercial addresses that also include vacant lots, gas stations, and fast-food restaurants. The biggest problems is the Nevada statewide policy of mailing out ballots to all registered addresses, Lauren Bis, director of communications and engagement at the Public Interest Legal Foundation, told The Daily Signal.  “If they are going to do that, then election officials need to be diligent,” Bis said. “When a casino comes up as an address, that should be a red flag to investigate. I’m glad our lawsuit forced officials to do that.”  Nevada is among a few battleground states that could decide the outcome of the Nov. 5 presidential election. Registration addresses also take on added importance for a state that automatically mails a ballot to every active registered voter.  In a separate case this week, Nevada’s Second Judicial Court denied a motion from Washoe County—which includes Reno—to dismiss a lawsuit by the Public Interest Legal Foundation seeking to force election officials to investigate registered voters who list commercial addresses as their homes.  In addition to the 19 addresses that Clark County will review, officials found 16 out of the 90 addresses were previously identified by the county and inactivated. Another 12 of the addresses identified were determined to be neither active nor inactive voters.  The registrar determined that 29 business addresses actually were also the residences of the registered voters. “We just asked the registrar that if you find a fishy address, please look into it,” Bis said. “If you find someone living there, great. We don’t want to disenfranchise anyone.” The legal foundation will make a request for documents assembled in the investigation to confirm the findings, Bis said.  Using data from the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office, the legal foundation found that in the 2022 midterm elections, a total of  95,556 ballots were sent to undeliverable addresses. That year, a U.S. Senate race in Nevada was decided by 8,000 votes statewide. Nevada law requires voters to register at the address where they live.  The Public Interest Legal Foundation represented two registered Nevada voters, Frederick Kraus and Joey Paulos, in the litigation. Kraus and Paulos asked in a court filing Thursday to drop the lawsuit in Nevada’s 8th Judicial District Court. The filing notes the Clark County registrar’s Aug. 15 motion to dismiss the case included a “declaration” by the county “that, for the first time, informed the petitioners that her office did conduct an investigation of the 90 addresses and made determinations.”  In the filing, the foundation adds that “in light of the investigation by the Clark County registrar, the petitioners have received all the relief sought by this action.” The foundation had notified Nevada election officials before the 2020 presidential election about voter registrations at commercial locations. It did a follow-up investigation in 2024.  The Public Interest Legal Foundation says it first asked Clark County to review the addresses. When the county declined, the foundation sued in June to force an investigation.  “Because of PILF’s lawsuit, Clark County was forced to investigate crazy addresses listed as residences on the voter roll including strip clubs, casinos, [and] gas stations,” J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, said in a public statement. “Without this litigation, mail ballots would have gone to improper addresses.”  The Clark County Elections Department didn’t respond to an email inquiry for this report. A telephone call resulted in a voicemail recording saying the department was closed Friday.  The county’s Aug. 15 motion to dismiss asserted the two plaintiffs’ request for an investigation of the 90 names of voters came as the elections office prepared for a June primary. But it said it would proceed to investigate the 90 registrations and addresses afterward. The motion says: As explained above, the ROV [registrar of voters] was not able to investigate these addresses before the petitioner’s arbitrary deadline of June 17, 2024 as the ROV was still conducting the primary election, but the ROV and her staff have now completed an investigation into the addresses provided by [Public Interest Legal Foundation] and has made the following determinations: (a) 29 addresses were confirmed as the voter’s actual residence; (b) 19 addresses will require additional research by the Election Department; (c) 16 addresses were previously identified by the department and the voters at those addresses were inactivated; (d) 12 addresses had no active or inactive voters; (e) 9 addresses were connected to voided registrations; (f) 4 addresses the voters had updated their voter registration; and (g) 1 address was [a] typo.  The Clark County registrar’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit also complained: “When the ROV received the letter, the ROV was in the middle of conducting the primary election.”  However, Bis said, Krause and Paulos sued only after not getting any response.  “It isn’t an excuse to be too busy to look at the addresses,” Bis said. “They have a job. The addresses weren’t supposed to be there to begin with.” The post Nevada County Forced to Investigate Voters Registered at Casinos, Strip Clubs, Bars, and Stores. Here’s What It Found. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Voters will use ballot drop boxes again this fall in Wisconsin, among a few battleground states that could decide the Nov. 5 presidential election, prompting concern among election integrity advocates.  The dissenting opinion in the state Supreme Court ruling reinstating the drop boxes argued that insufficient standards could allow “unattended cardboard box” or an “unsecured sack” to be used as a ballot box.  However, others are hopeful that concerned citizens will prevent that.  “Knowing that they are being watched by concerned citizens helps prevent cardboard boxes from being used,” Annette Olson, CEO of the John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy, a conservative think tank, told The Daily Signal. Olson is also coordinator of the Wisconsin Election Integrity Coalition, which has tried to work with local election officials.  In July, the 4-3 liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned a 2022 ruling by a previous conservative majority determining that no state law authorized the use of drop boxes. Wisconsin statute says that absentee ballots either may be mailed or otherwise returned to a municipal clerk’s office.  Last month, the new majority held that a clerk may name an “alternate absentee ballot site” as a “location designated by the municipal clerk outside of the municipal clerk’s office where voters may request, vote, and return absentee ballots.” Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote the majority opinion. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote that the court’s majority “dismantles the carefully regulated privilege of absentee voting.” “An unattended cardboard box on the clerk’s driveway? An unsecured sack sitting outside the local library or on a college campus? Door-to-door retrieval from voters’ homes or dorm rooms?” Bradley’s dissent argues. “Under the majority’s logic, because the statute doesn’t expressly forbid such methods of ballot delivery, they are perfectly lawful.”  A ballot drop box near a clerk’s office would be consistent with existing law, MacIver’s Olson said.  “To have a box to drop off a ballot near the city clerk’s office if the clerk is not there makes sense,” she said. “If it’s ballot boxes outside every fire station, that’s a stretch.” To maintain confidence in elections, Olson argued, votes should be as verifiable as an ATM financial transaction. Celestine Jeffreys, city clerk of Green Bay, Wisconsin, said all ballot drop boxes will be monitored by camera and that tracking by the city will ensure the number of ballots collected from the boxes matches the number of envelopes dropped off. “Many other states use ballot drop boxes. The city of Green Bay follows best practices,” Jeffreys told The Daily Signal, then referred to the Americans With Disabilities Act. “The drop boxes need to be ADA-accessible. Best practices in other states also have drop boxes that you can walk to or drive to.” Jeffreys said she isn’t aware of any mass ballot dumps at drop boxes in Green Bay. Only people authorized to do so can drop off multiple ballots, such as someone authorized to care for the disabled, she said.  “Ballot drop boxes are secure. It’s not like a mail slot. It’s skinny, and you can only fit in one envelope at a time, maybe two envelopes in,” Jeffreys said. “If someone wanted to put in 30 ballots, it would take a long time.” She said she wants to improve the drop boxes from 2020, not only for security, but also to be more accessible under the Americans With Disabilities Act and to be convenient for either walk- or drive-throughs.  City clerk’s offices in Madison, Milwaukee, and Kenosha did not respond to inquiries for this article.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court embarrassed itself with the ruling, said Ken Cuccinelli, chair of the Election Transparency Initiative and a former Virginia attorney general.  “In Wisconsin, four out of seven judges just rewrote their own law,” Cuccinelli told The Daily Signal.  “The Wisconsin Election Commission allowed drop boxes because of COVID,” Cuccinelli said. “But it’s nowhere in the law. It was a ludicrous legal case. It should be an embarrassment to those judges.” A spokesperson for the Wisconsin Elections Commission referred questions to its website and information posted there. The agency says it will provide local officials with training. It also says that residents are allowed to monitor drop boxes as long as that doesn’t interfere with voting.   “The decision held that state law permits clerks to lawfully utilize secure drop boxes in an exercise of their statutorily conferred discretion,” the Wisconsin Elections Commission says of the state high court’s ruling. “The decision did not provide guidance on what it means for a drop box to be ‘secure.’” The commission suggests that “clerks thoroughly complete a security assessment for each intended drop box location prior to deployment.” The Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau, a state agency, issued a report in October 2021 that found drop boxes were a focal point in questions about the 2020 presidential election.  “A total of 26 of the 47 municipal clerks we contacted indicated that they used drop boxes, municipal return slots, or similar receptacles for the November 2020 general election,” the report said. “We found that: 25 clerks indicated that their drop boxes were locked or had tamper-evident seals; … and 14 clerks indicated that they used cameras or local law enforcement surveillance to monitor their drop boxes.”  The agency’s report recommended that if drop boxes continue to be used in elections, the Wisconsin Elections Commission should “establish minimum requirements for securing the drop boxes, as well as prescribe where clerks could locate drop boxes and how frequently clerks would be required to collect absentee ballots from drop boxes.” The report also said the state’s Legislature could consider modifying statutes to clarify whether “individuals are allowed to return absentee ballots to drop boxes.”  The post ‘Cardboard Boxes … Unsecured Sacks’: Wisconsin Struggles to Set Standard for Ballot Drop Boxes appeared first on The Daily Signal.

These Amish Oatmeal Cookies came from an old cookbook and my family has been loving them for over 30 years. If you are a fan of Amish recipes, you will love these Amish Caramel Dumplings! Always a treat and delicious with ice cream. ❤️WHY WE LOVE THIS RECIPE We love the softness of this delicious...

So far, Kamala Harris’ plans for the U.S. economy include creating food shortages, worsening the housing crisis, and crashing the stock market and the economy. Don’t worry, though, because it will be done with great joy.The Harris-Walz campaign, which as of Thursday night had no official platform on its campaign website, is running a campaign of “feels” and “vibes.” But how much joy will it take, to the nearest dollar, to pay for food, fill up your gas tank, and pay for rent or a mortgage?Any one of Harris’ proposals should be disconcerting. Taken together, they are a recipe for complete financial ruin.Her entire approach to the economy is entirely unserious — but would be deadly serious if enacted.Crazy economic proposals would be problematic at any time, but after an administration that has left Americans struggling with the cost of living and burdened the country with debt downgrades, nearly $2 trillion deficits, and an unsustainable 120% debt-to-GDP ratio, the timing couldn’t be worse.Kamala Harris is trying to distance herself from the policies that helped create this economic mess, as if we all don’t know that she is not only the current administration’s vice president but she also was the tie-breaking vote for policies like the American Rescue Plan, which stoked historic inflation, and the Inflation Reduction Act, which created a deficit double the historic average (as a percentage of GDP).The Biden-Harris administration’s claim of a historic number of jobs created is misleading. It counted people returning to work after pandemic shutdowns as new jobs. It's like rebuilding a house after a fire and calling it new construction.Not to mention that a significant number of individuals are working multiple jobs to be able to afford the cost of living.The Bureau of Labor Statistics has revised the jobs numbers down by a staggering 818,000, marking the second-largest downward revision ever, only behind one during the Great Recession.These are the realities that Harris wants to evade.As she tries to pretend that she doesn’t have a clear track record, her new economic proposals, leaking out from her campaign, are even worse.Looking to find a place to shift the blame, she has trotted out the tired notion of “corporate greed.” She says food costs are high because of greedy corporations. Her fix? Going after “price gouging,” which likely means some type of price controls.Her thesis is ridiculous. Corporations didn't suddenly become greedy over the last three and a half years. The grocery industry, for instance, operates on very thin profit margins. In 2023, the industry-wide net profit margin was just 1.6%, the lowest since 2019.Moreover, the Producer Price Index, a measure of wholesale inflation related to the inputs for goods and services, has closely tracked the Consumer Price Index, the inflation paid by the consumer. If there was massive gouging, there would be a notable divergence between the two metrics.Her fix to a wrongly labeled problem has been widely panned on a bipartisan basis, as price controls lead to shortages and rationing. The only defense supporters offer is that the proposals wouldn’t pass Congress, despite Harris discussing executive action. This isn’t a strong endorsement. They’re effectively saying, “These proposals are just to buy votes, not serious plans.”Other Harris proposals have been equally destructive and show a complete lack of economic insight.On the housing front, Harris has said she would address the unaffordability in housing with $25,000 down payment support for “first generation” homebuyers. We have lived through the aftermath of giving money for homes to people who can’t afford them otherwise, and that didn’t work out well for any of us.It’s also insane because the problem is one of undersupply. Adding more demand with taxpayer-funded down payments will only increase the price of housing and make it more unaffordable while also driving up the ancillary costs (from property taxes to insurance).The Harris campaign noted her support for Biden’s tax plans, including raising capital gains to nearly 45% and imposing wealth taxes on “unrealized capital gains” — theoretical increases in asset value that haven’t been realized as income.The immorality of taxing unrealized capital gains cannot be overstated. The after-effects would implode the stock market, crash the economy, and pave the way for the government to tax any theoretical increase in asset value, from homes to stocks.The same people who requested $80 billion to expand the IRS and lowered the reporting threshold to $600 for Venmo and Etsy payments, claiming it was to target the ultra-wealthy, now want you to believe their new proposals do the same.Any one of Harris’ proposals should be disconcerting. Taken together, they are a recipe for complete financial ruin.There’s not enough joy in the world to polish up Harris’ disastrous economic proposals and track record. The economy is the top issue for voters. Let’s hope they remember to vote for good sense and not for “joy.”