Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Here’s Exactly Why Everyone Should Have CAREFULLY READ Before Casting Their Ballot



Whenever you vote, no matter how tedious or boring it is, you need to carefully read up on what is going to be on your ballot because they combine things and slip unrelated crap through on purpose. Those pushing issues know that most people will not take the time to study the issues or the amendments on a ballot and that’s how they get outrageous things passed.

This kind of deceptive stuff should not be allowed. And if you catch something like this you may have to just not vote on it if you are torn two different ways on the ballot. Voters should not be put in that position when casting their vote. It should not be tricky, it should be straightforward. Chicks on the Right has more on this:

I’ve been out of my home state for about a month and wasn’t home in time to vote in person (I’m old school– I like voting ON election day), so I decided to do a mail-in ballot. There was just too much on the line NOT to vote, especially in Florida. The biggest race for me? The governor’s race. OMG FLORIDA THAT WAS A CLOSE ONE.

Sorry. Just had to get that out of my system.

Trending: Trump Gives Adam Schiff New Nickname And He Is Fuming

Anyway. I was looking over my ballot and didn’t realize that we had approximately 493 amendments to vote on. I’m someone who actually writes about culture and politics for a living, and looking up the amendments and trying to figure out the legal language bored me to TEARS. I thought, “If I feel that way, I KNOW ‘non-political’ people feel that way.” That’s a big reason why a whole bunch of people don’t vote.

So I started doing some research on the amendments and finally got to Amendment 9. It said, “Prohibits Offshore Oil and Has Drilling; Prohibits Vaping in Enclosed Indoor Workplaces.”

Stop right there. Those two things have NOTHING to do with each other. These idiots lumped two COMPLETELY different things in there ON PURPOSE. This is the kind of corrupt crap people hate and RIGHTFULLY SO. What if you’re FOR offshore drilling and AGAINST vaping in enclosed indoor workplaces? How did you vote? Did you weigh which one was more important to you and vote based on that, or did you skip it completely?

The thing is, voters SHOULDN’T have to do a cost/benefit analysis on amendments like that. Those two things had NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.

Just so you know, I’m not the only person who was p*ssed off about this.

Instead, the measure is facing criticism, including from some newspaper editorial boards, because of the process used by the 37-member Florida Constitution Revision Commission to put what is known as Amendment 9 on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Rather than allowing the vaping ban to stand on its own as a proposed constitutional amendment, the commission coupled it with a proposed ban on offshore oil drilling in Florida waters, describing the combination as an environmental amendment.

The Florida Supreme Court said the commission followed the rules, but the decision to combine the proposals might turn at least some voters against what otherwise could be popular ideas.


Retired University of South Florida political-science professor Susan MacManus said, however, that of all the amendments, voters are most perplexed about the coupling of the issues in Amendment 9.

“It makes no sense to the average voter why they were put together,” MacManus told The News Service of Florida in an interview. “Yet the people who wrote it said it was logical.”

This is just one of many examples. This kind of stuff happens on our ballots all the time. I won’t go into details, but there were a few amendments that I found myself agreeing with, but then at the very bottom they added random crap that ended up EXPANDING GOVERNMENT in some way, shape or form, and it made hate the entire thing, even though I originally agreed with the first part.

It really gave me a better glimpse of how sucktastic it is up in the swamp (DC) and mini swamps (in each state). Congress does that kind of stuff ALL THE TIME. That’s how so many of these chumps get away with smacking their political opponents in those attack ads. You know, the ads that are all “So and so voted AGAINST saving the puppies! So and so HATES PUPPIES OMG!” And in reality, so and so had to vote no, because the “Save the Puppy” amendment also contained a part about creating a new bloated government agency and increasing your property taxes or something.

Anyway, I just encourage you– as torturous as it may be– to REALLY REALLY REALLY read through your ballot and the amendments and all that in the future. Don’t read the first sentence and decide based on that. These people are tricky. Government has a way of tricking you into voting for its expansion.

PS– Florida passed Amendment 9.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Trending Now on Right Wing News

WHOA: Trump Admin Reveals BIGGEST Move Again Yet Again Acosta — ‘Permanently’




* By

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by: Sara Palin

The drama between the Trump administration and CNN reporter Jim Acosta may not be done anytime soon as it is being reported the White House press staff are looking to have Acosta permanently banned.

The ban comes amid a legal feud between Acosta, CNN, and the White House.

Here’s how everything has gone down:

Acosta initially refused to hand over a microphone to a White House intern, resisting her attempt to retrieve it.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders accused Acosta of putting his hand on the intern, called the incident unacceptable, and subsequently banned him.

They took his press credentials and suspended him from covering events at the White House.

CNN and Acosta sued the Trump administration over the incident, claiming Acosta’s First and Fifth Amendment rights were violated.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly said the White House violated Acosta’s right to a due process as they pulled his media pass and denied Acosta an option to repeal his revocation.

The judge ordered the White House to immediately restore Acosta’s press credentials.


The Trump administration is complying with the order and will reinstate Acosta, but they are making a move to have him permanently banned from the White House, the Daily Caller reports.

The White House sent a letter to Acosta notifying him that his pass granting him temporary access to the White House grounds would be suspended after a temporary restraining order runs its course. The letter is the latest in the fight between the White House and the CNN reporter who caused a fracas at a recent presidential press conference when he refused to give up the microphone.

Judge Timothy J. Kelly issued an injunction Friday morning ordering the White House to reinstate Acosta’s credentials, saying his Fifth Amendment right to due process was violated. The judge was clear, however, that he made no ruling on whether the First Amendment right applies for any reporter to be at the White House.

According to the report, President Trump admitted he was not sure whether the administration would ultimately win the CNN lawsuit.

“We’ll see how the court rules,” the president said.

“Is it freedom of the press when somebody comes in and starts screaming questions and won’t sit down?” he added, speaking of Acosta.

Should the administration lose the lawsuit, Trump revealed his administration has a strategy.

During an interview with Fox News, Trump said the White House press team would implement new policies and rules for reporters such as turning off cameras.

“I think one of the things we’ll do is maybe turn the camera off that faces them because then they don’t have any airtime, although I’ll probably be sued for that and maybe, you know, win or lose it, who knows,” Trump said, as the Daily Caller reports.

As the legal feud continues, the Trump administration announced they would be “temporarily” reinstating Acosta’s press pass and would be complying to the order, BUT they are giving him a 14-day pass and will resume their suspension once it expires.

The Hill reports CNN is already responding to the move by requesting an emergency court hearing:

CNN on Monday requested an emergency hearing in the U.S. District Court after the White House threatened to again pull the press credentials of the network’s chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta.

CNN said the letter amounts to an “attempt to provide retroactive due process,” calling for a hearing on a preliminary injunction during “the week of November 26, 2018, or as soon thereafter as possible.”

Note: The author of this article has included commentary that expresses an opinion and analysis of the facts.

Continue Reading

Continue Reading

Democrat-Controlled House Just Changed Major 181-Year Rule For Muslims




* By

181 years is a long time for a dress code to stay in place… even for Congress. Hats were forbidden in the House of Representatives, but no more. Of course, members are being told to use good judgment but given their track record, this should be interesting to watch. Now, men and women will be allowed to wear ‘hats’ in the chamber.

Change is not always good and this will probably wind up being a circus. Ilhan Omar, a newly elected Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota, is behind this move. She will be the first to wear an Islamic hijab in the chamber. Lawmakers will be allowed to wear religious headwear and coverings for medical reasons – so there are some restrictions on this at least for now.

Chicks on the Right has the scoop on this story:

Ok…so I have a feeling some “traditionalists” are going to have an issue with this. CHANGE IS BAAD.

But honestly, after hearing from Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, I don’t have a problem with this at all. I think (I hope) that Congresspeople will go about this with respect and their best judgment. (That’s… a high hope for Congress.)

So anyway, the U.S. House has changed a 181-year-old dress code rule against hats.

According to Daily Wire:

Back in 1837, the U.S. House of Representatives banned the wearing of hats in the chamber in a move to differentiate itself from the British Parliament.

But in 2018, the elected lawmakers have voted to rescind the rule. Ilhan Omar, a newly elected Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota, will be the first to wear a hijab in the chamber.

“There are those kinds of policies that oftentimes get created because people who have blind spots are in positions of influence and positions of power,” Omar told the New York Post on Thursday. “I think it will be really exciting to see the stuff that we notice within the rules that don’t work for a modern-day America.”

Under the revised rules, lawmakers will be allowed to wear religious headwear and coverings for medical reasons.

I’m not a fan of Ilhan Omar’s, but I am a staunch supporter of religious freedom. I’m not the kind of hypocrite who supports the rights of Christians not to have their religion infringed upon, and will not do the same for others. It’s Omar’s constitutionally-protected RIGHT to wear her hijab. She was elected by her constituents to represent them. She should not have to choose between upholding her religious dress code and that of her congressional position. The END.

And that’s not all. The new rule allows for head covering for religious AND medical reasons. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman made a compelling point.

The New Jersey Democrat had a tumor successfully removed and has undergone chemotherapy since September to ensure she’s cancer-free.

The treatment caused her hair to fall out. She wears a hat outside, but when she votes on the House floor she takes it off.

“I just have a bald head and I’m somewhat getting used to it hoping that it’s a very temporary thing,” Watson Coleman told The Post. “I don’t think I would start wearing a (hat) now, but I recognize that if someone else has the same issue and wants to, they should be able to.”

So sure… I’m as traditional as the next guy. But I ABSOLUTELY think the “no-hat” rule can be bent for religious and medical reasons.

I’m SURE some of you will disagree with me on this one.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend