The National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) has cited the infamous 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, which stated that enslaved people weren’t citizens, to argue that Vice President Kamala Harris is ineligible to run for president according to the Constitution.

The group also challenged the right of Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley to appear on Republican primary ballots.

The Republican group’s platform and policy document noted that “The Constitutional qualifications of Presidential eligibility” states that “No person except a natural born Citizen, shall be eligible, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

“An originalist and strict constructionist understanding of the Constitution in the Scalia and Thomas tradition, as well as precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court cases ... have found that a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is defined as a person born on American soil of parents who are both citizens of the United States at the time of the child’s birth,” the document states.

The group then cites six cases including Dred Scott v Sandford. The 1857 ruling came a few years before the 1861 outbreak of the US Civil War over the issue of slavery, stating that enslaved people could not be citizens, meaning that they couldn’t expect to receive any protection from the courts or the federal government. The ruling also said that Congress did not have the power to ban slavery from a federal territory.

I thought this was some kind of op, like someone making a fake Republican org and putting out an unhinged policy paper. Citing Dred Scott is crazy, especially since it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the argument that she's not a citizen.

Archive link: https://web.archive.org/save/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Famericas%2Fus-politics%2Fkamala-harris-president-supreme-court-b2601364.html

My cat Pepper has been on a diet for about 9 months. He was definitely overweight and has lost about 2 pounds, but I'm starting to worry he's being underfed now. He just seems more stressed when he goes to check his food bowl and it's empty and will wait for the machine to dispense for hours before his feeding times.

He's a bombay, and I found some info online that says they should be under 15 pounds and some that says under 12. He's 12.6 now, and he still looks kinda chubby, but it's hard to tell because he has a big primordial pouch(loose skin in the belly area).

I know I should ask a vet, but I can't afford a vet visit.

Joshua Bowles, 29, repeatedly stabbed the unnamed woman, who was working at British intelligence agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), in March near its base at Cheltenham, England.

Following his arrest, Bowles told the police, “The target was selected for employment at the NSA.”

“Due to the size and resourcing, American intelligence represents the largest contributor within the intelligence community, so made sense as the symbolic target. I consider GCHQ just as guilty.”

Judge Bobbie Cheema-Grubb said on Monday that Bowles had carried out a “politically motivated attack” that was driven by “anger and resentment” towards GCHQ and women.

He had researched the attack online beforehand, including studying the American “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski, who mounted an anonymous bombing campaign from 1978 to 1995.

Bowles also looked up attacks on women and white supremacy.

In one of his police interviews, Bowles said: “The system is rigged. I believe the intelligence community helps ensure this rigging, this view has been reinforced by my time working at GCHQ.”

Penny also said Bowles described himself as a “terrorist” after the attack, saying to one witness: “I make a pretty s*** terrorist, don’t I?”

Google making sure that propaganda is front and center

https://web.archive.org/web/20230826102641/https://newrepublic.com/post/175206/ohio-republicans-change-abortion-ballot-language

Republicans are betting their fear-mongering will work when people read the new ballot language at the polls.

Ohio Republicans are trying once more to thwart an amendment that would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, this time by amending the ballot initiative language to be more extreme.

The Ohio Ballot Board voted 3–2, along party lines, on Thursday to reject using the full text of the proposed amendment on the ballot in November. Instead, the ballot will have a summary of the proposal written by Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, using language such as “unborn child” instead of “fetus.” The summary also removes all mention that the amendment would protect non-abortion forms of reproductive health.

The full text of the amendment has not changed. The amendment would allow people to decide for themselves about all reproductive health, including abortion, contraception, fertility treatments, and miscarriage treatment. The state could only restrict abortion access after a doctor determines the fetus is viable or could survive outside the uterus. Even then, abortions can be performed if the patient’s health or life is at risk. The text also explicitly states that the state cannot “burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against” someone exercising their reproductive rights.

Still, the summary language is sure to sway some people at the polls. In addition to replacing the word “fetus” with “unborn child,” the summary also uses the phrase “pregnant person” instead of “pregnant woman” and refers to the procedures as “medical treatment” instead of a “decision.”

The new text makes two other crucial changes: First, it says that “citizens of the State of Ohio” cannot infringe upon reproductive rights, instead of the state, making it appear as if state officials could still intervene. The summary also says the amendment will “always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability if, in the treating physician’s determination, the abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health.” In doing so, the summary invokes the right-wing bogeyman of “late-term abortions,” a term designed to make it seem that pro-choice policies border on infanticide.

Interesting that they use the term, "pregnant person"? Ohio Republicans went woke!

Obviously it's just another blatant attempt to use transphobia to pass an abortion ban.