A new voting bill could make name changes a voting hurdle for many women. Illinois leaders are speaking out.
URBANA - A newly revived federal voting bill is drawing renewed scrutiny, especially in Illinois, where voting rights advocates warn it could create significant barriers to ballot access.
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which passed the U.S. House last week with unanimous Republican support and four Democratic votes, would require all voters to present proof of U.S. citizenship — such as a passport or birth certificate — when registering or updating their registration. The bill now awaits consideration in the Senate, though no vote has been scheduled.
This is not the first time the legislation has surfaced. A previous version passed the House during the last session of Congress but stalled in the then-Democratic-controlled Senate.
Proponents of the SAVE Act argue it is essential for protecting the integrity of elections by ensuring that only American citizens can cast ballots. However, critics see it as a thinly veiled attempt to suppress voter participation under the guise of security. The League of Women Voters of Illinois (LWVIL) delivered that message directly to lawmakers during a subject matter hearing before the Illinois House Ethics and Elections Committee on April 22 in Springfield.
Kathy Cortez, LWVIL’s Vice President for Issues and Advocacy, testified that the legislation risks disenfranchising large swaths of the voting population by introducing new hurdles that disproportionately affect low-income individuals, women, and others who may have difficulty assembling documentation.
No citizen should have to make the choice between meeting their basic needs and exercising the right to vote
“We believe every citizen should be protected in the right to vote, and that electoral systems should encourage participation and enhance representation for all voters,” Cortez said. “The League of Women Voters opposes the SAVE Act because, by imposing inequitable economic and administrative requirements, the bill would create unnecessary barriers to voting participation.”
A major point of concern raised during the hearing was the bill’s disproportionate impact on women. Cortez explained that because many women in Illinois changed their names after marriage, the SAVE Act would require them — and not men — to produce documentation of name changes through marriage, divorce, or remarriage in order to vote.
The League also highlighted the financial implications of the legislation. For many residents living paycheck to paycheck, obtaining official documents like certified birth certificates or divorce decrees could present a real hardship.
“No citizen should have to make the choice between meeting their basic needs and exercising the right to vote,” Cortez said. “We believe that even one individual losing their ability to vote because they could not afford to comply with the requirements of the SAVE Act is one voter too many.”
Despite their opposition to the measure, LWVIL expressed a willingness to support voters if the bill becomes law. With a statewide network and long-standing relationships with Illinois' 108 election authorities, the League says it is prepared to help residents navigate any new requirements.
As the debate continues, Illinois remains a microcosm of a broader national conversation — one that pits concerns over election integrity against the practical realities of access and participation.
On Valentine’s Day, upstate Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) showed her devotion - not with roses or chocolates, but with a bill to make June 14, Donald J. Trump’s Birthday and Flag Day, a federal holiday. Lucky guy.
Her proposed Trump’s Birthday and Flag Day Holiday Establishment Act would solidify the day as an official national holiday, aligning with Flag Day, which has been observed since 1777 to commemorate the adoption of the U.S. flag. If passed, the holiday would take effect in 2026, just in time for America’s 250th birthday and Trump’s 80th.
A Tribute to Trump’s Legacy
Tenny said: "No modern president has been more pivotal for our country than Donald J. Trump. As both our 45th and 47th President, he is the most consequential President in modern American history, leading our country at a time of great international and domestic turmoil."
She added, "Just as George Washington’s Birthday is codified as a federal holiday, this bill will add Trump’s Birthday to this list, recognizing him as the founder of America’s Golden Age," she said.
Given past rumors about the President, the gentle Congresswoman should probably refrain using the word "golden" and his name in the same sentence.
A Divisive Proposal
As with most things related to Trump, the bill immediately sparked immediate criticism in social media channels.
Critics on X and Reddit questioned whether Congress should prioritize a new federal holiday over more pressing issues like healthcare, inflation, and immigration reform. And then there are others, like comedian Billie Nelson who rolled with it in tweet:
>>> "OK, but hear me out! Let’s also make it ‘Traitor Trash Day!’ Benedict Arnold died on June 14, 1801, as a traitor, in England. Just putting it out there! 145 years later, another traitor was born..."
Ok, but hear me out! Let's also make it "Traitor Trash Day!" Benedict Arnold died on June 14, 1801, as a traitor, in England.
The bill does face an uphill battle in Congress as historically, establishing a federal holiday tends to involve bipartisan negotiations — though not always unanimous support. For example, Juneteenth National Independence Day (2021) passed with overwhelming bipartisan backing, while Martin Luther King Jr. Day (1983) faced strong opposition before eventually becoming law. However, given the current make up of the House and Senate, the proposal isn’t entirely without momentum.
The likelihood of the bill becoming law remains uncertain but ChatGPT confidently said, "Let’s be real: this bill has about as much chance of passing as Trump staying off social media for a full 24 hours. But hey, politics is weird, and stranger things have happened."
June 14 could truly be a holiday for everyone, traitors and patriots alike.
We live in interesting times for sure.
This may be the most frightening Halloween of all time. People across America are scared stiff as we are bombarded 24-hours a day with terrifying scenes splashed across television, our telephones and tablets. We can’t get away from the howls, screeches, growls, ghastly facial expressions and horned headed characters spewing menacing rhetoric. All of this has been brought to us by our Democratic and Republican parties.
The scariest part of Halloween is that there will be five more days of political campaigning and political advertisements. But wait, what happens if the election is so close and so tight that a winner is not able to be called next Tuesday night? What happens if the voting is so close that several of the states must recount and recount? We could be in for the longest Halloween in American history.
We are already scared to death. Democrats hate Trump and are terrified he might win. There is no limit on what is being said about him. Any woman who will come forth with a damaging comment about Trump will have the national spotlight. Anyone who can come up with a scenario that would make Trump the illegitimate son or grandson of Hitler will receive airtime on national television. Of course, Republicans will play Kamala’s bloopers, giggles and nonsensical answers time and again. By the way, whatever happened to the Obama slogan, “Whenever they go low, we go high?”
Just hope, and I mean hope and pray that whoever wins this election wins decisively so that when we go to bed either Tuesday night or Wednesday morning that we know for certain who has been elected President of the United States.
Most everyone knows I’ve already voted for Trump. This doesn’t make me hate you if you vote for Kamala Harris. I just think you are making a bad decision. There are probably other people who write for this very good news source who have a differing opinion. What makes a newspaper or news blog good is the ability to print both sides of a viewpoint. Most of us long for the old days when television anchors presented the news and all sides of the story.
Trump is strong on border security. It’s a no-brainer that our country is in trouble with so many millions illegally entering the country. We are losing our country. We are becoming a third world country right before our eyes.
Our military and Veterans were treated well under Trump. We need a strong military. We had achieved worldwide peace under Trump. What is going on between Ukraine and Russia and now North Korea is draining our country financially. The billions of dollars never seem to stop flowing out to Ukraine. The Middle East is now a powder keg that could ignite World War III.
I can’t see Kamala Harris commanding respect from any of the other world leaders in discussions to solve the conflicts. What would she do? Call Oprah, Taylor Swift, or Beyonce?
Trump has promised he will do away with seniors paying tax on their social security benefits. This would save 70 million seniors in this country. Trump’s policy on energy will be a boom to the United States. America drills oil and gas and burns both cleaner than any other nation. China, India and Russia are going to continue with oil and gas. We can do it much cleaner than them and financially save our country. We should also use our own wind, oil, gas and coal. A balanced approach will help our nation as well as our entire planet.
With Kamala we will get four more years of what we’ve had, maybe. She won’t be as good as Joe Biden. I believe she will be much, much worse. Will she be able to take the abortion issue away from the states? It is doubtful. For years, Congress wanted to put this in the hands of the states and it is unlikely it will ever be taken away.
On Wednesday, November 6th, we are still Americans. We need to act like it regardless of the election outcome. We must work for the good of this country and always work to help each other be the best Americans we can be.
On November 6th, let’s end Halloween and begin our season of Thanksgiving.
Glen Mollett is the author of 13 books including Uncommom Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states. The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.
CHICAGO - Illinois voters have several ways to cast their ballot in the upcoming election, whether by mail, in person or early voting.
The Illinois Policy Institute, a political watchdog, reported 2022's general election produced the second-highest voter turnout in a midterm year in 25 years.
Matt Dietrich, public information officer for the Illinois State Board of Elections, wants voters to observe important deadlines for registering to vote. For unregistered voters, he advised there is still time to change their status.
"Voter registration never closes until the polls close on Election Day," Dietrich pointed out. "You can get registered from now right up through and even on November 5th. The online voter registration stays open until 11:59 pm, October 20th."
Voter inquiries can be answered through an online portal on the board's website, elections.il.gov.
Beginning Oct. 9, unregistered voters wanting in-person voting can do so at any early voting location. Dietrich added they will have to cast their early vote ballot at the time of registration.
Two forms of verifiable identification are needed, one which reflects who you are and the other, your voting residence. If you have recently moved to Illinois from another state, an unexpired out-of-state driver's license is accepted. A piece of government mail sent to your residence, a bank statement, or a pay stub with your voting residence is also sufficient.
Another popular choice among Illinoisans is to vote by mail. There was a "slight uptick of 10%," Dietrich reported, even before the pandemic in 2020. He added 2 million people tried it for the first time and deemed the process as safe, convenient and trackable.
"We and all the local election authorities really pushed voting by mail for safety reasons," Dietrich explained. "In the end, we had one-third of the total votes in 2020, cast by mail, about one-third cast early in person and one-third cast on Election Day in person."
Dietrich said in 2022, voting by mail slightly exceeded the number of voters who were voting early in person. He recommends residents wanting to cast mail-in ballots request their ballot far before the Oct. 31 deadline.
Keywords: Illinois early voting locations, Register to vote in Illinois, Illinois mail-in ballot process
Illinois voter registration deadlines, Voting by mail in Illinois, Illinois State Board of Elections voter portal
Abortion is a critical, if not the most important, issue for many voters – especially women, according to polls – ahead of the U.S. presidential election in November.
Harris and Trump have starkly different track records on abortion.
Harris and Trump have starkly different track records on abortion. As an academic, my scholarship focuses on reproductive health law, health care law and family law. In this piece, and in anticipation of the election, I briefly consider the broad strokes of each candidate’s past positions on and actions regarding abortion.
Harris’ abortion record
As California’s attorney general, Harris co-sponsored the Reproductive FACT Act, which, among other requirements, mandated that crisis pregnancy centers inform patients that they are not licensed medical facilities and that abortion services are available elsewhere. These centers are nonprofit organizations that counsel pregnant people against abortion, sometimes using deceptive tactics.
As a U.S. senator, Harris opposed anti-abortion bills that would have conferred personhood rights on fetuses.
In 2017, Harris investigated the tactics of undercover videographers at Planned Parenthood clinics who, through deception and fraud, sought to entrap clinicians into making controversial, though legal, statements, and who possibly contravened state law on secret recordings.
Conversely, Harris championed various bills that would have protected and advanced reproductive rights. In 2019, for example, Harris was a co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would have enacted a federal statutory right to abortion. It also did not pass.
Finally, during Harris’ tenure as vice president, the Biden administration has used its executive power to ease barriers to abortion access, primarily through federal agency actions. The Food and Drug Administration, for example, removed a rule in 2021 that prohibited mailing medication abortion.
The Department of Health and Human Services issued guidance affirming that federal law requires emergency rooms to perform an abortion when it is medically necessary to stabilize a patient needing urgent care.
The Biden-Harris administration also supported federal legislation that includes accommodations for abortion. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, enacted in 2023, requires employers to provide time off for a worker’s miscarriage, stillbirth or abortion.
Trump began his presidency in 2016 by promising to appoint Supreme Court justices who wouldoverturn Roe v. Wade.
Although the Biden-Harris administration’s abortion policy is not necessarily based on just the vice president, Harris, since Roe’s reversal, has been at the helm of the administration’s “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms” tour, speaking nationally in support of a right to abortion. Harris has also stressed the damage done in 14 states, in particular, where abortion is banned throughout pregnancy or after six weeks of gestation.
Trump’s abortion record
During Trump’s tenure as president, he supported various changes – in the form of judicial appointments, federal funding and agency actions, some led by anti-abortion federal employees – in the service of making it harder for people to gain access to abortion care.
Trump began his presidency in 2016 by promising to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. He nominated three justices – Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch – who joined the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, reversing Roe in June 2022.
The Trump administration unsuccessfully tried to replace the Affordable Care Act and undermine its coverage for contraceptives as well as its neutral stance on insurance coverage for abortion. Trump supported bills such as the never-passed American Health Care Act to limit abortion coverage in private health insurance plans.
Trump also appointed several people with anti-abortion positions to his administration, including Charmaine Yoest, the former CEO for the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life, who served as a top communications official at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Trump administration advanced numerous other anti-abortion policies. For instance, the Department of Human and Health Services’ 2017 strategic plan defined life as beginning at conception – a decision that supported funding for crisis pregnancy centers and abstinence-only education programs.
Finally, the Trump administration adopted an anti-abortion approach when it came to foreign policy. Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign nongovernmental organizations that receive U.S. funding from performing abortions or referring patients for abortion care elsewhere. Under the Mexico City Policy, Trump in 2017 removed US$8.8 billion in U.S. foreign aid for overseas programs that provide or refer for abortions.
In the coming weeks, both candidates will have a lot to say about abortion, possibly refining or changing their stances on aspects of abortion law. In assessing what both candidates have to say about how their administration will approach abortion, voters might consider what we know about their past actions.
When my dad moved to southwest Ohio in the early 1970s, the Dayton-Springfield area’s second city was home to over 80,000 people. When I was growing up nearby in the 1990s, it was 70,000. Today, it’s less than 60,000.
Springfield’s decline looks like an awful lot of Rust Belt cities and towns. And behind those numbers is a lot of human suffering.
Corporations engineered trade deals that made it cheaper to move jobs abroad, where they could pay workers less and pollute more with impunity. As the region’s secure blue collar jobs dried up, so did the local tax base — and as union membership dwindled, so did social cohesion.
Local employers have heaped praise on their Haitian American workers.
Young people sought greener pastures elsewhere while those who remained nursed resentments, battled a flood of opioids, and gritted their teeth through empty promises from politicians.
It’s a sad chapter for countless American cities, but it hardly needs to be the last one. After all, the region’s affordable housing — and infrastructure built to support larger populations — can make it attractive for new arrivals looking to build a better life. And they in turn revitalize their new communities.
So it was in Springfield, where between 15,000 and 20,000 Haitian migrants have settled in the last few years. “On Sunday afternoons, you could suddenly hear Creole mass wafting through downtown streets,” NPR reported. “Haitian restaurants started popping up.”
One migrant told the network he’d heard that “Ohio is the [best] place to come get a job easily.” He now works at a steel plant and as a Creole translator. Local employers have heaped praise on their Haitian American workers, while small businesses have reaped the benefits of new customers and wages have surged.
Some powerful people don’t want to share prosperity equally. So they lie.
Reversing decades of population decline in a few short years is bound to cause some growing pains. But on balance, Springfield is a textbook case of how immigration can change a region’s luck for the better.
“Immigrants are good for this country,” my colleagues Lindsay Koshgarian and Alliyah Lusuegro have written. “They work critical jobs, pay taxes, build businesses, and introduce many of our favorite foods and cultural innovations (donuts, anyone?)… They make the United States the strong, diverse nation that it is.”
In fact, it was earlier waves of migration — including African Americans from the South, poor whites from Appalachia, and immigrants from abroad — that fueled much of the industrial heartland’s earlier prosperity.
But some powerful people don’t want to share prosperity equally. So they lie.
“From politicians who win office with anti-immigrant campaigns to white supremacists who peddle racist conspiracy theories and corporations that rely on undocumented workers to keep wages low and deny workers’ rights,” Lindsay and Alliyah explain, “these people stoke fear about immigrants to divide us for their own gain.”
So it is with an absurd and dangerous lie — peddled recently by Donald Trump, JD Vance, Republican politicians, and a bunch of internet trolls — that Haitian Americans are fueling a crime wave in Springfield, abducting and eating people’s pets, and other racist nonsense.
It’s lies like these, not immigrants, who threaten the recovery of Rust Belt cities.
“According to interviews with a dozen local and county and officials as well as city police data,” Reuters reports, there’s been no “general rise in violent or property crime” or “reports or specific claims of pets being harmed” in Springfield. Instead, many of these lies appear to have originated with a local neo-Nazi group called “Blood Pride” — who are about as lovely as they sound.
Politicians who want you to believe otherwise are covering for someone else — like the corporations who shipped jobs out of communities like Springfield in the first place — all to win votes from pathetic white nationalists in need of a new hobby. It’s lies like these, not immigrants, who threaten the recovery of Rust Belt cities.
Springfield’s immigrant influx is a success story, not a scandal. And don’t let any desperate politicians tell you otherwise.
Peter Certo is the communications director of the Institute for Policy Studies and editor of OtherWords.org.
Could organizations use artificial intelligence language models such as ChatGPT to induce voters to behave in specific ways?
Sen. Josh Hawley asked OpenAI CEO Sam Altman this question in a May 16, 2023, U.S. Senate hearing on artificial intelligence. Altman replied that he was indeed concerned that some people might use language models to manipulate, persuade and engage in one-on-one interactions with voters.
Altman did not elaborate, but he might have had something like this scenario in mind. Imagine that soon, political technologists develop a machine called Clogger – a political campaign in a black box. Clogger relentlessly pursues just one objective: to maximize the chances that its candidate – the campaign that buys the services of Clogger Inc. – prevails in an election.
While platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube use forms of AI to get users to spend more time on their sites, Clogger’s AI would have a different objective: to change people’s voting behavior.
How Clogger would work
As a political scientist and a legal scholar who study the intersection of technology and democracy, we believe that something like Clogger could use automation to dramatically increase the scale and potentially the effectiveness of behavior manipulation and microtargeting techniques that political campaigns have used since the early 2000s. Just as advertisers use your browsing and social media history to individually target commercial and political ads now, Clogger would pay attention to you – and hundreds of millions of other voters – individually.
It would offer three advances over the current state-of-the-art algorithmic behavior manipulation. First, its language model would generate messages — texts, social media and email, perhaps including images and videos — tailored to you personally. Whereas advertisers strategically place a relatively small number of ads, language models such as ChatGPT can generate countless unique messages for you personally – and millions for others – over the course of a campaign.
Illustration: Amber/Pixabay
Second, Clogger would use a technique called reinforcement learning to generate a succession of messages that become increasingly more likely to change your vote. Reinforcement learning is a machine-learning, trial-and-error approach in which the computer takes actions and gets feedback about which work better in order to learn how to accomplish an objective. Machines that can play Go, Chess and many video games better than any human have used reinforcement learning.
Third, over the course of a campaign, Clogger’s messages could evolve in order to take into account your responses to the machine’s prior dispatches and what it has learned about changing others’ minds. Clogger would be able to carry on dynamic “conversations” with you – and millions of other people – over time. Clogger’s messages would be similar to ads that follow you across different websites and social media.
The nature of AI
Three more features – or bugs – are worth noting.
First, the messages that Clogger sends may or may not be political in content. The machine’s only goal is to maximize vote share, and it would likely devise strategies for achieving this goal that no human campaigner would have thought of.
One possibility is sending likely opponent voters information about nonpolitical passions that they have in sports or entertainment to bury the political messaging they receive. Another possibility is sending off-putting messages – for example incontinence advertisements – timed to coincide with opponents’ messaging. And another is manipulating voters’ social media friend groups to give the sense that their social circles support its candidate.
Second, Clogger has no regard for truth. Indeed, it has no way of knowing what is true or false. Language model “hallucinations” are not a problem for this machine because its objective is to change your vote, not to provide accurate information.
If the Republican presidential campaign were to deploy Clogger in 2024, the Democratic campaign would likely be compelled to respond in kind, perhaps with a similar machine. Call it Dogger. If the campaign managers thought that these machines were effective, the presidential contest might well come down to Clogger vs. Dogger, and the winner would be the client of the more effective machine.
Photo: Kp Yamu Jayanath/Pixabay
In the future, politicians who win their seats into office will do so only because they have access to the best artificial intelligence technology.
Political scientists and pundits would have much to say about why one or the other AI prevailed, but likely no one would really know. The president will have been elected not because his or her policy proposals or political ideas persuaded more Americans, but because he or she had the more effective AI. The content that won the day would have come from an AI focused solely on victory, with no political ideas of its own, rather than from candidates or parties.
In this very important sense, a machine would have won the election rather than a person. The election would no longer be democratic, even though all of the ordinary activities of democracy – the speeches, the ads, the messages, the voting and the counting of votes – will have occurred.
The AI-elected president could then go one of two ways. He or she could use the mantle of election to pursue Republican or Democratic party policies. But because the party ideas may have had little to do with why people voted the way that they did – Clogger and Dogger don’t care about policy views – the president’s actions would not necessarily reflect the will of the voters. Voters would have been manipulated by the AI rather than freely choosing their political leaders and policies.
Another path is for the president to pursue the messages, behaviors and policies that the machine predicts will maximize the chances of reelection. On this path, the president would have no particular platform or agenda beyond maintaining power. The president’s actions, guided by Clogger, would be those most likely to manipulate voters rather than serve their genuine interests or even the president’s own ideology.
Avoiding Clogocracy
It would be possible to avoid AI election manipulation if candidates, campaigns and consultants all forswore the use of such political AI. We believe that is unlikely. If politically effective black boxes were developed, the temptation to use them would be almost irresistible. Indeed, political consultants might well see using these tools as required by their professional responsibility to help their candidates win. And once one candidate uses such an effective tool, the opponents could hardly be expected to resist by disarming unilaterally.
Enhanced privacy protection would help. Clogger would depend on access to vast amounts of personal data in order to target individuals, craft messages tailored to persuade or manipulate them, and track and retarget them over the course of a campaign. Every bit of that information that companies or policymakers deny the machine would make it less effective.
Strong data privacy laws could help steer AI away from being manipulative.
Another solution lies with elections commissions. They could try to ban or severely regulate these machines. There’s a fierce debate about whether such “replicant” speech, even if it’s political in nature, can be regulated. The U.S.’s extreme free speech tradition leads many leading academics to say it cannot.
But there is no reason to automatically extend the First Amendment’s protection to the product of these machines. The nation might well choose to give machines rights, but that should be a decision grounded in the challenges of today, not the misplaced assumption that James Madison’s views in 1789 were intended to apply to AI.
European Union regulators are moving in this direction. Policymakers revised the European Parliament’s draft of its Artificial Intelligence Act to designate “AI systems to influence voters in campaigns” as “high risk” and subject to regulatory scrutiny.
One constitutionally safer, if smaller, step, already adopted in part by European internet regulators and in California, is to prohibit bots from passing themselves off as people. For example, regulation might require that campaign messages come with disclaimers when the content they contain is generated by machines rather than humans.
This would be like the advertising disclaimer requirements – “Paid for by the Sam Jones for Congress Committee” – but modified to reflect its AI origin: “This AI-generated ad was paid for by the Sam Jones for Congress Committee.” A stronger version could require: “This AI-generated message is being sent to you by the Sam Jones for Congress Committee because Clogger has predicted that doing so will increase your chances of voting for Sam Jones by 0.0002%.” At the very least, we believe voters deserve to know when it is a bot speaking to them, and they should know why, as well.
The possibility of a system like Clogger shows that the path toward human collective disempowerment may not require some superhuman artificial general intelligence. It might just require overeager campaigners and consultants who have powerful new tools that can effectively push millions of people’s many buttons.
by Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator
Trump angry? Kamala got joy?
Did Trump seem angry last week during the debate? I thought he was intense. There’s a difference.
Aren’t you a little intense? Doesn’t it bother you when you dread going to the grocery store because you need more money to buy the same things? Doesn’t it irritate you that your town is starting to look like a third world country? Doesn’t it make you a little intense when so many undocumented people are getting medical care that you can’t afford?
Doesn’t it provoke you some that your grandchildren can’t play outside at night because America has become so unsafe? Do you even feel safe for them to be out in the yard or down the street alone during the day? Doesn’t it make you just a little uptight when you go to buy a car and know that if you can’t pay cash for it that you will make payments and big ones for a long time?
Doesn’t it make you a bit irritable that renting an apartment of any size is insanely expensive? Does it bother you that buying a house might never be within your reach? How do you feel about seeing your ability to financially enjoy retirement shrink more every day?
Does it bother you that babies are aborted in such late stages of pregnancy when there is no medical necessity or concern about the mother’s or baby’s health?
Doesn’t it concern you that our country is so involved in the Ukraine-Russia war and also the Israel-Hamas war? Could we end up in World War III? Doesn’t it bother you that we are living in an era where we need police protection more than ever but some government leaders want to defund the police? Doesn’t it tick you off a bit that you may never be able to retire?
I think Trump has every reason to be a little high strung and intense. I suspect you have times when you are as well.
Now Kamala, naw, she’s got joy. None of this stuff is bothering her at all. She laughs, giggles and has some funky facial expressions going on.
As millions of people have illegally crossed our border for almost four years, she and Joe Biden have let them have their way. Prices on everything have strained the American economy during her entire tenure. Her solution is that America is going to move on and she will give every hopeful home owner $25,000, and everyone will be filled with joy.
Handing out big checks to Americans, businesses and even colleges and non-profits during Covid started this huge mess of people preferring to stay home instead of work. It also began this economy crisis our nation is suffering.
We can thank Kamala and Biden for this joy that she only wants to continue. Which are you feeling today? Trump’s intensity or Kamala’s joy?
Glen Mollett is the author of 13 books including Uncommom Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states. The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.
CHICAGO - Does the First Amendment allow U.S. government officials to intervene and prevent the spread of misinformation and disinformation on social media?
Jill Wine-Banks, a distinguished attorney and MSNBC Legal Analyst known for her prominence in political and legal discourse, is scheduled to speak about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent action on social media censorship. This virtual event will take place on Tuesday, August 20, at 7 p.m. via Zoom. The program is free and is presented by the League of Women Voters of Illinois’ Mis/Disinformation Task Force.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently had an opportunity to rule on this question. Instead, they declined to issue decisions in two cases, punting them back to officials in Texas and Florida.
Among her many accomplishments, Wine-Banks was named General Counsel of the U.S. Army by President Carter, where she supervised what was, in essence, the world's largest law firm.
She started her legal career as the first woman to serve as an organized crime prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Four years later, she was selected to be one of the three Assistant Watergate Special Prosecutors in the obstruction of justice trial against President Nixon's top aides. Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator in that case, but the evidence presented led to Nixon’s resignation.
In 2014, she was named by the Secretary of Defense to the Judicial Proceedings Panel’s Subcommittee on Sexual Assault in the military, where she served until 2017. She was also the first woman to serve as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Bar Association.
Those who wish to join the online talk can register for the event here.
To tackle the concerning increase in misinformation and disinformation, particularly its impact on our elections, the League of Women Voters of Illinois established the Mis/Disinformation Task Force in January 2024. The goal of the task force is to educate the public about misinformation and disinformation. For more information, please visit lwvil.org/misdis-info.
Millions of Democrats went to the polls in state primaries to cast their votes for President Joe Biden. He was elected to represent the Democrat party once again. He didn’t have the official votes of the delegates from the convention but it was a given that he would receive them.
On June 27, Biden debated former President Trump and it didn’t go so well for Biden. He wasn’t his best during that debate and a ground swell of other Democrat leaders forced Biden to withdraw from the race.
How does this make you feel if you voted for him? What happened to the will of the people? What good did it do you to take time off from work to vote? Your vote didn’t mean a thing. It was totally wasted time if you voted for President Joe Biden. A handful of rich celebrities along with Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Robert Schiff, and a few others made the decision.
Suddenly all we are hearing is that Vice President Kamala Harris is the Democrat challenger to Donald Trump. She hasn’t been elected by the delegates which doesn’t even come until the August convention which begins August 19th. A reported hundred million dollars has already been raised and she will likely be nominated. At this point, who does this party have to nominate? We have only a little over three months until the November election.
The brevity of time that Harris has to run as the Democrat nominee is unfair to everybody. It’s unfair to her. She can run as the assumed nominee but she’ s not the nominee yet. It wouldn’t make sense for Trump to debate her at this point because Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer might change their minds and ask someone else to run and pressure Harris to drop out.
Of course, a similar scenario could happen to the Republicans. Trump could have been assassinated and the Republican party would have had to make another choice.
Harris’s major theme that she has going for her in the eyes of millions of Americans is abortion. As many if not more Americans are for abortion than are against abortion. Harris is beating this drum every day wherever she speaks and it could be the single issue that elects her as President. Trump and the Republicans must come up with a plan that resonates with the majority of America’s women and young people or it could be the single issue that brings about his defeat.
There is a lot at stake in the November election. We hope our votes count. We hope that whoever we elect is the one who serves as President. Unlike what just happened with the recent Democrat primaries. Most of us hope that we can get through this election and still be at peace in our country. A house divided cannot stand. Regardless of who is elected it doesn’t do any of us any good to be fighting among ourselves. I hope that we all can resolve to live in peace, talk civil to each other and be good Americans.
He is the author of 13 books including Uncommom Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states. The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.
While admitting that Medicare and Medicaid “help many,” the authors of Project 2025 nonetheless declare that the programs “operate as runaway entitlements that stifle medical innovation,
by Sonali KolhatkarConservatives have done the United States a huge favor by explaining in detail what they’ll try to do if Donald Trump is reelected.
Project 2025, a “presidential transition project” of the Heritage Foundation, helpfully lays out how a group of former Trump officials would like to transform the country into a right-wing dystopia where the rich thrive and the rest of us die aspiring to be rich.
Declaring in its Mandate for Leadership that “unaccountable federal spending is the secret lifeblood of the Great Awokening” (really!), the plan focuses heavily on reversing social progress on the rights of racial and sexual minorities.
It also promises to decimate the most popular benefits programs in the U.S.: Medicare and Medicaid.
In a section dedicated to the Department of Health and Human Services, Project 2025 declares that “HHS is home to Medicare and Medicaid, the principal drivers of our $31 trillion national debt.”
This is a popular conservative framing used to justify ending social programs. In fact, per person Medicare spending has plateaued for more than a decade and represents one of the greatest reductions to the federal debt.
While admitting that Medicare and Medicaid “help many,” the authors of Project 2025 nonetheless declare that the programs “operate as runaway entitlements that stifle medical innovation, encourage fraud, and impede cost containment, in addition to which their fiscal future is in peril.”
To solve these imaginary problems, they suggest making “Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option” rather than traditional Medicare.
But Medicare Advantage (MA) is not a government-run healthcare program. It’s merely a way to turn tax dollars into profits for private health insurers. The more that MA providers deny coverage, the more money their shareholders make. There is no incentive for them to cover the health care needs of seniors.
There is plenty of evidence that MA programs not only fleece taxpayers by submitting inflated reimbursement bills to the government but also routinely deny necessary medical coverage.
In other words, they’re drinking out of both sides of the government trough.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research pointed out in a March 2024 paper that the “insurance companies that run these MA plans spend significant sums of money to blanket seniors with marketing” while relying on “heavily restricted networks that damage one’s choice of provider along with dangerous delays and denials of necessary care.”
But Project 2025 claims, without evidence, that “the MA program has been registering consistently high marks for superior performance in delivering high-quality care.”
Medicaid, the government program that covers health care for the lowest-income Americans, including millions of children, is also a major target of the conservative authors.
They want to add work requirements to the benefit, adopting the familiar conservative trope of low-income Americans living off tax dollars because they’re too lazy to work. And like the MA programs, they want to allow private insurers to get in on the game.
Calling Medicaid a “cumbersome, complicated, and unaffordable burden on nearly every state,” Project 2025 complains about the program’s increased eligibility while at the same time claiming to care about how it impacts “those who are most in need.”
But a June 2024 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes that Medicaid’s expanded eligibility rules have helped insure millions of Americans who would otherwise be uninsured and saved money in state budgets.
Most encouragingly, “the people who gained coverage have grown healthier and more financially secure, while long-standing racial inequities in health outcomes, coverage, and access to care have shrunk.”
Project 2025 claims to have the underlying ideology to “incentivize personal responsibility,” as if its authors simply want Americans to begin acting like responsible grownups. But they mysteriously don’t apply this same standard to wealthy elites — perhaps because that’s precisely who they are.
Sonali Kolhatkar is the host of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a television and radio show on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. This commentary was produced by the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute and adapted for syndication by OtherWords.org.
PONTIAC - People everywhere are conquering their cabin fever and are enjoying the great outdoors after a long, bitter winter. But before you head out for that hike, health care experts remind you to take precautions to avoid tick bites. Read more . . .
CHICAGO - An Illinois law professor is weighing in on what she called a "very public and open test of due process" for immigrants being deported from the United States without court hearings. Read more . . .
CHAMPAIGN - In a show of solidarity against President Donald Trump's trade and immigration policies, which critics say are harming families and retirement savings, more than a thousand protesters gathered Saturday at West Park near downtown Champaign for the Hands-Off! Mobilization rally. Read more . . .
Photo Galleries
A couple of runners found themselves in the wrong race at this year's Illinois Marathon. Over 60 photos from the race that you should see.
