13 thoughts on “News/Politics 12-24-19

  1. As I stated when this issue was being argued, and before Roberts once again betrayed his “conservative” credentials, this issue matters big time. Dems will now use the seats gained to their full advantage, all thanks to illegal immigration. They don’t need to vote to sway the House to Democrats, their mere presence is enough.


    “Report: Immigration Will Give Democrats 24 More House Seats From Trump States After 2020 Census

    “It is possible that had the shift in House seats occurred in time for the 2016 election, Hillary Rodham Clinton would have won the Electoral College vote, not Trump.”

    “Democrats have a vested interested in unrestrained immigration and in ensuring that the citizenship question never makes the U. S. Census. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, immigration surges over the past ten years will result in the redistribution of as many 26 House seats, mostly in blue states.

    Additionally, 24 of the lost House seats are in states that President Trump won in 2016. This is not only concerning to Republicans hoping to retake the House in 2020 but to the president himself as he seeks reelection.

    The Washington Examiner reports:

    The 10-year surge in illegal and legal immigration has exploded the populations of mostly Democratic states enough that the 2020 census is likely to result in the redistribution of 24 House seats in states President Trump won, according to a new population analysis released Thursday morning.

    The prediction from the Center for Immigration Studies said that 26 seats overall will shift due to immigration increases since the last census was taken. And it said that a minimum of 19 of those seats will be added to Democratic states.

    “Immigration profoundly redistributes political power at the federal level by changing the apportionment of House seats and votes in the Electoral College,” said the report compiled by Steven A. Camarota, the center’s director of research, and demographer Karen Zeigler.

    CIS expects Ohio to be the biggest loser of House seats and California the biggest winner because many illegal and legal immigrants reside in California, and the distribution of 435 House seats is based on the national population count.

    It is possible that had the shift in House seats occurred in time for the 2016 election, Hillary Rodham Clinton would have won the Electoral College vote, not Trump.

    The report is alarming, the Washington Examiner notes, in that it is “one of the first reports to confirm concerns that unchecked immigration, cheered by liberals, dramatically helps the Democratic Party.””

    Liked by 1 person

  2. More from CIS.

    Now you know why liberal cities and states have insisted on being “sanctuary” places. It’s all part of the scheme.


    “The Impact of Legal and Illegal Immigration on the Apportionment of Seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2020”

    High Immigration Causes Political Redistribution. If immigrants were evenly spread throughout the country, they would have no impact on the distribution of House seats. Historically, immigrants have always been concentrated in some areas, and that is still true today. Of course, immigrants do tend to become more dispersed over time, but it is a very gradual process. In 1990, the top six states of immigrant settlement accounted for 73 percent of the total foreign-born population, while in 2000 these same six states accounted for 69 percent of the total foreign-born population. In 2020, the top six states will account for 63 percent of all immigrants, but only 40 percent of the nation’s total population. Although immigrants will almost certainly continue to move into new parts of the country, for decades to come there will continue to be states with very large immigrant populations, while other states have only a modest number. In 2020, there will still be 11 states with fewer than 100,000 immigrants, while five states will have more than two million.

    The redistributive effects of immigration are not just a result of its concentration, but also partly depend on immigrants’ share of the total population. A very large immigrant population, even if it becomes more dispersed, can still have a significant impact on the distribution of House seats and Electoral College votes. As long as the number of immigrants (legal and illegal) entering the country remains very high, immigration will continue to redistribute political power in Washington. (While not examined in this report, the same dynamic applies within states, in drawing districts for the state legislatures.)

    Representing Non-Citizens in Congress. Although the political stakes for low-immigration states from continued high levels of immigration are clearly very significant, the related question of creating districts because of the presence of non-citizens is equally important to consider. While there is a consensus that naturalized citizens should be represented in Congress just like any other American, awarding congressional seats to states on the basis of their non-citizen populations raises important questions about political representation. This is especially true when one considers that these districts are created by taking representation away from states comprised of American citizens.

    Consider the case of Ohio, the biggest loser from immigration-induced reapportionment. In 2020, there will be 292,000 non-citizens in Ohio, accounting for just 2 percent of the state’s population; California will be home to nearly 4.8 million non-citizens, accounting for 12 percent of the state’s population. Non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections, serve on juries, or work for the federal government in most cases. Many non-citizens, including foreign students, guestworkers, and illegal immigrants also may not make campaign contributions. Thus, it may seem odd that they are “represented” in Congress. This is especially true because the majority of non-citizens in the country are either illegal immigrants or temporary visitors such as foreign students or guestworkers.4 While one can at least argue that legal permanent residents who have not naturalized are entitled to representation in Congress because they are future Americans, illegal aliens and temporary visitors can make no such claim.

    Non-Citizens vs. “One Man, One Vote”. There are a significant number of congressional districts in high immigration states where a larger share of voting-age people are non-citizens and, as a result, it takes relatively few votes to elect a member of Congress. Taking away representation from states composed almost entirely of U.S. citizens so that districts can be created where a large share of the population is made up of non-citizens can be seen as in conflict with the principle of “one man, one vote”. In the 2018 election in the five congressional districts where the largest share of the voting-age population were not citizens, only 132,000 votes were cast on average. In the five districts with the smallest non-citizen shares, 232,000 votes were cast on average. If nothing else, it means it takes far fewer votes to win a House seat in a district where a large share of adults is made up of non-citizens. Allowing in a large number of legal immigrants and tolerating illegal immigration has created a situation in which the votes of American citizens living in low-immigration districts count much less than those of citizens is living in high-immigration districts.

    While it’s clear that American citizens in low-immigration states lose from mass immigration, the winners are not necessarily the non-citizens who cause the reapportionment, since they cannot vote or otherwise fully take part in the political process. Instead, it is citizens who live in the same districts with non-citizens whose political power is enhanced. Put simply, in a district in which a large share of the population cannot vote, those who do vote count more than citizens in districts where almost everyone is an American citizen. Put a different way, large non-citizen populations take voting power from some Americans and give it to other American citizens in high-immigration districts.”


  3. End the farce and get after the real criminals in all of this.


    “Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham over the weekend effectively dismissed any notion that Democrats were going to be successful in removing President Donald Trump from office with their partisan articles of impeachment and revealed at least two of his top priorities for the upcoming new year.

    Graham made the remarks on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” with host Maria Bartiromo, saying that he is going to be holding everyone at the FBI accountable for what he said was “criminal” activity in its surveillance of the Trump campaign in 2016.

    “I don’t see how you can investigate the 2016 Trump-Russian allegations without looking at the dossier, Graham said. “Comey said last week he was sorry, it was sloppy. No, Comey, it wasn’t sloppy, it was criminal. I’m going to call every person who signed the warrant application; I’m going to find out why Brennan went to Harry Reid in September of 2016 to talk about the investigation.”

    “I’m going to find out why it took two years for Mueller to realize there was no ‘there’ there,” Graham continued. “We’re going to look long and hard at FISA abuse; we’re going to pass laws to make sure this never happens again. Accountability will only be successful if somebody gets fired, and I’m looking at Christopher Wray to fire somebody at the FBI. And somebody needs to go to jail, and I’m looking at Durham to hold people criminally accountable for the laws they broke.”

    Graham said that he intends to ask everyone that he calls to testify in front of the Committee how much time they spent investigating whether the dossier was true and who all knew about the FBI’s investigation into Trump campaign.

    Graham continued, “I want to know did President Obama, was he aware of the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign? And I’d be shocked if he was not.””

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Why it’s necessary.

    You have to cut out the cancer or it spreads.


    “Jim Comey’s damaging legacy at the FBI must be undone”

    “Fired FBI director James Comey, the gift that keeps on spinning, went on TV yet again — this time following the two worst weeks in the FBI’s history — in an attempt to cover the mess he made.

    His messaging now goes something like this: Those terrible mistakes that happened are simply the result of sloppiness by minions several layers below him. And he was a busy man and, therefore, not accountable for what happened several layers below him. Oh, and any attack on him is an attack on the fine men and women of the FBI.

    Mr. Comey, who lectures on ethical leadership, has launched an imaginative strategy to run from his underlings while hiding behind them. In his world, the buck stops near, not here with him. Also — somehow — there is supposed vindication in two Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general’s reports that savaged him, but only he can squint to see it.

    There are two reasons for this. First, he has a business to protect. He has quite effectively monetized his misadventures in the FBI via a rapidly released book, paid gigs with cable news and newspapers, and lucrative lectures. He marveled in a recent New York Times interview about how much money he was making. “It’s a lot,” he gushed. “Seriously, it’s crazy.”

    The second reason is found in the relentless posse of Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham that is tracking behind him. They could present a significant threat to Comey personally. To what extent we will see, but it is serious and he knows it.

    Barr rightly went on TV after Comey’s absurd commentary and calmly, lucidly exposed its nonsense. Barr knows the FBI is worth fighting for and that the inspector general’s latest findings are more a reflection on Comey and his handpicked team than on the FBI.

    This merits clarity and emphasis: When James Comey downplays the litany of sins articulated in the IG report as “sloppiness” at lower levels, he is misleading America. Moreover, he is insulting every dedicated FBI employee, present and past. “

    Liked by 1 person

  5. https://www.newstimes.com/opinion/article/In-the-age-of-Trump-it-s-OK-to-be-deeply-14928014.php


    In the age of Trump, it’s OK to be (deeply) conflicted
    Gary Abernathy, The Washington Post

    … Trump’s joke about Dingell was shameful, but there is an undeniable double standard in the reactions to what Trump says and what others say in return, even when they are comparably snide.

    Trump’s insults are quickly condemned by most commentators as rude, crude and disgusting, while the barbs directed against him are usually portrayed as examples of keen wit and deserved retribution.

    The president does not shoulder all the blame for our divided nation. We all share responsibility for a low discourse too often based on our intractable political stances. This season of peace and goodwill is another opportunity for everyone on all sides to take stock of our own actions. In that spirit, let us agree on some simple truths.

    First, it’s OK for Trump’s base to admit that he is too often tactless, and doesn’t set the example we would like to see in our president. He should lay off criticizing dead people. You can still support Trump for president and simultaneously acknowledge that sometimes he’s a jerk.

    Second, it’s all right for Trump’s critics to admit that impeachment was a purely partisan scavenger hunt, and that what was described as a “clear and present danger” in need of immediate action was hardly that at all, proven now by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s refusal to let the articles of impeachment leave her grasp. …

    … For people on all sides, it’s all right to complain that Trump is ill-mannered and simultaneously give him credit for his positive accomplishments. It’s OK to like some of what he does but dislike how he conducts himself.

    We can enter the election year of 2020 and admit that neither the left nor the right is always on the side of the angels. Yes, it’s complicated, but it’s OK to be conflicted, to see both sides, to climb out of our partisan foxholes and acknowledge the obvious, even when it contradicts our preferred narratives and political prejudices. It’s OK to respect each other, to consider other opinions and even to change our minds once in a while.

    With that, merry Christmas. Or, if you prefer, happy holidays. I’m good either way.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Another point he makes:


    … Fourth, it’s time for the mainstream media to admit that the left is sometimes wrong, and concede that not all “right-wing conspiracy theories” are unfounded …


    And there you have the center, where most voters likely reside, more or less, but have voices that are seldom ever heard.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. And there’s this:


    The heavy price of Trump hatred
    DECEMBER 23, 2019 12:00 AM


    My friends have a house by the water with a deck facing west so they can watch nature create a Monet at dusk as they enjoy a glass of wine.

    But they haven’t enjoyed that blissful serenity since 2016 because “we spend 80% of our time worrying about Trump.”

    Staunch Democrats, they despised Reagan and the Bushes, especially George W. “and his wars.” But no Republican has got inside their head – posed a real and present danger to their health – like Trump. For them, he’s political sciatica, a piercingly painful condition that won’t go away. …

    … They admit their response goes beyond his policies – though they really hate his judges. They oppose him because “he’s a disgusting human being.”

    … Democrats and their operatives in the media have been gaslighting the public, defending their indefensible conduct by pretending only a few small errors were made while switching the focus to the first wholly partisan impeachment in our history.

    None of this will change my friends’ feelings. But one can hate Trump and still admit that he has been libeled and smeared. One can oppose him with every fiber of their being and still acknowledge that the government and the press have acted with reckless contempt for the truth.

    If they normalize this behavior by refusing to demand honesty and accountability from their party and their news outlets, then we are lost.


  8. So sad. Those are people who need prayer. When I meet them, I shake my head and think “all that negative energy. Why not forgive, release and enjoy your life?”

    But, I don’t think any of those people knew the Jesus who provides peace that passes all understanding. Tragic.

    And that’s where the close connection to the Trump administration HAS harmed the ability to share the Gospel.

    Tragic and a great need for prayer, conviction, confession, and humility.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. But Michelle you’re assuming the party that threw any mention of God out of their platform, and hold nothing but disdain for Christians anyway, was reachable to begin with.

    Trump had nothing to do with their disdain and hate. He just gave them a place to aim it.


  10. Exhibit A thru…..

    It doesn’t matter what he says or does, their opinion never changes on any of it.


    “I had not seen the tweet of the Featured Image by Trump until I read a column by Michael Goodwin in The NY Post, Donald Trump’s ‘they’re after you’ tweet says it all:

    On its face, a tweet President Trump sent last week is fairly benign. It doesn’t mock anyone, isn’t personally nasty and hasn’t caused any hair-on-fire controversy.

    Yet it is powerful in its own way, for it artfully sums up the Trump era from the perspective of the president and his supporters. With a likeness to the Uncle Sam “I want you” poster, the disrupter-in-chief reaffirms in 14 words the belief of Trump Nation that the political establishment, the media, the permanent bureaucracy and yes, the deep state are trying to crush him and them.”


    “The Trump theme has the media and Democrats worried. An Associated Press article, widely reprinted, complains Us vs. them: Trump aiming to use impeachment to rev up base:

    Using stark “us vs. them” language, President Donald Trump and his reelection campaign have begun framing his impeachment not as a judgment on his conduct but as a referendum on how Democrats regard him and his supporters.

    Mere days from the start of an election year, the White House and its allies are painting Trump’s impeachment on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress as an effort to undo his 2016 victory and discount the will of the people.

    There was nothing subtle about Trump’s pinned tweet shortly after impeachment: “In reality, they’re not after me. They’re after you,” was plastered above a photo of Trump pointing at the reader. “I’m just in the way.”

    I agree with AP as to the importance of the theme, except that AP has it backwards. It’s not “Us vs. Them.” It’s “Them vs. us.”

    And therein lies the key: Trump supporters aren’t going around harassing Democrats in restaurants and in their homes, aren’t attacking people who wear anti-Trump clothing, and aren’t trying to get Trump opponents fired. The hostility and hate is almost entirely in one direction, and people get that.

    Donald Trump may not be the only thing standing between “us” and the deranged Resistance mob, but he’s one of the things.”


  11. Yet another example. This is patently ridiculous, childish, and unconstitutional.

    But they justify it, because Trump.

    That’s pathetic.


    “Cuomo won’t let all judges officiate weddings — because some were appointed by Trump”

    “So much for reaching across the aisle.

    Gov. Cuomo just vetoed a bill that would have allowed all federal judges to officiate at weddings in New York — saying he can’t stomach the idea that even some of the jurists might be President Trump appointees.

    “I cannot in good conscience support legislation that would authorize such actions by federal judges who are appointed by this federal administration,” Cuomo said in a statement Friday as he shot down the bill — which was passed overwhelmingly by the Democratic-controlled state legislature.

    “President Trump does not embody who we are as New Yorkers,’’ the Democratic governor said.
    “The cornerstones that built our great state are diversity, tolerance, and inclusion. Based on these reasons, I must veto this bill.”

    Under current New York law, all state judges can preside over weddings in their official capacity — as can the governor, mayors, former mayors, some city and deputy city clerks, local justices, clergy members and any member of the public ordained especially for the occasion.

    But only certain federal judges in New York — from the second circuit court of appeals and Southern, Eastern, Northern and Western districts — are eligible to officially preside over the ceremonies. The bill would have expanded that to all New York federal judges, as well as those from out of state.”


    Someone here needs impeaching, but it’s not Trump. It’s the mentally unstable TDS sufferer.


  12. I agree with the assessment that Trump is ill mannered for a politician.
    His mouth runs ahead of his brain.
    But i also agree with the above assessment:
    Donald Trump may not be the only thing standing between “us” and the deranged Resistance mob, but he’s one of the things.”

    I think he showed up in time to bring us back to sensibility. I don’t know how long that will last.
    I fear for my next generation.
    I really do.


  13. Merry Christmas America! 🎅🎅🎅


    The Wall Street Journal sends a daily email to subscribers with highlights from the news. Today’s email begins:

    Stocks and bonds are staging an extraordinary run. They are on track for their biggest simultaneous gains in more than two decades. The S&P 500 has soared 28.6% this year, while a bond rally has pushed the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note down by three quarters of a percentage point. Yields move inversely to prices.

    Behind this year’s gains: An improving economic outlook, progress on trade and the Fed’s interest-rate cuts.

    The progress on trade includes, most recently, China’s announcement that it will lower tariffs on more than 800 product categories. Also from the Wall Street Journal:

    China will cut import tariffs for frozen pork, pharmaceuticals and some high-tech components starting from Jan. 1, a move that comes as Beijing and Washington are trying to complete a phase-one trade deal.

    The plan, approved by China’s cabinet, will lower tariffs for all trading partners on 859 types of products to below the rates that most-favored nations enjoy, the Finance Ministry said Monday. …

    The lower levies will apply to frozen pork, as China aims to shore up its meat supplies amid an outbreak of swine fever, as well as semiconductor products and medicines to treat asthma and diabetes. Tariffs on some of the products will go to zero.
    The announcement comes as China and the U.S. are close to signing a trade deal aimed at putting an end to a tit-for-tat tariff war that has lasted nearly two years. Neither side has released a version of their draft agreement, but China said it would purchase more American products, including farm goods, while Washington said it would cancel plans for fresh round of tariffs while reducing some existing ones.

    Monday’s tariffs cuts appear to pave the way for China to import more from the U.S. without violating international trading rules that ban managed trade. Chief U.S. trade negotiator Robert Lighthizer has said Beijing promised to increase imports from the U.S. by $200 billion over the next two years, including the purchase of at least $40 billion in U.S. farm goods annually.

    And, of course, the Democrats have finally abandoned their effort to kill the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement.

    The liberal press likes to portray President Trump as a troglodytic protectionist, but that was never Trump’s position on trade. As we are now seeing, Trump wanted to renegotiate several trade agreements to make them more favorable to to the U.S., and he also has been willing, in the case of China, to use trade as a lever to obtain other concessions. But the bottom line of his efforts has been freer and fairer trade.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.