Trump Just Issued Census Memorandum That Will Remove Congressmen From California, New York, and Texas

President Trump Issues Census Memorandum, “Excluding Illegal Aliens From the Apportionment,” Impacting How Congressional Apportionment Works And Consequently How Electoral College Votes Are Distributed

President Trump has ordered the Secretary of Commerce to tabulate the final census numbers without including illegal immigrants from the data used to apportion Congress.

That might sound odd at first. You might wonder why we wouldn’t want to know how many non-citizens are living here, or if you’re forward thinking, you might puzzle over why non-citizens were involved in the apportionment process to begin with. In any case, we’ve provided a brief primer on the issue to explain why this is so important.

So, how many seats are we talking about here?

According to the Center For Immigration Studies, California, New York, and Texas would theoretically each lose one seat:

“Illegal immigrants alone in the 2020 will redistribute three seats, with Ohio, Alabama, and Minnesota each having one fewer seat than they otherwise would have had, while California, New York, and Texas will have one additional seat.”

Why is this happening and why does it matter?

Every ten years the national census is conducted and the findings made during that period determine the fate of the entire nation. Census numbers are used to allocate Congressional Representatives to each of the 50 states in a process known as apportionment.

These representatives, of course, go on to engage in policy making and introduce legislation to the lower chamber, but more than that, for every representative a state receives, they receive a vote in the electoral college.

You probably know most of this already, but one facet of the role the census plays in the apportionment process if often left out of the equation: the census doesn’t determine how many citizens are living in the United States. It determines how many persons are present.

That’s a bit of an issue, since the numbers determined by the census are weighted to favor states with high immigrant populations. As a consequence, states like California and New York receive additional representation in Congress due to the number of immigrants—legal and illegal—living in their state.

Nationalist Review has written extensively about this issue and Rep. Steve King has made every possible effort to see to it that the language in the Constitution and relevant amendments is changed. Unfortunately, it’s just one mighty uphill battle.

Now, however, some ground might be gained on the matter thanks to a memorandum issued today by President Trump. The memorandum orders the Secretary of Commerce to conduct tabulate the final numbers for the apportionment process without including illegal aliens.

Here’s what the memorandum has to say on the matter:

“Excluding these illegal aliens from the apportionment base is more consonant with the principles of representative democracy underpinning our system of Government. Affording congressional representation, and therefore formal political influence, to States on account of the presence within their borders of aliens who have not followed the steps to secure a lawful immigration status under our laws undermines those principles. Many of these aliens entered the country illegally in the first place.”

But I though the courts blocked the citizenship question, so how does this even work?

President Trump has taken data from other departments and agencies to make up for the lack of a Census question:

“I instructed executive departments and agencies to share information with the Department of Commerce, to the extent permissible and consistent with law, to allow the Secretary to obtain accurate data on the number of citizens, non-citizens, and illegal aliens in the country.  As the Attorney General and I explained at the time that order was signed, data on illegal aliens could be relevant for the purpose of conducting the apportionment, and we intended to examine that issue.”

There’s still much work to be done! It isn’t just illegal immigrants who distort fair representation of legitimate Americans:

Again, from CIS:

“The 2020 census will show that the presence of all immigrants (naturalized citizens, legal residents, and illegal aliens) and their U.S.-born minor children is responsible for a shift of 26 House seats. This is the cumulative impact of immigration, not the change from the previous census.”

“Of the 26 seats that will be lost, 24 are from states that voted for Donald Trump in 2016. Of states that will gain House seats because of immigration, 19 seats will go to the solidly Democratic states of California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Illinois. Texas is the only solidly Republican state that gains, while Florida is a swing state.”

Essentially, non-citizenship apportionment—both legal and illegal—is a ticking time bomb. And it’s about to explode. Trump’s memorandum is a fantastic start, but it is far from enough.

Trump Just Told These Unconstitutional 37 Bi-Partisan Senators To Take A Hike For Violating Americans’ Privacy

Trump To Veto Warrantless FISA Surveillance Of Americans, These 37 Senators Want It Passed

As Nationalist Review just reported, President Trump has promised to veto an unconstitutional legislative package that would allow law enforcement agencies to monitor the electronic communications of American citizens without a warrant. Below is a list of the Senators that voted to continue the warrantless surveillance.

Under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the U.S. government engages in mass, warrantless surveillance of Americans’ and foreigners’ phone calls, text messages, emails, and other electronic communications. Information collected under the law without a warrant can be used to prosecute and imprison people, even for crimes that have nothing to do with national security. Given our nation’s history of abusing its surveillance authorities, and the secrecy surrounding the program, we should be concerned that Section 702 is and will be used to disproportionately target disfavored groups, whether minority communities, political activists, or even journalists.

Republicans (27):

Barrasso, John (R-WY)
Blackburn, Marsha (R-TN)
Blunt, Roy (R-MO)
Boozman, John (R-AR)
Burr, Richard (R-NC)
Capito, Shelley Moore (R-WV)
Collins, Susan M. (R-ME)
Cornyn, John (R-TX)
Cotton, Tom (R-AR)
Fischer, Deb (R-NE)
Graham, Lindsey (R-SC)
Hyde-Smith, Cindy (R-MS)
Inhofe, James M. (R-OK)
Johnson, Ron (R-WI)
Lankford, James (R-OK)
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
Perdue, David (R-GA)
Portman, Rob (R-OH)
Roberts, Pat (R-KS)
Romney, Mitt (R-UT)
Rubio, Marco (R-FL)
Shelby, Richard C. (R-AL)
Thune, John (R-SD)
Tillis, Thom (R-NC)
Toomey, Patrick J. (R-PA)
Wicker, Roger F. (R-MS)
Young, Todd (R-IN)

Democrats (10):

Carper, Thomas R. (D-DE)
Casey, Robert P., Jr. (D-PA)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Hassan, Margaret Wood (D-NH)
Jones, Doug (D-AL)
Kaine, Tim (D-VA)
Manchin, Joe, III (D-WV)
Shaheen, Jeanne (D-NH)
Warner, Mark R. (D-VA)
Whitehouse, Sheldon (D-RI)

Breaking: Trump To Veto FISA Bill If Passed By Congress

President Trump declared his intention to veto the FISA Bill if it passes the House tonight.

In a big win for privacy-conscious Americans, President Trump has signaled his intention to veto the FISA bill currently up for a vote in the lower chamber. Earlier, to the universal disdain of almost all political ideologies, the Senate pushed through the now-infamous Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act section of the equally disdained PATRIOT Act.

A brief rundown on what we’re talking about:

Under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the U.S. government engages in mass, warrantless surveillance of Americans’ and foreigners’ phone calls, text messages, emails, and other electronic communications. Information collected under the law without a warrant can be used to prosecute and imprison people, even for crimes that have nothing to do with national security. Given our nation’s history of abusing its surveillance authorities, and the secrecy surrounding the program, we should be concerned that Section 702 is and will be used to disproportionately target disfavored groups, whether minority communities, political activists, or even journalists.

Previously, the Senate pushed through the bill without altering language that allowed the FBI to monitor the internet usage of Americans without first getting a warrant—an invasion of privacy that many feel is also a violation of the 4th Amendment.

On 13 May, the Senate rejected an amendment to the bill which would have required law enforcement to seek a warrant when they wished to monitor the web browsing, electronic communications, and search history of Americans. In a 59-37 vote, the measure fell just shy of the 60 votes needed to pass. Among the Senators who struck down the amendment that would have insulated the privacy rights of their constituents were Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) and Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va).

Now, with the bill headed to the House floor, the President has sent out an explosive warning to the lower chamber: he will not sign it.

“If the FISA Bill is passed tonight on the House floor, I will quickly VETO it,” the president tweeted. “Our Country has just suffered through the greatest political crime in its history. The massive abuse of FISA was a big part of it!”

The House previously reauthorized the PATRIOT Act provisions, sending the bill to the Senate for their input. Upon revisions from the Senate, the bill was returned to the House for further review. The House has begun considering proposals that would alter the language to protect the privacy rights of Americans. This would send the bill back to the Senate if successful.

FISA’s roots trace back to the 1970s during the Watergate-era during which an unfortunate and traitorous ruling by the Supreme Court decided that the privacy rights of Americans didn’t apply when information they transmitted was stored by a third party. Today, that third party often means an internet service provider.

This is a developing story and this article will be updated as more information comes to light.

Dog Catches Car: House Dems Get Impeachment, Now What?

The House Democrats fulfilled a party-wide 2018 campaign promise on Monday afternoon by formally voting to send two Articles of Impeachment of President Trump to the Senate, setting forth just the third Presidential impeachment trial in the nation’s history. As the dust settles from the initial monumental report, a major unanswered question has appeared for the Democrat party: What’s the plan after this?

With a Republican-dominated Senate and a need for 67 votes to remove Trump from office in the most partisan time in Congressional history, the goal of an official unseating of the President appears to be dead before it even arrives at the table. Knowing this, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has threatened to withhold the articles from the Senate until she can guarantee the Senate and its Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will conduct what she considers to be a “fair trial”.

So what exactly is the intent of the Democrats? Do they have a strategy at all? Did they not think they’d ever get this far? Surely they knew they had the votes in the House to push through impeachment, but also were aware that it’s a losing battle once the articles reach the Senate. Their best outcome at this point seems to be something along the lines of the Senate’s impeachment trial being dragged out long enough that it becomes something that the Democrat Presidential candidate can use as campaign fodder against Trump’s reelection, and possibly some campaign speeches—a chance to whine about Congress’ divisiveness as the nation heads into another contentious election cycle. That’s really the only benefit to making such a futile effort.

The most glaring, and to some, unfortunate, truth for Pelosi and the Democrats is that the battle they are fighting is rapidly losing the interest of the public. Media polls have shown a growing disinterest by the American public in the impeachment proceedings. And, at this point, the only people who have kept up with or even still care about the impeachment process are radicalized voters on either side whose minds are already made up. In a time where the pool of centrists is narrower than ever, this strategy doesn’t seem like one that appeals to those stray voters.

To her credit, Nancy Pelosi has been in the American political game long enough that most know better than to accuse her of being politically clueless, and it is well documented that the Democrat Party’s overall strategy is to outwit their opposition with shrewd tactics instead of viable or even appealing policy. This could well be their crowning achievement in that respect, though their path to success is unclear. Regardless, it seems safe to assume that the impeachment saga has only just begun and there will be plenty to watch out for as Congress does all it can to erode its nearly single digit approval rating

Here’s a list of every Dem rep voting for impeachment in districts Trump won…and how to contact them!

Are these your representatives? CALL THEM!

You have until next Wednesday to make your case to these lawmakers. The House Judiciary Committee has voted to approve two articles of impeachment against President Trump. The next step is a vote on the House floor on 18 December.

Below you will find a list of all 31 Democrat House members that are currently representing a district that Trump won during the 2016 election. They are all planning to vote for impeachment. Special thanks to Comfortably Smug for putting this list together.

Please consider calling these members of Congress if you care about putting election pressure on Democrats. Let them know you’ll be showing them how you feel at the voting booths if they don’t take your words seriously today.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.comBecome a Patron!

Update: These two Democrats plan to vote against impeachment

Jeff Van Drew
@CongressmanJVD@VanDrewForNJ (202) 225-6572

Collin Peterson
@CollinPeterson (202) 225-2165

Democrats below are still on the field of play:

Tom O’Halleran
@RepOHalleran @TomOHalleran (202) 225-3361

Lucy McBath
@RepLucyMcBath @LucyMcBath (202) 225-4501

Lauren Underwood
@RepUnderwood@LaurenUnderwood (202) 225-2976

Cheri Bustos
@RepCheri@CheriBustos (202) 225-5905

Abby Finkenauer
@RepFinkenauer@Abby4Iowa (202) 225-2911

Dave Loebsack
@DaveLoebsack@DaveForIowa (202) 225-6576

Cindy Axne
@RepCindyAxne@Axne4Congress (202) 225-5476

Jared Golden
@RepGolden@Golden4Congress (202) 225-6306

Elissa Slotkin
@RepSlotkin@ElissaSlotkin (202) 225-4872

Haley Stevens
@RepHaleyStevens@HaleyLive (202) 225-8171

Angie Craig
@RepAngieCraig@AngieCraigMN (202) 225-2271

Susie Lee
@RepSusieLee@SusieLeeNV (202) 225-3252

Chris Pappas
@RepChrisPappas@ChrisPappasNH (202) 225-5456

Andy Kim
@RepAndyKimNJ@AndyKimNJ (202) 225-4765

Josh Gottheimer
@RepJoshG@JoshGottheimer (202) 225-4465

Mikie Sherrill
@RepSherrill@MikieSherrill (202) 225-5034

Xochitl Torres Small
@RepTorresSmall@XochforCongress (202) 225-2365

Max Rose
@RepMaxRose@MaxRose4NY (202) 225-3371

Sean Patrick Maloney
@RepSeanMaloney@MaloneyforNY (202) 225-5441

Antonio Delgado
@RepDelgado@DelgadoforNY19 (202) 225-3665

Anthony Brindisi
@RepBrindisi@ABrindisiNY (202) 225-3665

Kendra Horn
@RepKendraHorn@HornForCongress (202) 225-2132

Matt Cartwright
@RepCartwright@CartwrightPA (202) 225-5546

Conor Lamb
@RepConorLamb@ConorLambPA (202) 225-2301

Joe Cunningham
@JoeCunninghamSC (202) 225-3176

Ben McAdams
@RepBenMcAdams@BenMcAdams (202) 225-3011

Elaine Luria
@RepElaineLuria@ElaineLuriaVA (202) 225-4215

Abigail Spanberger
@RepSpanberger@SpanbergerVA07 (202) 225-2815

Ron Kind
@RepRonKind@KindForCongress (202) 225-5506