Skip navigation

Daily Archives: July 6th, 2019


Blathering idiot who tells the truth among his lies. MA
Antonia Blumberg, HuffPost 14 hours ago
President Donald Trump may have just undermined the effort to get a citizenship question added to the 2020 census by identifying his administration’s real motives behind the effort.
Responding to reporters outside the White House on Friday, the president said the question was necessary “for many reasons.”
“Number one, you need it for Congress — you need it for Congress for districting,” Trump said. “You need it for appropriations — where are the funds going? How many people are there? Are they citizens? Are they not citizens? You need it for many reasons.”
But the reasons Trump named don’t exactly line up with his administration’s official talking points.
Since Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the U.S. Census Bureau, moved to add the citizenship question to the 2020 census in 2018, the Trump administration has claimed the query is necessary to better enforce the Voting Rights Act.
Those challenging the question said there’s a partisan motive behind the effort. Congressional districts are apportioned based on total population, regardless of citizenship. But with a citizenship question added to the census, experts and activists say it could discourage people of color from participating and privilege conservative and rural areas with smaller noncitizen populations.
By its own analysis, the Census Bureau has estimated millions of people could be left out of the census count if a citizenship question is added to the survey. Republican consultant Thomas Hofeller, who ghostwrote portions of what would later become the Justice Department’s formal request to add the citizenship question to the census, wrote that adding the question would pave the way for redistricting that would increase the political power of “Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites,” according to documents revealed in federal court in May.
Trump’s comment on Friday that the question is needed for “districting” appears to give weight to that argument.
The president’s remarks come the same day his administration missed a deadline to provide an adequate justification for adding the citizenship question.
The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the administration from adding the question, ruling last week that the Department of Commerce had not provided an adequate explanation for its decision to do so. On Wednesday, a federal judge gave the administration a deadline of 2 p.m. on Friday to provide that explanation, which it did not meet.
Justice Department lawyers said in a court filing on Friday they would continue to look for ways to add the question to the census.
“The Departments of Commerce and Justice have been instructed to examine whether there is a path forward, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision, that would allow for the inclusion of the citizenship question on the census,” the lawyers wrote.
Later on Friday, a Maryland federal judge denied the administration’s request for a delay in discovery pertaining to the claims of the plaintiffs challenging the question in court.

btn_donateCC_LG

Please Donate

Advertisements

The large number of candidates seeking the nomination to run for President and other offices is at best confusing as the messages are so varied that it is difficult to get a general theme. There appears to be ” the chicken in every pot” statement by every aspirant which promises prosperity with no substantial background information about the how of it. It appears that election season has become more of a “dog & pony” show than debates about facts. How do we decide who is the most qualified or acceptable? With the current administration as a template, it appears to me that anyone with reasonable grasp of world affairs and how government works is a better choice. The bigger issue is term limiting Congress  by the vote as we cannot expect these seat fillers to regulate themselves. Essentially being a member of Congress is the proverbial “free lunch”. The question becomes” who is acceptable”? Our politics have become more entertainment than substance since the truth becomes unrecognizable on air due to mass media coverage and outlet management policies and politics. Acceptability is as in beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. There is no greater task than voting and it is serious enough that time is required to get the facts about candidates and a decent understanding of how the government is supposed to work compared to how it is currently working. The working thought should be that there was an opportunity missed by the existing  Congress to address the migrant crisis but that was subverted by the “Tea Party” and TOTUS has in his inimitable fashion ignored history while trying to make his own self serving version. The question is: “who is acceptable?”. The answer is anyone who is more moderate and has a firm grasp on the issues regardless of the entertainment value or lack of. Campaigning is different from serving and the two never meet without a bridge.

btn_donateCC_LG

Please Donate

%d bloggers like this: