Thursday, July 11, 2019

What's Up With The Citizenship Question?

A creative solution to John Roberts' petulance, that's what's up. President Trump is going to issue an executive order to require Federal agencies to share data on citizenship. Think they've got some? Oh, yeah!

Per NPR:

President Trump announced Thursday he would sign an executive order to obtain data about the U.S. citizenship and non-citizenship status of everyone living in the United States. 
In a Rose Garden ceremony, Trump said he would drop efforts to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census. Instead, he'll sign an executive order directing all U.S. agencies to provide the Department of Commerce all information they have on the U.S. citizenship, non-citizenship and immigration status. 
"We have great knowledge in many of our agencies," Trump said, flanked by Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. "We will leave no stone unturned."

By most accounts Commerce dropped the ball on the census question. Well, Wilbur is pretty much fully occupied with trade matters. But Trump now has a can-do Attorney General. No doubt some low level court will put a stop to it, temporarily. But Barr will get it done.

It's important to understand what's at stake in this. It really has nothing to do with "racism" or being mean to non-citizens. What it's about is over-voting and over- representation in Blue states. Yes, there's a problem in Red states, as well, but the leverage that CA and NY provide for the Dems is the big enchilada here. This article, Who's going to clean up the nation’s outdated, over-counted voting rolls ahead of the 2020 election? provides all the information you need to understand what's really up:

Los Angeles County has too many voters. An estimated 1.6 million, according to the latest calculations – which is roughly the population of Philadelphia. That’s the difference between the number of people on the county’s voter rolls and the actual number of voting age residents. 
This means that L.A. is in violation of federal law, which seeks to limit fraud by requiring basic voter list maintenance to make sure that people who have died, moved, or are otherwise ineligible to vote aren’t still on the rolls. 
Los Angeles County has made only minimal efforts to clean up its voter rolls for decades. It began sending notices to those 1.6 million people last month to settle a lawsuit brought by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. 
Los Angeles County may be California’s worst offender, but 10 of the state’s 58 counties also have registration rates exceeding 100% of the voting age population. In fact, the voter registration rate for the entire state of California is 101%. 
And the Golden State isn’t alone. Eight states, as well as the District of Columbia, have total voter registration tallies exceeding 100%, and in total, 38 states have counties where voter registration rates exceed 100%. Another state that stands out is Kentucky, where the voter registration rate in 48 of its 120 counties exceeded 100% last year. About 15% of America’s counties where there is reliable voter data – that is, over 400 counties out of 2,800 – have voter registration rates over 100%.


  1. "Trump now has a can-do Attorney General"

    Sure about that? Exhibit A: sundance. Exhibit B: we've seen too many shibboleths fall. I should believe D.C. isn't irredeemably toxic? The upstanding-men-of-highest-integrity-and-repute, the former Directors of the FBI and CIA, have Communist backgrounds and tried to fix an election and remove a President. Barr and Durham should be different?

    Disagree, argue, fight my position. Someone show me reason for faith.


    - LM

    1. In my new "Flynn's Legal Team Responds To The Government" post I refer to sundance's take as "hysterical." Check it out.

      So far, no reports that either Barr or Durham have Communist backgrounds. That does make them different from the most recent Directors of the FBI and CIA.

    2. I hope I didn't seem flippant. Re the scope memos, yes, I'd really like to see them, too. However, Barr hasn't hidden them--he showed them to Congress. The fact we haven't had any leaks as to their content is probably significant. My guess, tentative, is that factual assertions were made, either in the scope memos themselves or the requests for the scope memos or both, which Barr and Durham are looking at. Bottom line, there's a reason Weissmann was out virtually as soon as Barr was in.

    3. My replies were a bit 'out of sync' with your responses.

      Good points all, and thanks for clarifying.

      - LM

    4. I remarked to Joe on a different thread that sundance can be convincing, but none of his hairs-on-fire worst case scenarios have actually come to pass. I value him for the information he provides, but he doesn't help anything with the scare stuff. As I said to Unknown, in effect, AG isn't the same as being God. US Attorneys are presidential appointees and the AG has to respect that fact.

  2. I'm not claiming that Barr or Durham had Communist backgrounds. But I am asserting that senior leaders Brennan and Comey did by their own admission. Shibboleths two, down.

    Respectfully, I disagree that sundance's...concern...on Barr can be accurately called hysteria. Had someone asserted only a few years ago that a soft coup was in play, I would have smiled indulgently.

    But why should it be a stretch to say that D.C. culture is corrupt, or that Barr and Durham succeeded in that club, and that Barr's years long association with Mueller, the Director of "impeccable honor" shouldn't raise an awareness?

    B & D can be good, decent men and be still fail, catastrophically, by not understanding their colleagues are compromised and that weaponizing the DOJ against political foes is an existential threat. I want them to be good men of principle that walk the walk. I really do.

    But I'm watching.

    - LM

  3. I belatedly saw your agreement on Brennan and Comey's background. Apologies for the repetition.