Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Citizenship Census Question Case, Looks Likely to Rule for Trump Admin

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday as it tries to decide whether the Trump administration has the authority to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. Based on the questions posed by the justices during these arguments, the court seems likely to rule in favor of the administration.

The total number of Americans counted by the census is used to determine how many seats each state gets in the House of Representatives, as well as how many electoral votes it gets during the presidential election. The census is taken once every ten years. This particular question has been on the census before but was removed in 1960.

When he ruled in January to block the addition of this question, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman said that adding the question would result in “hundreds of thousands — of millions — people” going uncounted. He also said that “for decades thereafter the official position of the Census Bureau was that reintroducing such a question was inadvisable because it would depress the count for already ‘hard-to-count’ groups — particularly noncitizens and Hispanics — whose members would be less likely to participate in the census for fear that the data could be used against them or their loved ones.”

But the Trump administration has argued that the citizenship question is needed to properly enforce the Voting Rights Act. Presenting the administration’s case before the court on Tuesday, Solicitor General Noel Francisco said that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross “understood there was a downside” to adding the question, but had “concluded that the benefits outweighed the costs.”

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to prevent the suppression of minority votes.

Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor grilled Francisco about the addition of the question, as expected. Chief Justice John Roberts, however, now largely considered to be the swing vote since the retirement of former Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, asked the New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, who was arguing against adding the question, if the administration could be right that the question would help enforcement of the Voting Rights Act:

Do you think it wouldn’t help voting rights enforcement? The CVAP, Citizen Voting Age Population, is the critical element in voting rights enforcement, and this is getting citizen information.

The other conservative justices also seemed to lean in favor of the administration. Newly minted Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who succeeded the more liberal Kennedy, noted that many other countries include such a question. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito both questioned whether adding the question would actually depress the number of responses, since obstacles like a language barrier or socioeconomic differences might keep non-citizens from filling out their census forms. Both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are Trump appointees.

The court is expected to issue a ruling on the case in June. (For more from the author of “Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Citizenship Census Question Case, Looks Likely to Rule for Trump Admin” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

ISIS Claims Responsibility for Easter Bombings in Sri Lanka

The Islamic State jihadist terror organization (ISIS) has claimed responsibility for the Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka that ripped through multiple churches and other public places.

According to a Tuesday morning report at ABC, the jihadist group took ownership of the atrocities via an Arabic statement on its Amaq News agency. Those who carried out the bombings were “among the fighters of the Islamic State,” reads an English translation of the statement from SITE Intelligence Group.

“All that we knew earlier is that there were foreign links and that this could not have been done just locally,” Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe told reporters. “There has been training done and a coordination which we [have] not seen earlier.”

While ISIS’ connection to the Easter Sunday bombings has not been confirmed, this is not the first discussion of potential involvement by the organization.

As was reported yesterday, Sri Lankan officials believe that the attacks were carried out by a little-known local jihadist organization called “National Thowheeth Jama’ath,” but a government spokesman said yesterday that officials “do not believe these attacks were carried out by a group of people who were confined to this country.”

Furthermore, an unnamed U.S. official told CNN that the attack was “likely” inspired by the organization, while a known ISIS figure was believed to have been trying to recruit Sri Lankans as far back as 2017.

The death toll of the horrific attacks rose to 310 from 290 on Monday, according to Sri Lankan law enforcement. Additionally, Sri Lankan officials have arrested at least 40 suspects in connection with the bombings, up from 24 people on Monday.

The government has invoked emergency powers to empower law enforcement to respond to the attacks.

President Trump spoke with Prime Minister Wickremesinghe Monday and pledged that the United States would help bring the perpetrators of the attack to justice. (For more from the author of “ISIS Claims Responsibility for Easter Bombings in Sri Lanka” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

WATCH: Viral 8-Year-Old Impersonator Hilariously Mocks Ocasio-Cortez

By Daily Wire. A video of an 8-year-old girl impersonating socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has gone viral after the young girl hilariously mocked the 29-year-old and her far-left policies.

The girl, identified by Fox News as Ava Martinez, mocked Ocasio-Cortez’s unrefined linguistic skills, specifically her repeated use of the word “like,” and her $93 trillion Green New Deal.

“Like, I’m Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, aka AOC and like I want to talk about like, climate change,” Martinez said while wearing glasses and lipstick like Ocasio-Cortez. “Because, like, there’s no doubt cow farts are making the climate change.” . . .

“Like, I also want to talk about socialism because socialism is so amazing,” Martinez continued. “Like, socialism is actually short for social media, did you know that? Like, I do social media so I’m a socialist and, like, three of the most successful countries in the world are socialist too — Venezuela, Facebook, and Twitter are all very successful socialist countries. I have a lot of friends that moved to America from Facebook.”

(Read more from “WATCH: 8-Year-Old Impersonator Hilariously Mocks Ocasio-Cortez” HERE)

________________________________________________

Ocasio-Cortez Impersonator, 8, Takes on Green New Deal, socialism in Adorable Twitter Video

By Fox News. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., may have a new challenger in the form of an 8-year-old girl whose adorable impression of the progressive has won over hearts and minds on social media.

Ava Martinez poked fun at the freshman congresswoman’s Green New Deal, legislation that calls for a massive overhaul of the nation’s economy and energy use—estimated to cost tens of trillions of dollars. . .

“Like, in July, the climate was 96 degrees and in February the climate was 36 degrees. OMG, like that’s a huge change in the climate in”—the mini-AOC looks down to count her fingers—“only four months!”

Social media users praised the impression as “pure gold,” with some suggesting Martinez would make a “much better Congresswoman.”

Martinez’s stepdad, Salvatore Schachter, told the New York Post that the 8-year-old’s resemblance to Ocasio-Cortez was noted amongst family members and thought that doing a video would be fun. (Read more from “Ocasio-Cortez Impersonator, 8, Takes on Green New Deal, socialism in Adorable Twitter Video” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Pelosi Reveals Why Dems Can’t Impeach Trump

By Townhall. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Monday penned a letter to her Democratic colleagues about the Mueller report. Without coming out and directly saying it, Pelosi told her caucus she doesn’t want to go through with impeachment proceedings against President Trump. The reason? The American people will see their proceedings as an act of “passion or prejudice,” not one of “truth finding.” . . .

We know the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, like Reps. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (NY), Rashida Tlaib (MI) and Ilhan Omar (MN), want to move forward with impeachment proceedings. They even campaigned on doing such. Other more moderate Democrats, like Pelosi, see the danger in moving full steam ahead with impeachment. (Read more from “Pelosi Reveals Why Dems Can’t Impeach Trump” HERE)

____________________________________________________

Pelosi to Democrats: If Facts Support Impeaching Trump, ‘That’s the Place We Have to Go’

By USA Today. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi left open the possibility Monday of impeachment of Donald Trump during a conference call with Democrats, saying “if that’s the place the facts take us, that’s the place we have to go.”

“We have to save our democracy. This isn’t about Democrats or Republicans. It’s about saving our democracy,” Pelosi said in a call with her colleagues, according to a source on the call. But Pelosi also urged Democrats to first focus on following the facts.

“Whether it’s articles of impeachment or investigations, it’s the same obtaining of facts. We don’t have to go to articles of impeachment to obtain the facts, the presentation of facts,” she said.

The nearly hour-and-a-half call was the first time Democrats had all spoken following the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the investigation into Russian election interference.

“There’s real consensus that we need to take this responsibility seriously and people are very sober about the implications about the work that lies ahead and committed to making sure that we hold the president accountable,” said Rep. David Cicilline, a member of the Judiciary Committee and the chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, which helps the party with messaging. (Read more from “Pelosi to Democrats: If Facts Support Impeaching Trump, ‘That’s the Place We Have to Go'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Most Illegal Aliens in U.S. Receive Government Benefits

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to count self-identified illegal immigrants in the 2020 census. Cities worry adding the citizenship question could undercount 6.5 million people. Their argument, however, isn’t just about political power but billions of dollars in federal funds states expect.

The case underscores what experts say is a growing cost to taxpayers from the surge of Central American families and unaccompanied minors.

“We’re talking about billions of dollars in taxpayer benefits over the next few years,” said Dan Stein, director of the right-leaning think tank, Federation for American Immigration Reform. “The payout for the taxpayer is enormous and income to the Treasury is miniscule.” . . .

While federal benefits are supposed to be off limits, in practice many are not. More than 25,000 undocumented workers receive subsidized housing, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Children receive free education and most qualify for English lessons and free school breakfast and lunch.

Illegal immigrants do not qualify for Obamacare but under federal law, hospitals and clinics are required to provide urgent medical care without regard to legal status. Pregnant women are entitled to prenatal and postpartum care under the Women, Infants and Children program. Infant delivery costs are paid for by Medicaid. A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found a federal-state immigrant insurance program cost $2 billion a year in emergency treatment, not including the $1.24 billion in infant delivery expenses. (Read more from “Most Illegal Aliens in U.S. Receive Government Benefits” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Bernie Sanders Says Boston Marathon Bomber, Sexual Assaulters Should Be Allowed to Vote

2020 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday defended his stance for granting voting rights to criminals in prison, including the Boston Marathon bomber and convicted sexual assaulters.

During a CNN town hall on Monday night, Harvard student Anne Carlstein asked if his position would support “enfranchising people” like Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who she noted is a “convicted terrorist and murderer,” as well as those “convicted of sexual assault,” whose votes could have a “direct impact on women’s rights.”

Sanders first responded by saying he wanted a “vibrant democracy” with “higher voter turnout” and blasted “cowardly Republican governors” who he said were “trying to suppress the vote.” . . .

“If somebody commits a serious crime- sexual assault, murder, they’re gonna be punished. They may be in jail for 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, their whole lives. That’s what happens when you commit a serious crime,” Sanders elaborated.

“But, I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy. Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, ‘That guy committed a terrible crime, not gonna let him vote. Well, that person did that. Not gonna let that person vote,’ you’re running down a slippery slope. So, I believe that people who commit crimes, they pay the price. When they get out of jail, I believe they certainly should have the right the vote, but I do believe that even if they are in jail, they’re paying their price to society, but that should not take away their inherent American right to participate in our democracy.” (Read more from “Bernie Sanders Says Boston Marathon Bomber, Sexual Assaulters Should Be Allowed to Vote” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

DHS: Suicide-Bomb Attacks Hit ‘Places of Worship,’ Not Churches

By Breitbart. The statement of condolences issued by the Department of Homeland Security after the bombing by alleged Muslims in Sri Lanka did not mention the religion of the victims, even though they were in Christian churches.

Instead, the DHS statement described the targets merely as “places of worship.”

The statement’s vagueness matches the statements issued by Democrats who described the victims as “Easter worshippers.” (Read more from “DHS: Suicide-Bomb Attacks Hit ‘Places of Worship,’ Not Churches” HERE)

_________________________________________________

Obama, Clinton, Democrats Denounce Attacks on ‘Easter Worshippers,’ Not ‘Christians’

By Breitbart. Former President Barack Obama, former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and several other leading Democrats denounced terror attacks on what they called “Easter worshippers” — not Christians — Sunday in Sri Lanka.

Suicide bombers murdered nearly 300 people and wounded 500 more in attacks on three churches, three hotels, and a housing complex. Many were killed as they attended Mass for Easter Sunday. The government reportedly suspects that the bombers, all Sri Lankans, were members of “a domestic Islamist terror group named National Thowfeek Jamaath.”

Yet Obama, Clinton, and other Democrats — including 2020 presidential contender Julián Castro — could not bring themselves to identify the victims of the attacks as “Christians,” calling them “Easter worshippers” instead in eerily similar responses:

(Read more from “Obama, Clinton, Democrats Denounce Attacks on ‘Easter Worshippers,’ Not ‘Christians'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Orders Crackdown on Illegal Aliens Overstaying Their Visas in U.S.

President Trump is ordering a crackdown on the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who overstay their visas after arriving in the United States wit a presidential memorandum.

On Monday, Trump signed the memorandum, which calls for the State Department and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to “immediately begin taking all appropriate actions” to reduce the overstay rates for all nonimmigrant visas — that is the more than 415,000 illegal aliens who originally arrived in the U.S. legally but overstayed their visas and have yet to leave.

Specifically, Trump is ordering Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and DHS officials to provide his administration with recommendations within 120 days on how to effectively cut the number of B-1 and B-2 visa overstays from countries that have a visa overstay rate higher than ten percent. . .

The presidential memorandum reads:

Nonimmigrant visa overstay rates are unacceptably high for nationals of certain countries. Aliens must abide by the terms and conditions of their visas for our immigration system to function as intended … individuals who abuse the visa process and decline to abide by the terms and conditions of their visas, including their visa departure dates, undermine the integrity of our immigration system and harm the national interest.

(Read more from “Trump Orders Crackdown on Illegal Aliens Overstaying Their Visas in U.S.” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Uh Oh: Elizabeth Warren’s Past May Catch up to Her

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-WA) has made a name for herself as “strong progressive.” She’s championed traditionally progressive values like gun control, taxing the rich and even forgiving people’s student loan debt. But before Warren was a progressive darling she was actually a registered Republican, POLITICO reported.

For quite a few years, Warren was a registered Republican in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. It wasn’t until she was 47 years old and a Harvard professor that she suddenly changed parties. . .

Warren has acknowledged her Republican past before, but she does not often discuss it, or else downplays it. In a recent interview over tea at her home in Cambridge, Massachusetts, she said she assumes the first time she registered as a Democrat was 1996, but added, “I’m not even 100 percent sure what I was registered as.” According to Warren, in the six presidential elections she voted in before 1996, she cast her ballot for just one GOP nominee, Gerald Ford in 1976. She does not talk about her Republican past in either of her books or as part of the biography she recounts in her stump speech; the information often comes as a surprise even to Beltway politicos and longtime Warren allies.

“I was just never very political,” is how Warren explains her Republican years. “I just never thought much about the political end.”

Some on the left have already pointed out the less-than-progressive stances in her 2003 book, The Two Income Trap, including the rejection of a “quasi-socialist safety net to rival the European model.” But a review of Warren’s early scholarship and interviews with more than 20 friends and colleagues from her high school years through her academic career reveal a longer conservative track record that has not been fully explored. Warren’s conservatism centered not on social issues like abortion or gay rights, friends say, but on economic policy, the dominant focus of her academic work and now her presidential candidacy.

(Read more from “Uh Oh: Elizabeth Warren’s Past May Catch up to Her” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Bill Barr Just Used Even Stronger Language to Exonerate Trump of Collusion

Speaking to reporters at the Department of Justice Thursday morning, Attorney General Bill Barr used stronger language than he has in the past to exonerate President Trump of collusion with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential election.

“The report details efforts by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company with close ties to the Russian government, to sow social discord among American voters through disinformation and social media operations. Following a thorough investigation of this disinformation campaign, the Special Counsel brought charges in federal court against several Russian nationals and entities for their respective roles in this scheme. Those charges remain pending, and the individual defendants remain at large,” Barr said (bolding is mine). “But the Special Counsel found no evidence that any Americans – including anyone associated with the Trump campaign – conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA in carrying out this illegal scheme. Indeed, as the report states, ‘[t]he investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.’ Put another way, the Special Counsel found no “collusion” by any Americans in the IRA’s illegal activity.”

(Read more from “Bill Barr Just Used Even Stronger Language to Exonerate Trump of Collusion” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE