Posted on 07/09/2019 12:04:08 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: The attorney general William Barr says the Trump administration can legally add a citizenship question to the census. Barr says the Trump administration can legally do that, said he believes the Trump administration can legally add a citizenship question. Three times this is mentioned in the first paragraph of the story. I’ve told you three times ’cause I’m reading right from it.
Anyway, despite the fact the Supreme Court ruled against it, “In an interview with The Associated Press, Barr said he has been in regular contact with President Trump about the question, which the president is determined to see featured on the decennial survey. ‘I agree with him that the Supreme Court decision was wrong,’ Barr told the AP. The attorney general added that he thinks there is ‘an opportunity potentially to cure the lack of clarity that was the problem and we might as well take a shot at doing that.’”
Barr is talking about the reasoning the Supreme Court used in not deciding the case. They essentially punted it for many reasons. Among the reasons was that they said there was evidence presented in this case that they had not seen before, they consider themselves an appellate court. They don’t decide on the first presentation of evidence.
I think it was a cop-out by the chief justice. It was a convenient way to kick it back. And there were also, “We’re not clear what’s being stated here. We’re not clear what the legal reasoning is. We need a lower court to go through this and tell us what we –” Barr is saying screw all that. We can figure this out. We can clarify this and still get it done.
Now, intriguingly, Barr declined to provide any further details to AP on how they’re gonna do it. And so now the AP and the Drive-By Media are scurrying about trying to figure out what dastardly tactic, what dire technique the Trump administration might use to get an — and again as I pointed out yesterday, the real question here is why did it come off of the census?
The controversy here should not be putting it back on. The real question is who removed it. And we know the answer to that. Barack Hussein O and Michelle (My Belle) O. Well, you can’t separate them. Michelle (My Belle) O was down at the Essence conference in New Orleans. You know what that is. It’s Essence magazine. It’s basically a weekend festival for African-American women of color, now including the trannies.
By the way, what’s happening to women’s sports because of all that. I wonder if I ought to have the guts and explain this to people or just let it go. (interruption) Don’t go there? Ha. That tells me I should go there. The whole staff’s saying, “Don’t go there.” That tells me I should do it. I never got anywhere by acting afraid like the staff is afraid. If I let the staff fear stop me from doing things, you might never have heard of me.
At any rate, I was reading some of the comments that Michelle (My Belle) O made, she was the star of the thing, she was interviewed. It’s basically a music festival but they have a lineup of speakers. Gayle King interviewed Michelle (My Belle) O. She talked about how horrible the last night in the White House was, how horrible it was, ’cause the Trumps were coming the next day. It was so bad, so horrible. She had to choke back tears.
She couldn’t show up and meet the Trumps ’cause the Trumps were coming. She couldn’t show up in tears because people would misunderstand why she was crying. I said, “What would they think? You’re crying because you’re meeting the Trumps or crying because you’re leaving the White House?”
Do you know they let their daughters do a sleepover with a bunch of their friends the night before the inauguration? Now, you might be saying, “Well, Rush, that’s perfectly fine. Last night in the White House, the girls grew up there, bringing their friends over.” Do you realize what has to happen in there?
From the moment the outgoing first couple leave to go to the inauguration with the incoming president, there is the most massive moving process that takes place that anybody has ever seen. The Obama family has to be moved out, every aspect of their existence has to be moved out and the Trump family’s existence has to be moved in, all for the president and the first lady to get back about 5 o’clock to get ready for the inaugural ball.
It is a massive undertaking. And to schedule an overnight sleepover with a bunch of teenaged girls in the residence the night before, I guarantee you it was to make that job even harder. I can imagine, “Girls have fun. You want to throw something on the wall, throw it on the wall. You want to pin something on the wall — here’s some wine, spill it on the carpet, whatever you need to do, have fun, it’s our last night here.”
I’m not making this up. I mean, I’m speculating obviously, but my point is that she still sounds so bitter. She sounds as bitter as she did when she said she was finally proud of her country when her husband got the Democrat presidential nomination.
“She couldn’t show up and meet the Trumps ’cause the Trumps were coming. She couldn’t show up in tears because people would misunderstand why she was crying.”
****
I would almost give anything just to see that sasquatch cry in front of me. Then I would start laughing..
If so this, week and maybe all of July might be some of the worse days ever for lying elite liberals in America.
Amendment 14 section 2 can (in my opinion - should) be interpreted to require the counting of male CITIZENS.
Our address was one "randomly" selected.
The ACS asks, of everyone living in every household so compelled (or pay $5Gs), "ARE YOU A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES?"
So, what is the big deal about the citizenship question? If they can make me complete a survey, or make me pay $5,000 if I don't care to do so, and that survey asks, "ARE YOU A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATE?" Then why shouldn't all residents of the United States be asked that question on the 2020 Census?
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs
So why didn’t it end up in court when obama took it off but it ends up in court when Trump wants to put it back?
Why would you only count men? When this country was founded, the founding fathers could not complete the job they wanted to do, which was the emancipation of slaves and the suffrage of women, so compromises were made because of because of the political reality of slave holders and some misogynistic prejudiced arrogant conceited white men well satisfied with the status quo. Indeed, in colonial times women of property, like men of property, could and did vote! Furthermore, early in our history, a few women did run for president. Their names were included on the ballot, and they did receive votes which were counted.
Sadly, it took another 200 years to complete the vision of our noble founding fathers who recognized slaves and women as human beings who should enjoy the freedoms that God intended all to have.
By the way, in the English language, when used in general, as in law, “he” is meant to include men and women. If law was to meant to refer to women only, “she” is used. That is one of my concerns about all of this cis-gender nonsense, it muddies the language. For instance, murder is just illegal for a women to commit as it is for a man, and I doubt murderous women could argue successfully that the law does not apply them. On the other hand, for example, there are labor laws that apply only to women, and the law specifically states “she” and not “he.”
because the language specifically calls for “male citizens”
The Supreme Court decided that the question could be asked and that the Secretary of Commerce has the authority to put it on the Census form. Settled. What is going on right now is a partisan attempt to delay it for another 10 years using every tool in their toolbox. The Democrats know how many non citizens are in the country. The ACS sample tells them the answer, but the public won't pay attention to a sample. They will pay attention to a Census question and when they find out the answer, they will demand that the government do something about it. The Democrats want to keep the truth a secret.
I agree. My point is that there is NO reason NOT to ask the question on the general census, and that the ACS is precedent to do it. If it is asked of some, it should be asked of all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.