westernjournal--2020-12-24--TWJ Exclusive: Bombshell New Legal Memo Giving Trump Supporters Hope on Christmas Eve

The Western Journal is presenting this memorandum , written by two prominent conservative legal scholars , essentially verbatim , with only enough editing to format it for the Op-Ed section of our website .
This is the second memo by Messrs. Olson and McSweeney to be published exclusively by The Western Journal , and it , like the first , outlines a possible legal strategy for the Trump campaign to follow in the coming weeks .
Prior to its publication here , it was sent to President Trump .
— Ed .
note In refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court .
As a result , the Court has come under intense criticism for having evaded the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades , if not ever .
However , even in its Order dismissing the case , the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully — by a different plaintiff .
This paper explains that legal strategy .
But first we focus on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — in the hopes that they will not be made again .
TRENDING : Pelosi Reveals Her Bizarre Plan To Get Trump Out of the White House : Report The Supreme Court declined to hear the challenge brought by the State of Texas against four states which had refused to abide by Article II , § 1 , cl .
2 — the Presidential Electors Clause , which establishes the conditions and requirements governing the election of the President of the United States .
In adopting that provision , the Framers vested in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determine the manner of appointing Presidential electors .
The Framers ’ plan was shown to be exceedingly wise , because we have now learned that allowing other state and private actors to write the election rules led to massive election fraud in the four defendant states .
Individuals can be bought , paid for and corrupted so much easier than state legislatures .
In refusing to hear the case , the sole reason given was that Texas lacked “ standing.
” In doing so , all nine justices committed a wrong against : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states that supported its suit ; ( ii ) the United States ; ( iii ) the President ; and ( iv ) the People .
The Court ’ s Many Wrongs in Texas v. Pennsylvania .
As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No .
78 , courts have “ neither FORCE nor WILL , but merely judgment.
” As such , in deciding cases courts have a duty to explain their decisions so the rest of us may know if they constitute arbitrary exercises of political power , or reasoned decisions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In Texas v. Pennsylvania , all that the justices felt obligated to do was to state its — “ lack of standing ” — supported by a one sentence justification : “ Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.
” Resolving a case of this magnitude with one conclusory sentence is completely unacceptable .
The Supreme Court docket consists primarily of only those cases the High Court chooses to hear .
However , just like when it agrees to decide a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ original jurisdiction of the Court is invoked , it has a duty to decide cases properly brought to them .
Two centuries ago , Chief Justice John Marshall construed the obligation of contracts clause in a decision where he wrote : “ however irksome the task may be , this is a duty from which we dare not shrink.
” Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward , 17 U.S. 518 ( 1819 ) .
Courts have a duty to resolve important cases even if they would prefer to avoid them .
In Marbury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1803 ) , Marshall described “ the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is ” because “ every right , when withheld , must have a remedy , and every injury its proper redress.
” Abdication in a case of this sort is not a judicial option .
The Supreme Court ’ s reliance on standing as its excuse has had one positive result — provoking many to study the origins of that doctrine who may be surprised to learn that the word “ standing ” nowhere appears in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to demonstrate it was birthed by big-government Justices during the FDR Administration to shield New Deal legislation , and to insulate the Administrative State from challenges by the People .
Those who favored the Texas decision argue that standing is a conservative doctrine as it limits the power of the courts — but the true constitutionalist uses only tests grounded in its text .
The true threshold constitutional test is whether a genuine and serious “ controversy ” exists between the States that could be resolved by a court .
The only reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.
” In truth , Texas did make such a showing .
When Pennsylvania violated the exclusive authority bestowed on state legislators in the Constitution ’ s Electors Clause , it opened the door to corruption and foreign intrigue to corrupt the electoral votes of Pennsylvania , and as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 68 , that is exactly why the Framers created the Electoral College .
During the 2020 election cycle , changes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by judges , state office holders and election officials which would never have been made by its state legislature .
If the process by which Presidential Electors are chosen is corrupted in a few key states , like Pennsylvania , Georgia , Michigan and Wisconsin by rigging the system in favor of one candidate , it becomes wholly irrelevant who the People of Texas support .
That political reality presents a real “ judicially cognizable interest ” no matter what the Supreme Court decided .
What happens in Pennsylvania does not stay in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acting together select the President of the United States .
RELATED : Bob Ehrlich : Here 's One of the Most Insightful Replies a NeverTrumper Ever Sent Me In the Federalist Papers , both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton recognized the need to combat “ the spirit of faction ” and the tendency of each State to yield to its immediate interest at the expense of national unity .
They reasoned that the Constitution provided a solution to this centrifugal pressure while reserving a measure of sovereignty to each State .
When differences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to disunion , the Republic can be held together , as Hamilton observed , either “ by the agency of the Courts or by military force.
” A constitutional remedy to enable the States to resolve their differences peacefully is the provision that permits any State to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to address and settle their differences .
In the vernacular , the Supreme Court blew it , threatening the bonds that hold the union together .
Round Two : The United States Must Enter the Fray Fortunately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ round in the fight to preserve the nation .
A strategy exists to re-submit the Texas challenge under the Electors Clause to the Supreme Court in a way that even that Court could not dare refuse to consider .
Just because Texas did not persuade the Justices that what happens in Pennsylvania hurts Texas does not mean that the United States of America could not persuade the justices that when Pennsylvania violates the U.S. Constitution , it harms the nation .
Article III , § 2 , cl .
2 confers original jurisdiction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suit brought by the United States against a state .
Thus , the United States can and should file suit against Pennsylvania , Georgia , Michigan and Wisconsin .
Like the Texas suit , that new suit would seek an order invalidating the appointment of the electors appointed by those four defendant States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause .
That would leave it to the state legislatures in those four states to “ appoint ” electors — which is what the Constitution requires .
When those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electors who had not been appointed in the manner prescribed by the state legislature , the United States suffered an injury .
Indeed , there could hardly have been a more significant injury to the nation than that which corrupted its Presidential election .
The United States has a vital interest and a responsibility to preserve the constitutional framework of the Republic , which was formed by a voluntary compact among the States .
As with any contractual relationship of participants in an ongoing enterprise , no party is entitled to ignore or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by its unilateral action .
The President who has sworn to preserve , protect and defend the Constitution has the right and the duty to order the U.S. Department of Justice bring such an action in the Supreme Court — and should do so quickly .
In rejecting the invocation by the State of Texas of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute between Texas and four other States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause , for now , a majority of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safeguard by Texas to provide a peaceful means of resolving the controversy that has deeply divided States and the citizens of this Republic as at no time since the 1860s .
That consequence is too dangerous to be allowed to stand .
If the same case previously brought by Texas were now brought by the United States of America , there is every reason to believe that the Supreme Court would be compelled to understand it must hear it and decide it favorably .
Although outcomes are never certain , it is believed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court could never take the position that the United States has no business enforcing the process established in the Constitution by which we select the one government official who represents all the People — The President of the United States .
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website .
If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal , you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

The Western Journal is presenting this memorandum, written by two prominent conservative legal scholars, essentially verbatim, with only enough editing to format it for the Op-Ed section of our website. This is the second memo by Messrs. Olson and McSweeney to be published exclusively by The Western Journal, and it, like the first, outlines a possible legal strategy for the Trump campaign to follow in the coming weeks. Prior to its publication here, it was sent to President Trump. — Ed. note
Overcoming the Court’s Abdication in Texas v. Pennsylvania
William J. Olson & Patrick M. McSweeney
December 24, 2020
In refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court. As a result, the Court has come under intense criticism for having evaded the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever.
However, even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully — by a different plaintiff. This paper explains that legal strategy. But first we focus on the errors made by the Supreme Court — in the hopes that they will not be made again.
Texas v. Pennsylvania
The Supreme Court declined to hear the challenge brought by the State of Texas against four states which had refused to abide by Article II, § 1, cl. 2 — the Presidential Electors Clause, which establishes the conditions and requirements governing the election of the President of the United States. In adopting that provision, the Framers vested in each State legislature the exclusive authority to determine the manner of appointing Presidential electors. The Framers’ plan was shown to be exceedingly wise, because we have now learned that allowing other state and private actors to write the election rules led to massive election fraud in the four defendant states. Individuals can be bought, paid for and corrupted so much easier than state legislatures.
In refusing to hear the case, the sole reason given was that Texas lacked “standing.” In doing so, all nine justices committed a wrong against: (i) Texas and the 17 states that supported its suit; (ii) the United States; (iii) the President; and (iv) the People.
The Court’s Many Wrongs in Texas v. Pennsylvania.
As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 78, courts have “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” As such, in deciding cases courts have a duty to explain their decisions so the rest of us may know if they constitute arbitrary exercises of political power, or reasoned decisions of judicial power which the People can trust. In Texas v. Pennsylvania, all that the justices felt obligated to do was to state its — “lack of standing” — supported by a one sentence justification: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” Resolving a case of this magnitude with one conclusory sentence is completely unacceptable.
The Supreme Court docket consists primarily of only those cases the High Court chooses to hear. However, just like when it agrees to decide a case, and in disputes where the original jurisdiction of the Court is invoked, it has a duty to decide cases properly brought to them. Two centuries ago, Chief Justice John Marshall construed the obligation of contracts clause in a decision where he wrote: “however irksome the task may be, this is a duty from which we dare not shrink.” Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819). Courts have a duty to resolve important cases even if they would prefer to avoid them. In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Marshall described “the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is” because “every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.” Abdication in a case of this sort is not a judicial option.
The Supreme Court’s reliance on standing as its excuse has had one positive result — provoking many to study the origins of that doctrine who may be surprised to learn that the word “standing” nowhere appears in the Constitution. There is compelling evidence to demonstrate it was birthed by big-government Justices during the FDR Administration to shield New Deal legislation, and to insulate the Administrative State from challenges by the People. Those who favored the Texas decision argue that standing is a conservative doctrine as it limits the power of the courts — but the true constitutionalist uses only tests grounded in its text. The true threshold constitutional test is whether a genuine and serious “controversy” exists between the States that could be resolved by a court.
The only reason given by the Supreme Court was: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” In truth, Texas did make such a showing. When Pennsylvania violated the exclusive authority bestowed on state legislators in the Constitution’s Electors Clause, it opened the door to corruption and foreign intrigue to corrupt the electoral votes of Pennsylvania, and as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 68, that is exactly why the Framers created the Electoral College. During the 2020 election cycle, changes to the election process in Pennsylvania were made by judges, state office holders and election officials which would never have been made by its state legislature.
If the process by which Presidential Electors are chosen is corrupted in a few key states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin by rigging the system in favor of one candidate, it becomes wholly irrelevant who the People of Texas support. That political reality presents a real “judicially cognizable interest” no matter what the Supreme Court decided. What happens in Pennsylvania does not stay in Pennsylvania, as electors from all States acting together select the President of the United States.
In the Federalist Papers, both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton recognized the need to combat “the spirit of faction” and the tendency of each State to yield to its immediate interest at the expense of national unity. They reasoned that the Constitution provided a solution to this centrifugal pressure while reserving a measure of sovereignty to each State. When differences arise between States that threaten to lead to disunion, the Republic can be held together, as Hamilton observed, either “by the agency of the Courts or by military force.” A constitutional remedy to enable the States to resolve their differences peacefully is the provision that permits any State to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to address and settle their differences.
In the vernacular, the Supreme Court blew it, threatening the bonds that hold the union together.
Round Two: The United States Must Enter the Fray
Fortunately, that might have been only the first round in the fight to preserve the nation. A strategy exists to re-submit the Texas challenge under the Electors Clause to the Supreme Court in a way that even that Court could not dare refuse to consider. Just because Texas did not persuade the Justices that what happens in Pennsylvania hurts Texas does not mean that the United States of America could not persuade the justices that when Pennsylvania violates the U.S. Constitution, it harms the nation. Article III, § 2, cl. 2 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in any case suit brought by the United States against a state. Thus, the United States can and should file suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin. Like the Texas suit, that new suit would seek an order invalidating the appointment of the electors appointed by those four defendant States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause. That would leave it to the state legislatures in those four states to “appoint” electors — which is what the Constitution requires.
When those four States violated the Constitution by allowing electors who had not been appointed in the manner prescribed by the state legislature, the United States suffered an injury. Indeed, there could hardly have been a more significant injury to the nation than that which corrupted its Presidential election.
The United States has a vital interest and a responsibility to preserve the constitutional framework of the Republic, which was formed by a voluntary compact among the States. As with any contractual relationship of participants in an ongoing enterprise, no party is entitled to ignore or alter the essential terms of the contract by its unilateral action.
The President who has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution has the right and the duty to order the U.S. Department of Justice bring such an action in the Supreme Court — and should do so quickly.
Reasons for Great Hope at Christmas
In rejecting the invocation by the State of Texas of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute between Texas and four other States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause, for now, a majority of the Justices foreclosed the use of that constitutional safeguard by Texas to provide a peaceful means of resolving the controversy that has deeply divided States and the citizens of this Republic as at no time since the 1860s.
That consequence is too dangerous to be allowed to stand.
If the same case previously brought by Texas were now brought by the United States of America, there is every reason to believe that the Supreme Court would be compelled to understand it must hear it and decide it favorably.
Although outcomes are never certain, it is believed and hoped that a majority of the Supreme Court could never take the position that the United States has no business enforcing the process established in the Constitution by which we select the one government official who represents all the People — The President of the United States.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Patrick M. McSweeney Summary More Biographical Information Contact Patrick M. McSweeney is a former official of the U.S. Department of Justice where he handled confirmations of nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts, and cabinet officers. He also served as chairman of the Virginia Republican Party. His firm focuses on constitutional and administrative law. Patrick M. McSweeney is a former official of the U.S. Department of Justice where he handled confirmations of nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts, and cabinet officers. He also served as chairman of the Virginia Republican Party. His firm focuses on constitutional and administrative law. Email Patrick@mck-lawyers.com, visit http://www.mck-lawyers.com/mcsweeney.htm.


Porkulus

For more A.F .
Branco cartoons , go to WesternJournal.com/cartoons .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all @ @ @ @ @ our editorial standards .

Bradley Cooper's latest role has not gone down well with everyone, particularly with regard to his use of a prosthetic nose.


westernjournal--2020-12-24--NYT Journalist Complains About Having To Work at 7:30 am, Immediately Gets Hit with Sobering Truth A

NYT Journalist Complains About Having To Work at 7:30 am, Immediately Gets Hit with Sobering Truth About Her Ingratitude

The chaos of 2020 has been devastating for millions of people in America and around the world .
From pandemic-related deaths to the crushing economic and community lockdowns , this year has brought hardship on Americans across the nation .
Despite the suffering being endured throughout our country , one New York Times journalist posted a complaint about her workday that quickly backfired in a spectacular and obvious fashion .
Responding to a media schedule issued by the administration of President Donald Trump , New York Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman railed against Trump for an early-morning media pool @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around The New York Times newsroom , Haberman claimed in a Twitter post that the scheduling was a “ way to stick it to the WH press corps he hates.
” TRENDING : Pelosi Reveals Her Bizarre Plan To Get Trump Out of the White House : Report While it may seem early to Haberman , the 7:30 a.m. Christmas Eve call was slated to start after many Americans were already hard at work .
Obviously , this is only if they are lucky enough to have jobs in the first place .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other papers , lockdowns resulted in losses of jobs and businesses that will undoubtedly have severe long-term repercussions .
After Haberman ’ s complaints , Twitter users poured in to point out how blessed she really is .
RELATED : Fact Check : Reporter Vastly Exaggerates Biden 's Popular Vote Margin , CNN Lets Her Get Away with Mistake Some even joked that Trump should kick his media events back by a few hours .
Oh , the horror of a 5:30 a.m. wakeup !
The tone-deaf complaint from Haberman does nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the establishment media , which has been worn down by years of vitriol against conservatives .
Judging by the massive number of comments calling Haberman out for the elitist gripe , that trust isn ’ t coming back anytime soon .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

The chaos of 2020 has been devastating for millions of people in America and around the world.
From pandemic-related deaths to the crushing economic and community lockdowns, this year has brought hardship on Americans across the nation.
Despite the suffering being endured throughout our country, one New York Times journalist posted a complaint about her workday that quickly backfired in a spectacular and obvious fashion.
Responding to a media schedule issued by the administration of President Donald Trump, New York Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman railed against Trump for an early-morning media pool call.
Seemingly believing the universe rotates around The New York Times newsroom, Haberman claimed in a Twitter post that the scheduling was a “way to stick it to the WH press corps he hates.”
A way to stick it to the WH press corps he hates is a 7:30 AM call time on Christmas Eve for a currently empty public schedule https://t.co/yqdfyBYMeL — Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) December 24, 2020
While it may seem early to Haberman, the 7:30 a.m. Christmas Eve call was slated to start after many Americans were already hard at work.
Obviously, this is only if they are lucky enough to have jobs in the first place.
Millions of Americans would like nothing more than being able to show up to work at 7:30 AM. https://t.co/QDM3tQoajU — Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) December 24, 2020
Spurred on by fearmongering from The Times and other papers, lockdowns resulted in losses of jobs and businesses that will undoubtedly have severe long-term repercussions.
After Haberman’s complaints, Twitter users poured in to point out how blessed she really is.
Maggie and the WH press pool haven’t missed a paycheck all year and complaining about having to ‘work’ one of the simplest jobs available. — Problem Solver 101 (@SafeLiving911) December 24, 2020
Some even joked that Trump should kick his media events back by a few hours. Oh, the horror of a 5:30 a.m. wakeup!
Is there any way to love this more than just the puny ‘like’ button??? ?? He should do a 5:30 AM call every day! — Dr. Jeeper (@kyjeeper65) December 24, 2020
Awww so hard to get up that early. Guess what so many hardworking Americans are busy with their day by 7:30. There’s days I dream of starting that late!!! — Midwest1776 (@Midwest17761) December 24, 2020
The tone-deaf complaint from Haberman does nothing to build trust between the American people and the establishment media, which has been worn down by years of vitriol against conservatives.
Judging by the massive number of comments calling Haberman out for the elitist gripe, that trust isn’t coming back anytime soon.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-12-24--Despite Handing $700 Million to Sudan, Romney Says Bigger Stimulus Checks Are Too Expensive: ‘We Can

Despite Handing $700 Million to Sudan, Romney Says Bigger Stimulus Checks Are Too Expensive: ‘We Can’t Just Have Free Money’

On Monday , Democrats and Republicans came together on a COVID relief bill after months of negotiations .
The final product offered $ 600 stimulus payments to most Americans while setting aside billions of dollars for foreign countries and expensive provisions that had absolutely nothing to do with mitigating the threat of COVID-19 or the economic ramifications of it .
Hinting that he could veto the bill , President Donald Trump called for Congress to remove the unnecessary foreign spending and increase the stimulus payments to $ 2,000 .
According to Sen. Mitt Romney , however , $ 2,000 stimulus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be too expensive to add to the relief bill .
“ If we went to $ 2,000 per person , the additional borrowing would be up to almost $ 500 billion , ” the Utah Republican said Wednesday during a virtual meeting , according to KUTV .
TRENDING : Pelosi Reveals Her Bizarre Plan To Get Trump Out of the White House : Report “ Someone ’ s got to pay for that .
We can ’ t just have free money.
” If “ someone ’ s got to pay for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not asking the same question about the billions being sent out of America ?
When it comes to sending $ 700 million to Sudan , however , Romney had nothing to say .
Nor did the senator have any objections to sending hundreds of millions to Burma , Cambodia and Nepal , among other countries .
If unnecessary spending was truly his primary concern , perhaps he would have something to say about the $ 10 million set aside for “ gender programs ” in Pakistan .
Romney never commented on the millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , when the president had the utter audacity to suggest an American COVID relief bill should be directed at actually helping American citizens , that ’ s when Romney had a problem .
All that being said , there are many conservatives who believe paying off Americans isn ’ t the proper solution to the economic fallout from the pandemic .
RELATED : Here 's Who Is Considering Moving to Utah To Unseat Mitt Romney “ If free money was the answer … if money really did grow on trees , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Paul said .
“ Why not give it out all the time ?
Why stop at $ 600 a person ?
Why not $ 1,000 ?
Why not $ 2,000 ?
“ Maybe these new free-money Republicans should join the Everybody-Gets-A-Guaranteed-Income Caucus ?
Why not $ 20,000 a year for everybody , why not $ 30,000 ?
If we can print out money with impunity , why not do it ?
” Whether or not you agree with the notion of stimulus payments , they are objectively better than sending hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For Romney to support sending all of that money to foreign nations under the guise of an American recovery bill while refusing to increase payments to Americans themselves proves he ’ s simply another member of the swamp more concerned with making backroom deals than with actually helping the American people .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

On Monday, Democrats and Republicans came together on a COVID relief bill after months of negotiations.
The final product offered $600 stimulus payments to most Americans while setting aside billions of dollars for foreign countries and expensive provisions that had absolutely nothing to do with mitigating the threat of COVID-19 or the economic ramifications of it.
Hinting that he could veto the bill, President Donald Trump called for Congress to remove the unnecessary foreign spending and increase the stimulus payments to $2,000.
According to Sen. Mitt Romney, however, $2,000 stimulus payments for Americans struggling during the pandemic would be too expensive to add to the relief bill.
“If we went to $2,000 per person, the additional borrowing would be up to almost $500 billion,” the Utah Republican said Wednesday during a virtual meeting, according to KUTV.
“Someone’s got to pay for that. We can’t just have free money.”
If “someone’s got to pay for that,” why then is Romney not asking the same question about the billions being sent out of America?
When it comes to sending $700 million to Sudan, however, Romney had nothing to say.
Nor did the senator have any objections to sending hundreds of millions to Burma, Cambodia and Nepal, among other countries.
Do you believe that Sen. Mitt Romney is being hypocritical? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 99% (1991 Votes) No: 1% (16 Votes)
If unnecessary spending was truly his primary concern, perhaps he would have something to say about the $10 million set aside for “gender programs” in Pakistan.
Romney never commented on the millions being sent to these various foreign entities.
However, when the president had the utter audacity to suggest an American COVID relief bill should be directed at actually helping American citizens, that’s when Romney had a problem.
All that being said, there are many conservatives who believe paying off Americans isn’t the proper solution to the economic fallout from the pandemic.
Sen. Rand Paul made such a case during a viral floor speech.
“If free money was the answer … if money really did grow on trees, why not give more free money?” Paul said. “Why not give it out all the time? Why stop at $600 a person? Why not $1,000? Why not $2,000?
“Maybe these new free-money Republicans should join the Everybody-Gets-A-Guaranteed-Income Caucus? Why not $20,000 a year for everybody, why not $30,000? If we can print out money with impunity, why not do it?”
Whether or not you agree with the notion of stimulus payments, they are objectively better than sending hundreds of millions of dollars to foreign countries.
For Romney to support sending all of that money to foreign nations under the guise of an American recovery bill while refusing to increase payments to Americans themselves proves he’s simply another member of the swamp more concerned with making backroom deals than with actually helping the American people.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-12-24--Here Are Some of Biden’s Biggest ‘Day One’ Promises So Far, Including a Strict Mask Order

Presumptive President-elect Joe Biden has promised that a lot will get done on “ day one ” of his potential administration — a federal mask mandate coming at the head of those things Biden believes he can unilaterally order .
“ On day one , I ’ ll sign an executive order to require masks everywhere I can , ” Biden tweeted earlier this month .
“ I ’ m absolutely convinced that in 100 days we can change the course of the disease and change life in America for the better , ” Biden announced on Dec. 8 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi Reveals Her Bizarre Plan To Get Trump Out of the White House : Report “ My first 100 days , I ’ m going to ask for a masking plan .
Everyone for the first 100 days of my administration to wear a mask.
” Biden said this edict would be enforced wherever possible “ under the law , ” which would include interstate travel , federal buildings and other areas controlled by the federal government .
“ I think the issue of a nationwide mandate is going to be tricky , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Association of State and Territorial Health officials , Dr. Marcus Plescia , told CNN .
“ With a lot of these public health laws and regulations , we really depend on social enforcement.
” “ It ’ s very hard to implement public-health measures , because it requires a lot of buy-in , ” said Dr. Amesh Adalja , a Center for Health Security senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University .
“ I think what [ Biden ] has to use is the moral authority of the presidency and the moral authority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has already been growing resistance to Biden ’ s plan , however , from many Americans tired of lockdowns and mask mandates .
But a federal mask mandate is just the beginning of Biden ’ s day one list .
RELATED : Joe Biden Snaps at Reporter Who Asks About Hunter “ Some of it ’ s going to depend on the kind of cooperation I can or can not get from the United States Congress , ” Biden has said , according to Fox News .
For example , Biden promised in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raise taxes on wealthy Americans , which would require Congress to act .
He also plans to send Congress a bill that would create a “ clear roadmap ” to citizenship for illegal immigrants , particularly those brought to this country as children and covered by the Obama administration ’ s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program .
Congress , however , has debated a variety of related bills during both the Obama and Trump administrations without ever passing any of them .
Biden might be able to move faster on his proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Migrant Protection Protocols that do not allow immigrants to enter the U.S. until their court hearings run their course , along with his pledge to reverse the Trump administration ’ s rules limiting asylum requests .
Likewise , he says he will be able to use his executive order authority to reverse the ban imposed by President Donald Trump on travel to the U.S. from several countries that Trump identified as likely sources of potential terrorist activity .
“ The Trump administration ’ s anti-Muslim bias hurts our economy , betrays our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powerful terrorist recruiting tool , ” Biden ’ s campaign website claims .
“ Prohibiting Muslims from entering the country is morally wrong , and there is no intelligence or evidence that suggests it makes our nation more secure .
It is yet another abuse of power by the Trump administration designed to target primarily Black and Brown immigrants .
Biden will immediately rescind the ‘ Muslim bans.
’ ” If he takes office , the presumptive president-elect can begin to fulfill his additional promise of rejoining the Paris climate accords , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of other nations to allow the United States back into the agreement .
However , a potential President Biden would be able to act in the overall sphere of climate change through his promise to use executive authority to implement new fuel economy standards and re-implement the Clean Air Act .
According to the Biden-Harris campaign website , “ Joe ’ s climate and environmental justice proposal will make a federal investment of $ 1.7 trillion over the next 10 years , leveraging additional private sector and state and local investments to total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Presumptive President-elect Joe Biden has promised that a lot will get done on “day one” of his potential administration — a federal mask mandate coming at the head of those things Biden believes he can unilaterally order.
“On day one, I’ll sign an executive order to require masks everywhere I can,” Biden tweeted earlier this month.
On day one, I’ll sign an executive order to require masks everywhere I can. pic.twitter.com/ixUbTwHhPk — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) December 9, 2020
“I’m absolutely convinced that in 100 days we can change the course of the disease and change life in America for the better,” Biden announced on Dec. 8, according to The Independent.
“My first 100 days, I’m going to ask for a masking plan. Everyone for the first 100 days of my administration to wear a mask.”
Biden said this edict would be enforced wherever possible “under the law,” which would include interstate travel, federal buildings and other areas controlled by the federal government.
“I think the issue of a nationwide mandate is going to be tricky,” the chief medical officer at the Association of State and Territorial Health officials, Dr. Marcus Plescia, told CNN. “With a lot of these public health laws and regulations, we really depend on social enforcement.”
“It’s very hard to implement public-health measures, because it requires a lot of buy-in,” said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a Center for Health Security senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University. “I think what [Biden] has to use is the moral authority of the presidency and the moral authority of all the scientists behind him.”
There has already been growing resistance to Biden’s plan, however, from many Americans tired of lockdowns and mask mandates.
I’m burning every mask I own if Joe Biden gets into office and tries making me wear this thing for another 100 days. — Ashley StClair ?? (@stclairashley) December 17, 2020
Hey creepy Joe Biden this is what I think of your Mask Mandate. pic.twitter.com/uIyW0T5ZJm — sammywalker77 (@bigkidd77) December 18, 2020
But a federal mask mandate is just the beginning of Biden’s day one list.
“Some of it’s going to depend on the kind of cooperation I can or cannot get from the United States Congress,” Biden has said, according to Fox News.
For example, Biden promised in October 2019 to overhaul tax law to raise taxes on wealthy Americans, which would require Congress to act.
On day one, Joe Biden will move to: ✅ Eliminate the Trump tax cut for the super-wealthy
✅ Eliminate the unjustified loopholes in our tax code
✅ Use that money to invest in America’s future#DemDebate — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) October 16, 2019
He also plans to send Congress a bill that would create a “clear roadmap” to citizenship for illegal immigrants, particularly those brought to this country as children and covered by the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
Here’s my promise to you: On day one, I’ll send a bill to Congress that creates a clear roadmap to citizenship for Dreamers and 11 million undocumented people who are already strengthening our nation. It’s long overdue. — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) June 18, 2020
Congress, however, has debated a variety of related bills during both the Obama and Trump administrations without ever passing any of them.
Biden might be able to move faster on his proposal to alter what’s known as the Migrant Protection Protocols that do not allow immigrants to enter the U.S. until their court hearings run their course, along with his pledge to reverse the Trump administration’s rules limiting asylum requests.
On day one, I will eliminate President Trump’s decision to limit asylum and undo his executive orders that eliminated Obama-Biden enforcement priorities on national security and public safety. — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) August 22, 2019
Likewise, he says he will be able to use his executive order authority to reverse the ban imposed by President Donald Trump on travel to the U.S. from several countries that Trump identified as likely sources of potential terrorist activity.
Today, the House passed the #NoBanAct because no one should be discriminated against or singled out based on the faith they practice. I will end President Trump’s Muslim Ban on day one and sign this bill into law. — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) July 22, 2020
“The Trump administration’s anti-Muslim bias hurts our economy, betrays our values, and can serve as a powerful terrorist recruiting tool,” Biden’s campaign website claims. “Prohibiting Muslims from entering the country is morally wrong, and there is no intelligence or evidence that suggests it makes our nation more secure. It is yet another abuse of power by the Trump administration designed to target primarily Black and Brown immigrants. Biden will immediately rescind the ‘Muslim bans.’”
Do you believe Biden will try to implement all of these proposals on day one of his potential presidency? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 72% (633 Votes) No: 28% (243 Votes)
If he takes office, the presumptive president-elect can begin to fulfill his additional promise of rejoining the Paris climate accords, but that process needs to involve the cooperation of other nations to allow the United States back into the agreement.
However, a potential President Biden would be able to act in the overall sphere of climate change through his promise to use executive authority to implement new fuel economy standards and re-implement the Clean Air Act.
According to the Biden-Harris campaign website, “Joe’s climate and environmental justice proposal will make a federal investment of $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years, leveraging additional private sector and state and local investments to total more than $5 trillion.”
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-12-24--GOP Senator Urges Trump To Sign COVID Bill, Debate More Relief After

Sen. Pat Toomey is encouraging President Donald Trump to sign the coronavirus relief legislation into law , despite its many flaws .
“ There are a lot of provisions I don ’ t like .
There ’ s provisions the Democrats don ’ t like , ” the Pennsylvania Republican told Fox News ’ “ The Daily Briefing ” on Wednesday .
“ This is what we were able to get to , and my suggestion would be , let ’ s pass this and get this signed , let ’ s get this into law , and we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be additional direct payments or not.
” Trump had been expected to sign the $ 2.3 trillion federal government spending package , which includes $ 908 billion in coronavirus relief , once it was approved by the Senate on Monday night , according to Fox News .
TRENDING : Pelosi Reveals Her Bizarre Plan To Get Trump Out of the White House : Report Instead , the president called it “ wasteful ” and a “ disgrace.
” “ Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries , lobbyists and special interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American people who need it .
It wasn ’ t their fault .
It was China ’ s fault , ” Trump said .
“ I am asking Congress to amend this bill and increase the ridiculously low $ 600 to $ 2,000 or $ 4,000 for a couple.
” He added , “ I ’ m also asking Congress to immediately get rid of the wasteful and unnecessary items from this legislation and to send me a suitable bill or else the next administration will have to deliver a COVID relief package @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , and we will get it done.
” Trump signaled he might not sign the legislation into law until larger stimulus payments to Americans were approved , breaking with many Republicans on the issue .
Toomey was surprised by this reaction because “ the president ’ s people were intimately involved every step of the way ” as the legislation was negotiated .
He said he didn ’ t support increased payments to Americans “ because the vast majority of the money inevitably goes to people who never had a loss of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Biden 's Biggest 'Day One ' Promises So Far , Including a Strict Mask Order “ Consider all the federal employees , millions of people across the country who never lost a dime of income , ” Toomey said .
“ Why would we be sending them $ 600 , much less 2,000 ?
” In response to Tuesday ’ s concerns from Trump , Democrats sought to increase direct payments to Americans to $ 2,000 per person on Thursday , Reuters reported .
House Democratic leadership attempted to advance the measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans blocked it , according to The Washington Post .
Unemployment benefits for 14 million Americans are set to expire on Saturday and an eviction moratorium protecting 30 million Americans will expire at the end of the month .
“ The federal government will shut down Monday at midnight if lawmakers do not approve an extension in funding , ” The Post reported .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Sen. Pat Toomey is encouraging President Donald Trump to sign the coronavirus relief legislation into law, despite its many flaws.
“There are a lot of provisions I don’t like. There’s provisions the Democrats don’t like,” the Pennsylvania Republican told Fox News’ “The Daily Briefing” on Wednesday.
“This is what we were able to get to, and my suggestion would be, let’s pass this and get this signed, let’s get this into law, and we can have an ongoing discussion about where there should be additional direct payments or not.”
Watch the latest video at foxnews.com
Trump had been expected to sign the $2.3 trillion federal government spending package, which includes $908 billion in coronavirus relief, once it was approved by the Senate on Monday night, according to Fox News.
Instead, the president called it “wasteful” and a “disgrace.”
“Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it. It wasn’t their fault. It was China’s fault,” Trump said.
“I am asking Congress to amend this bill and increase the ridiculously low $600 to $2,000 or $4,000 for a couple.”
Statement by Donald J. Trump, The President of the United States Full Video: https://t.co/avKfYctPAD pic.twitter.com/i8IMLhH53Q — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 23, 2020
He added, “I’m also asking Congress to immediately get rid of the wasteful and unnecessary items from this legislation and to send me a suitable bill or else the next administration will have to deliver a COVID relief package, and maybe that administration will be me, and we will get it done.”
Trump signaled he might not sign the legislation into law until larger stimulus payments to Americans were approved, breaking with many Republicans on the issue.
Toomey was surprised by this reaction because “the president’s people were intimately involved every step of the way” as the legislation was negotiated.
He said he didn’t support increased payments to Americans “because the vast majority of the money inevitably goes to people who never had a loss of income.”
“Consider all the federal employees, millions of people across the country who never lost a dime of income,” Toomey said. “Why would we be sending them $600, much less 2,000?”
In response to Tuesday’s concerns from Trump, Democrats sought to increase direct payments to Americans to $2,000 per person on Thursday, Reuters reported.
House Democratic leadership attempted to advance the measure by “unanimous consent,” but Republicans blocked it, according to The Washington Post.
Unemployment benefits for 14 million Americans are set to expire on Saturday and an eviction moratorium protecting 30 million Americans will expire at the end of the month.
“The federal government will shut down Monday at midnight if lawmakers do not approve an extension in funding,” The Post reported.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-12-24--Golden Retrievers Saved from Doomed Fate in a Chinese Slaughterhouse Join Loving American Families

With consumer food prices in the People ’ s Republic of China still highly affected by an outbreak of African swine fever sweeping the nation ’ s pig herds during the last few years , residents have been forced to find alternatives .
While many are replacing prohibitively expensive pork with leaner animals and vegetables , some have been turning to an alternative meat .
Domesticated dog replaced pork in some restaurants and households throughout the country last year , seemingly creating a booming business for the dog meat trade .
Thankfully , one Florida group is helping put a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Golden Rescue South Florida saved 20 dogs from potentially meeting a grisly fate in a Chinese slaughterhouse .
“ Unfortunately , they have meat markets , they eat dogs , so we ’ re saving them from the slaughterhouses , ” said rescue coordinator Kristine Minerva , who noted that some of the dogs were owner surrenders .
TRENDING : Pelosi Reveals Her Bizarre Plan To Get Trump Out of the White House : Report The dogs arrived in Miami on Dec. 20 , and were matched up with previously screened families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a loving home , moving them across oceans and continents was no easy task .
Each canine brought to America set GRSF back a whopping $ 2,600 .
With airfare , special permits and veterinarian bills , the cost rose for some of the dogs .
For comparison , the group estimates rescuing a dog domestically costs about $ 900 on average .
The rescue mission took months to plan and execute owing to the logistics of moving animals across international borders during a pandemic .
The golden retriever airlift came as China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meat trade .
RELATED : China Is Building a Foothold Less Than 100 Miles from Continental US Although dogs are clearly still eaten in some parts of the communist nation , leaders recently declared that canines are no longer considered livestock .
Some cities have banned consumption of dog meat outright , making it a criminal act .
Yet , despite the decline of dog as a foodstuff in China , it seems its place in national culture is here to stay — at least for the foreseeable future .
At the Lychee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Chinese city of Yulin , revelers consume fruit and cuts of meat taken from dogs .
However , thanks to bans and a changing national attitude about eating man ’ s best friend , attendance dwindled in 2020 .
Some even predict this could be the last year the festival will be held .
There ’ s no telling where these 20 golden retrievers would have ended up had the American rescue group failed to step in .
Now , instead of being fated to become somebody ’ s lunch in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waiting patiently under American tables for someone to drop a morsel of their lunch .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

With consumer food prices in the People’s Republic of China still highly affected by an outbreak of African swine fever sweeping the nation’s pig herds during the last few years, residents have been forced to find alternatives.
While many are replacing prohibitively expensive pork with leaner animals and vegetables, some have been turning to an alternative meat.
Domesticated dog replaced pork in some restaurants and households throughout the country last year, seemingly creating a booming business for the dog meat trade. Thankfully, one Florida group is helping put a stop to this.
According to WPLG, Golden Rescue South Florida saved 20 dogs from potentially meeting a grisly fate in a Chinese slaughterhouse.
“Unfortunately, they have meat markets, they eat dogs, so we’re saving them from the slaughterhouses,” said rescue coordinator Kristine Minerva, who noted that some of the dogs were owner surrenders.
Flanked by the Dolphins Secret Service Menu Meng (a tripod) embraces his new world with bunny hops and pure joy.
Now… Posted by Golden Rescue South Florida on Sunday, December 20, 2020 [ffad_ic1]
The dogs arrived in Miami on Dec. 20, and were matched up with previously screened families.
Would you adopt a rescue dog from China? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 88% (50 Votes) No: 12% (7 Votes)
Although these dogs will now have a loving home, moving them across oceans and continents was no easy task.
Each canine brought to America set GRSF back a whopping $2,600. With airfare, special permits and veterinarian bills, the cost rose for some of the dogs.
For comparison, the group estimates rescuing a dog domestically costs about $900 on average.
The rescue mission took months to plan and execute owing to the logistics of moving animals across international borders during a pandemic.
The golden retriever airlift came as China has worked to root out the dog meat trade.
Although dogs are clearly still eaten in some parts of the communist nation, leaders recently declared that canines are no longer considered livestock. Some cities have banned consumption of dog meat outright, making it a criminal act.
Yet, despite the decline of dog as a foodstuff in China, it seems its place in national culture is here to stay — at least for the foreseeable future. At the Lychee and Dog Meat Festival, held yearly in the Chinese city of Yulin, revelers consume fruit and cuts of meat taken from dogs.
However, thanks to bans and a changing national attitude about eating man’s best friend, attendance dwindled in 2020. Some even predict this could be the last year the festival will be held.
There’s no telling where these 20 golden retrievers would have ended up had the American rescue group failed to step in.
Now, instead of being fated to become somebody’s lunch in some under-the-table deal, they’re waiting patiently under American tables for someone to drop a morsel of their lunch.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-12-24--Andrew Yang Calls for Barcodes To Identify Vaccinated People

Failed Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang gets the award for the worst coronavirus suggestion to date : using barcodes to identify people who have been vaccinated .
Yang — a businessman who plans to run for New York City mayor — ignited a volcanic backlash with his barcode idea , which invoked the dehumanizing practice used in Nazi Germany to identify and persecute Jews .
“ Is there a way for someone to easily show that they have been vaccinated – like a bar code they can download to their phone ?
” he asked Dec. 18 on Twitter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Pelosi Reveals Her Bizarre Plan To Get Trump Out of the White House : Report Yang claimed the barcodes are necessary so people could “ interact more freely ” once they know who has been vaccinated .
He explained that it ’ s “ [ t ] ough to have mass gatherings like concerts or ballgames without either mass adoption of the vaccine or a means of signaling.
” Yang was eviscerated on Twitter , with many comparing his tone-deaf suggestion to the yellow stars of David or the dehumanizing tattoos that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to rethink this one before running for mayor of the city with the largest concentration of Jewish population in the country , ” conservative commentator Stephen L. Miller quipped .
RELATED : San Francisco Mayor : Kamala Harris ' Senate Replacement Is the Wrong Kind of Minority Another Twitter user pointed out the hypocrisy of trying to slap barcodes on people while rabidly opposing voter ID laws .
As it is , Americans are divided on whether they want to get vaccinated .
Some are eager to get the injection , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Donald Trump ’ s Operation Warp Speed initiative .
Others are leery amid reports of potential side effects .
Last week , four Chicago-area health care workers experienced mild adverse reactions to the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine .
Many do not want the government to mandate vaccinations , saying it ’ s an unconstitutional infringement on civil liberties .
Meanwhile , there ’ s also a growing chorus of critics who oppose mask mandates .
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky blasted such mandates , saying they ’ re unscientific and ineffective at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physician , pointed out that the places with strict mask mandates have experienced a spike in COVID-19 infections .
“ Every one of the mandates — and you look in country after country , state after state — you look at when the mask mandates went in — the incidents went up exponentially after the mandates , ” the senator told Breitbart News .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Failed Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang gets the award for the worst coronavirus suggestion to date: using barcodes to identify people who have been vaccinated.
Yang — a businessman who plans to run for New York City mayor — ignited a volcanic backlash with his barcode idea, which invoked the dehumanizing practice used in Nazi Germany to identify and persecute Jews.
“Is there a way for someone to easily show that they have been vaccinated – like a bar code they can download to their phone?” he asked Dec. 18 on Twitter. “There ought to be.”
Is there a way for someone to easily show that they have been vaccinated – like a bar code they can download to their phone? There ought to be. — Andrew Yang??? (@AndrewYang) December 18, 2020
Yang claimed the barcodes are necessary so people could “interact more freely” once they know who has been vaccinated.
He explained that it’s “[t]ough to have mass gatherings like concerts or ballgames without either mass adoption of the vaccine or a means of signaling.”
I’ve been tested at a photo shoot or interview and gotten a bracelet showing I was negative. Then we could interact more freely. — Andrew Yang??? (@AndrewYang) December 18, 2020
Yang was eviscerated on Twitter, with many comparing his tone-deaf suggestion to the yellow stars of David or the dehumanizing tattoos that Nazis forced on Jews.
“Might want to rethink this one before running for mayor of the city with the largest concentration of Jewish population in the country,” conservative commentator Stephen L. Miller quipped.
Might want to rethink this one before running for mayor of the city with the largest concentration of Jewish population in the country. — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) December 18, 2020
Others shared similar sentiments.
Or… Why not just pin a star to our jackets… https://t.co/zDpNBlkcRG — Rose Unplugged (@rose_unplugged) December 19, 2020
Something like a tattoo on your forearm? I think that’s got some staying power. pic.twitter.com/J0zil3IIof — Amanda (@_Mrs_Farnum) December 18, 2020
I guess your idea and my idea of being free are very different. Mine does not include being barcoded by the government. — Mark Wichman MD (@MarkWichmanmd) December 21, 2020
Another Twitter user pointed out the hypocrisy of trying to slap barcodes on people while rabidly opposing voter ID laws.
What about voter ID? Andrew, get back with us when we can identify voters first! — President-Elect Angel ❌ (@AngelOfficial) December 18, 2020
As it is, Americans are divided on whether they want to get vaccinated.
Some are eager to get the injection, which was produced in record time thanks to President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed initiative.
Others are leery amid reports of potential side effects. Last week, four Chicago-area health care workers experienced mild adverse reactions to the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine.
Many do not want the government to mandate vaccinations, saying it’s an unconstitutional infringement on civil liberties.
Meanwhile, there’s also a growing chorus of critics who oppose mask mandates. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky blasted such mandates, saying they’re unscientific and ineffective at preventing viral spread.
Paul, a physician, pointed out that the places with strict mask mandates have experienced a spike in COVID-19 infections.
“Every one of the mandates — and you look in country after country, state after state — you look at when the mask mandates went in — the incidents went up exponentially after the mandates,” the senator told Breitbart News.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-12-24--GOP Blocks Dems’ Quick Vote on Trump’s Out-of-the-Blue $2,000 Check Suggestion

House Republicans and House Democrats each blocked different attempts to alter a $ 2.3 trillion coronavirus aid and government spending package Thursday , seeking to meet the demands of President Donald Trump .
In response to Tuesday ’ s concerns from Trump , Democrats sought to increase direct payments to Americans to $ 2,000 per person , Reuters reported .
House Democratic leadership attempted to advance the measure by “ unanimous consent , ” but Republicans blocked it , according to The Washington Post .
“ Today , on Christmas Eve morning , House Republicans cruelly deprived the American people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreed to support , ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement .
“ If the President is serious about the $ 2,000 direct payments , he must call on House Republicans to end their obstruction.
” TRENDING : Pelosi Reveals Her Bizarre Plan To Get Trump Out of the White House : Report Trump signaled he might not sign the legislation , which includes $ 900 billion emergency economic relief package , into law until larger stimulus payments to Americans were approved , breaking with many Republicans on the issue .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ payments to most American adults .
Democrats support the higher payments , but Trump ’ s late intervention in the bill — which took months to negotiate — could put the entire package in jeopardy .
Republicans also moved to address another of Trump ’ s complaints to change the amount of foreign aid included in the package , but Democrats blocked the measure .
“ Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries , lobbyists and special interests while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was China ’ s fault , ” Trump said Tuesday , pointing to an excessive amount of money going to aid foreign countries .
“ I ’ m also asking Congress to immediately get rid of the wasteful and unnecessary items from this legislation and to send me a suitable bill or else the next administration will have to deliver a COVID relief package , and maybe that administration will be me , and we will get it done , ” he said .
The House and Senate passed the bill bipartisanly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants to veto it if his demands are not met .
RELATED : Here Are Some of Biden 's Biggest 'Day One ' Promises So Far , Including a Strict Mask Order “ Nobody knows exactly what Trump is going to do , and they ’ re all trying to figure it out , ” an adviser who The Post described as a “ person in communication with senior White House officials ” told the outlet .
Even if Trump vetos the bill , Congress could override that veto with two-thirds majorities in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million Americans are set to expire on Saturday and an eviction moratorium protecting 30 million Americans will expire at the end of the month .
“ The federal government will shut down Monday at midnight if lawmakers do not approve an extension in funding , ” The Post reported .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

House Republicans and House Democrats each blocked different attempts to alter a $2.3 trillion coronavirus aid and government spending package Thursday, seeking to meet the demands of President Donald Trump.
In response to Tuesday’s concerns from Trump, Democrats sought to increase direct payments to Americans to $2,000 per person, Reuters reported.
House Democratic leadership attempted to advance the measure by “unanimous consent,” but Republicans blocked it, according to The Washington Post.
“Today, on Christmas Eve morning, House Republicans cruelly deprived the American people of the $2,000 that the President agreed to support,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.
“If the President is serious about the $2,000 direct payments, he must call on House Republicans to end their obstruction.”
Trump signaled he might not sign the legislation, which includes $900 billion emergency economic relief package, into law until larger stimulus payments to Americans were approved, breaking with many Republicans on the issue.
The original package included $600 direct payments to most American adults.
Democrats support the higher payments, but Trump’s late intervention in the bill — which took months to negotiate — could put the entire package in jeopardy.
Do you think higher payments should be made to Americans? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 89% (255 Votes) No: 11% (30 Votes)
Republicans also moved to address another of Trump’s complaints to change the amount of foreign aid included in the package, but Democrats blocked the measure.
“Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it. It wasn’t their fault. It was China’s fault,” Trump said Tuesday, pointing to an excessive amount of money going to aid foreign countries.
Statement by Donald J. Trump, The President of the United States Full Video: https://t.co/avKfYctPAD pic.twitter.com/i8IMLhH53Q — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 23, 2020
“I’m also asking Congress to immediately get rid of the wasteful and unnecessary items from this legislation and to send me a suitable bill or else the next administration will have to deliver a COVID relief package, and maybe that administration will be me, and we will get it done,” he said.
The House and Senate passed the bill bipartisanly, and now Trump can decide if he wants to veto it if his demands are not met.
“Nobody knows exactly what Trump is going to do, and they’re all trying to figure it out,” an adviser who The Post described as a “person in communication with senior White House officials” told the outlet.
Even if Trump vetos the bill, Congress could override that veto with two-thirds majorities in both houses.
Unemployment benefits for 14 million Americans are set to expire on Saturday and an eviction moratorium protecting 30 million Americans will expire at the end of the month.
“The federal government will shut down Monday at midnight if lawmakers do not approve an extension in funding,” The Post reported.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-12-24--Washington DC Mayor Declares Christmas Eve as ‘Dr. Anthony S. Fauci Day’

Christmas Eve has long been set aside as the holiday directly preceding the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ .
If Washington , D.C. , Mayor Muriel Bowser gets her way , however , Jesus will hand over his Dec. 24 holiday celebration to Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases .
On Wednesday , Bowser officially declared Dec. 24 , which also happens to be Fauci ’ s birthday , “ Dr .
Anthony S. Fauci Day ” in Washington .
TRENDING : Pelosi Reveals Her Bizarre Plan To Get Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Dr .
Fauci has been a hero to our nation during this incredibly difficult year , working tirelessly to save lives and guide our nation ’ s response to and recovery from the pandemic , ” Bowser said in a statement .
“ We are incredibly proud to count him among the many DC residents who are sacrificing so much to keep our communities healthy and safe .
“ I issue this honor on behalf of all Washingtonians in gratitude and recognition of Dr. Fauci ’ s service to our nation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the holiday official , Bowser listed off a number of Fauci ’ s career accomplishments , many of which are indeed impressive .
However , some of Bowser ’ s claims within the document were more than a bit hyperbolic .
“ Dr .
Fauci has been a shining light in dark times for the nation , promoting truth over fear and giving Americans hope in their government , ” the proclamation read .
For starters , the idea that Anthony Fauci deserves his own holiday is ridiculous .
His tenure fighting COVID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies and flip-flopping on a wide variety of issues .
Even if Dec. 24 is his birthday , Christmas Eve should come first and foremost .
RELATED : 'It 's Like Wearing Your Underwear ' on Your Face : Sen. Paul Blasts Mask Mandates in Interview The fact that leftists are pushing aside a popular Christian holiday in such a way should come as no surprise .
Those on the left have been warring against Christmas for some time and hope to replace it with their own religion .
Although American leftists pretend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same leftists worship their political ideology to the point of dogmatic zealotry .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Christmas Eve has long been set aside as the holiday directly preceding the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.
If Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser gets her way, however, Jesus will hand over his Dec. 24 holiday celebration to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
On Wednesday, Bowser officially declared Dec. 24, which also happens to be Fauci’s birthday, “Dr. Anthony S. Fauci Day” in Washington.
In honor of Dr. Fauci’s 80th birthday tomorrow, I proclaim Thursday, December 24, 2020, “Dr. Anthony S. Fauci Day” in Washington, DC. We are incredibly proud to count Dr. Fauci among the many DC residents who are sacrificing so much to keep our communities healthy and safe. pic.twitter.com/UqvS4sebMf — Mayor Muriel Bowser (@MayorBowser) December 23, 2020
“Dr. Fauci has been a hero to our nation during this incredibly difficult year, working tirelessly to save lives and guide our nation’s response to and recovery from the pandemic,” Bowser said in a statement.
“We are incredibly proud to count him among the many DC residents who are sacrificing so much to keep our communities healthy and safe.
“I issue this honor on behalf of all Washingtonians in gratitude and recognition of Dr. Fauci’s service to our nation and our city.”
In her proclamation declaring the holiday official, Bowser listed off a number of Fauci’s career accomplishments, many of which are indeed impressive.
Should "Dr. Anthony S. Fauci Day" replace Christmas Eve? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 1% (3 Votes) No: 99% (387 Votes)
However, some of Bowser’s claims within the document were more than a bit hyperbolic.
“Dr. Fauci has been a shining light in dark times for the nation, promoting truth over fear and giving Americans hope in their government,” the proclamation read.
For starters, the idea that Anthony Fauci deserves his own holiday is ridiculous.
His tenure fighting COVID has been defined by pushing unreasonable lockdown policies and flip-flopping on a wide variety of issues.
Even if Dec. 24 is his birthday, Christmas Eve should come first and foremost.
The fact that leftists are pushing aside a popular Christian holiday in such a way should come as no surprise.
Those on the left have been warring against Christmas for some time and hope to replace it with their own religion.
Although American leftists pretend they are above religion, those very same leftists worship their political ideology to the point of dogmatic zealotry.
Dr. Anthony Fauci is simply their religion’s newest saint.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-12-24--Trump Announces New Round of Pardons, This Time Including Paul Manafort

President Donald Trump on Wednesday granted pardons to 26 people , including former campaign manager Paul Manafort , longtime supporter Roger Stone and Charles Kushner , who is the father of Jared Kushner , a White House adviser and Trump ’ s son-in-law .
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany announced the pardons with a statement on the White House website .
McEnany said Manafort was pardoned after “ convictions prosecuted in the course of Special Counsel Mueller ’ s investigation , which was premised on the Russian collusion hoax.
” Manafort , who was Trump ’ s campaign manager @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was convicted for financial crimes linked to his overseas lobbying work that predated his connection with the campaign by several years .
“ Mr .
Manafort has already spent two years in prison , including a stretch of time in solitary confinement — treatment worse than what many of the most violent criminals receive .
As a result of blatant prosecutorial overreach , Mr. Manafort has endured years of unfair treatment and is one of the most prominent victims of what has been revealed to be perhaps the greatest witch hunt in American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
TRENDING : Pelosi Reveals Her Bizarre Plan To Get Trump Out of the White House : Report Manafort expressed his appreciation on Twitter , saying , “ Mr .
President , my family & I humbly thank you for the Presidential Pardon you bestowed on me .
Words can not fully convey how grateful we are.
” McEnany noted that Trump had earlier commuted the prison sentence handed down to Stone , who had been sentenced to 40 months in prison for lying to the House Intelligence Committee .
“ Due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s team , Mr. Stone was treated very unfairly , ” McEnany said .
“ He was subjected to a pre-dawn raid of his home , which the media conveniently captured on camera .
Mr. Stone also faced potential political bias at his jury trial .
Pardoning him will help to right the injustices he faced at the hands of the Mueller investigation.
” RELATED : Here Are Some of Biden 's Biggest 'Day One ' Promises So Far , Including a Strict Mask Order Stone appeared Wednesday night on the Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to thank the president for his action .
“ I have an enormous debt of gratitude to God Almighty for giving the president the strength and the courage to recognize that my prosecution was a completely politically motivated witch hunt , ” Stone said .
“ And my trial was a Soviet-style show trial in which the judge denied us any powerful line of defense , in which the judge , we now know , hid exculpatory evidence from us .
“ Because I knew on Election Day , when no one was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last remaining redacted sections of the Mueller report in which they admitted that they had no evidence whatsoever of my colluding with Russia , WikiLeaks , Julian Assange , trafficking in emails.
” He added , “ The whole thing has been an outrage , and my hat is off to the president , the greatest president since Abraham Lincoln , who had the courage to correct this injustice.
” Stone said he was punished because prosecutors wanted him “ to bear false witness against the president , and I refused to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me for Michael Cohen , ” he said , referring to Trump ’ s former attorney who cooperated with prosecutors investigating the president .
“ But they had the wrong guy and I refused to do this .
“ Now the left invents a totally new canard , which is ‘ Stone traded his silence regarding misconduct by the president in return for commutation of his sentence and now a pardon.
’ That is a lie .
There is no corroboration or evidence to prove that .
It is the typical rewriting of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter that he was not pardoned .
“ What happened tonight shows how broken the whole criminal justice [ system ] is , ” Cohen tweeted .
“ Despite me and family being threatened by @ POTUS @ realDonaldTrump , I still cooperated with a dozen federal/state agencies , Mueller , Congress…and all these criminals receive # pardons .
This is wrong !
” Trump also issued a raft of pardons Tuesday that included former Republican Reps. Chris Collins of New York and Duncan Hunter of California as well as former campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in the Russia investigation .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

President Donald Trump on Wednesday granted pardons to 26 people, including former campaign manager Paul Manafort, longtime supporter Roger Stone and Charles Kushner, who is the father of Jared Kushner, a White House adviser and Trump’s son-in-law.
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany announced the pardons with a statement on the White House website.
McEnany said Manafort was pardoned after “convictions prosecuted in the course of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation, which was premised on the Russian collusion hoax.”
Manafort, who was Trump’s campaign manager for a few months in 2016, was convicted for financial crimes linked to his overseas lobbying work that predated his connection with the campaign by several years.
“Mr. Manafort has already spent two years in prison, including a stretch of time in solitary confinement — treatment worse than what many of the most violent criminals receive. As a result of blatant prosecutorial overreach, Mr. Manafort has endured years of unfair treatment and is one of the most prominent victims of what has been revealed to be perhaps the greatest witch hunt in American history,” McEnany’s statement said.
Manafort expressed his appreciation on Twitter, saying, “Mr. President, my family & I humbly thank you for the Presidential Pardon you bestowed on me. Words cannot fully convey how grateful we are.”
Mr. President, my family & I humbly thank you for the Presidential Pardon you bestowed on me. Words cannot fully convey how grateful we are. — Paul Manafort (@PaulManafort) December 24, 2020
History will record that your Presidency accomplished more in 4 years than any of your modern-day predecessors. — Paul Manafort (@PaulManafort) December 24, 2020
You truly did “Make America Great Again.” God Bless you & your family. I wish you a Merry Christmas & many good wishes for the coming years. — Paul Manafort (@PaulManafort) December 24, 2020
McEnany noted that Trump had earlier commuted the prison sentence handed down to Stone, who had been sentenced to 40 months in prison for lying to the House Intelligence Committee.
“Due to prosecutorial misconduct by Special Counsel Mueller’s team, Mr. Stone was treated very unfairly,” McEnany said. “He was subjected to a pre-dawn raid of his home, which the media conveniently captured on camera. Mr. Stone also faced potential political bias at his jury trial. Pardoning him will help to right the injustices he faced at the hands of the Mueller investigation.”
Do you approve of President Trump's pardon decisions? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 98% (124 Votes) No: 2% (3 Votes)
Stone appeared Wednesday night on the Fox News show “Tucker Carlson Tonight” to thank the president for his action.
“I have an enormous debt of gratitude to God Almighty for giving the president the strength and the courage to recognize that my prosecution was a completely politically motivated witch hunt,” Stone said. “And my trial was a Soviet-style show trial in which the judge denied us any powerful line of defense, in which the judge, we now know, hid exculpatory evidence from us.
“Because I knew on Election Day, when no one was watching, the Justice Department released the last remaining redacted sections of the Mueller report in which they admitted that they had no evidence whatsoever of my colluding with Russia, WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, trafficking in emails.”
He added, “The whole thing has been an outrage, and my hat is off to the president, the greatest president since Abraham Lincoln, who had the courage to correct this injustice.”
Stone said he was punished because prosecutors wanted him “to bear false witness against the president, and I refused to do so.”
“They must have mistaken me for Michael Cohen,” he said, referring to Trump’s former attorney who cooperated with prosecutors investigating the president. “But they had the wrong guy and I refused to do this.
“Now the left invents a totally new canard, which is ‘Stone traded his silence regarding misconduct by the president in return for commutation of his sentence and now a pardon.’ That is a lie. There is no corroboration or evidence to prove that. It is the typical rewriting of history by the left.”
Cohen objected on Twitter that he was not pardoned.
“What happened tonight shows how broken the whole criminal justice [system] is,” Cohen tweeted. “Despite me and family being threatened by @POTUS@realDonaldTrump, I still cooperated with a dozen federal/state agencies, Mueller, Congress…and all these criminals receive #pardons. This is wrong!”
What happened tonight shows how broken the whole criminal justice sustem is. Despite me and family being threatened by @POTUS @realDonaldTrump, I still cooperated with a dozen federal/state agencies, Mueller, Congress…and all these criminals receive #pardons. This is wrong! — Michael Cohen (@MichaelCohen212) December 24, 2020
Trump also issued a raft of pardons Tuesday that included former Republican Reps. Chris Collins of New York and Duncan Hunter of California as well as former campaign aide George Papadopoulos, who was caught up in the Russia investigation.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-12-24--Here Are the States Projected To Lose or Gain House Seats During Reapportionment

Well , it looks like the people who are leaving California and New York aren ’ t just the ones sick of the higher cost of living and getting less for it .
Lawmakers — or rather , their seats — are leaving along with them .
According to an unofficial Census Bureau estimate , New York would lose one or two seats in the House of Representatives if the census numbers shake out as planned , and California would lose one — as would Rhode Island , Pennsylvania , West Virginia , Ohio , Michigan , Illinois and Minnesota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in its history that California would lose a seat , according to Roll Call .
So , in case you ’ re unfamiliar with the process or didn ’ t pay that much attention in civics class , the census decides how many seats in the House of Representatives each state gets .
Every 10 years , once the process is complete , the 435 seats in the House are doled out to each individual state based on how many people are there .
Each state also , of course , gets two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you remember at least that much from civics class .
If not , hey — information lagniappe !
Also , linguistic lagniappe — the word means “ a small gift given to a customer by a merchant at the time of a purchase.
” ) TRENDING : Pelosi Reveals Her Bizarre Plan To Get Trump Out of the White House : Report If you add the House seats together with those two senators , you get a state ’ s electoral vote number — which , again , if this is new information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American above the age of 13 , my assumption is you ’ re reading this on a tablet you mistook for an Etch-a-Sketch .
Try shaking it ; if you don ’ t erase the screen , you might end up at HuffPost , which is probably more your speed .
It ’ s worth noting this is still just an estimate .
“ The Census Bureau constructed the estimate separate from the decennial count currently underway at the agency , and it is based on 2010 census results , along with birth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Roll Call reported .
“ Using the estimate to apportion the 435 seats in the House , seven states would gain congressional seats while nine states would lose them.
” According to the Census Bureau data , New York is the big loser , with 41,000 fewer people in 2020 than in 2010 .
This is impressive in a kind of anti-impressive way .
New York was the nation ’ s most populous state , up until 1964 , when California surpassed it .
In the intervening 56 years , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populous state , despite having the nation ’ s biggest city and conurbation .
According to the New York Post , the state also hemorrhaged residents between July 2019 and July 2020 , when 126,355 people left .
“ New York has been losing locals since 2016 , but the most recent drop was significantly larger than in years past , ” the Post reported .
RELATED : 'Disaster for a Decade ' : Panicking Dems Realize Nov. 3 Doomed Them for at Least 10 Years To Come “ It was also the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population decline , followed by Illinois with a 0.63 percent dip , Hawaii with 0.61 percent and West Virginia with 0.58 percent.
” Whatever the case , New York would stand to be the only state that could lose multiple seats in the House of Representatives — and therefore , multiple electoral votes .
While Roll Call projects the loss of two seats , the liberal Brookings Institution projects the loss of one seat based on its analysis of the data .
So , in terms of who would gain seats : Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projected seats .
Florida would gain two .
Both of these states have been reliably red in the last two presidential cycles , which means five more potential electoral votes for the GOP .
The rest of the gainers are a mixed bag : North Carolina , Colorado , Montana , Arizona and Oregon are all set to gain a seat each .
Hope still springs eternal at the Brookings Institution , however , which said “ it is difficult to predict how these changes will benefit future Republican and Democratic presidential candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making strides in growing , formerly Republican states in the West and the South.
” Translation : Texas is gon na turn purple someday !
We just know it !
Overall , though , the mood from reapportionment is dunking on Democrats in general and certain Democrats in particular .
Democrat Gov .
Andrew Cuomo — who ’ s been in charge of the Empire State for almost the entirety of the past decade — took a big hit .
But let ’ s not forget that California , which could lose a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Silicon Valley booms , was under the stewardship of Democrat Gov .
Jerry Brown and then somehow managed to make things worse with another Democrat , Gavin Newsom .
As for the states that gained seats , well , it helps to remember that state legislatures either help draw or enact congressional districts .
This is a problem in general for the Democrats , who did miserably at the statehouse level in 2020 .
It ’ s an even bigger problem in states gaining seats , however .
According to Ballotpedia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislatures .
To paraphrase a certain president , elections ( and population defections ) have consequences .
Have fun .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Well, it looks like the people who are leaving California and New York aren’t just the ones sick of the higher cost of living and getting less for it. Lawmakers — or rather, their seats — are leaving along with them.
According to an unofficial Census Bureau estimate, New York would lose one or two seats in the House of Representatives if the census numbers shake out as planned, and California would lose one — as would Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota.
This would be the first time in its history that California would lose a seat, according to Roll Call.
So, in case you’re unfamiliar with the process or didn’t pay that much attention in civics class, the census decides how many seats in the House of Representatives each state gets. Every 10 years, once the process is complete, the 435 seats in the House are doled out to each individual state based on how many people are there.
Each state also, of course, gets two senators. (I’m assuming you remember at least that much from civics class. If not, hey — information lagniappe! Also, linguistic lagniappe — the word means “a small gift given to a customer by a merchant at the time of a purchase.”)
If you add the House seats together with those two senators, you get a state’s electoral vote number — which, again, if this is new information to you and you’re an American above the age of 13, my assumption is you’re reading this on a tablet you mistook for an Etch-a-Sketch. Try shaking it; if you don’t erase the screen, you might end up at HuffPost, which is probably more your speed.
It’s worth noting this is still just an estimate.
“The Census Bureau constructed the estimate separate from the decennial count currently underway at the agency, and it is based on 2010 census results, along with birth, death and internal migration records,” Roll Call reported. “Using the estimate to apportion the 435 seats in the House, seven states would gain congressional seats while nine states would lose them.”
According to the Census Bureau data, New York is the big loser, with 41,000 fewer people in 2020 than in 2010.
something to keep in mind as NY prepares to draw 1 or 2 fewer congressional districts. (what’s happening in Saratoga that made it the fastest growing county upstate?) pic.twitter.com/KweHs0uNBz — Seth Pollack (@sethmpk) December 23, 2020
This is impressive in a kind of anti-impressive way. New York was the nation’s most populous state, up until 1964, when California surpassed it. In the intervening 56 years, it’s become the nation’s fourth-most populous state, despite having the nation’s biggest city and conurbation.
According to the New York Post, the state also hemorrhaged residents between July 2019 and July 2020, when 126,355 people left.
“New York has been losing locals since 2016, but the most recent drop was significantly larger than in years past,” the Post reported.
Are blue-state policies driving people away? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 100% (1046 Votes) No: 0% (3 Votes)
“It was also the state with the nation’s biggest population decline, followed by Illinois with a 0.63 percent dip, Hawaii with 0.61 percent and West Virginia with 0.58 percent.”
Whatever the case, New York would stand to be the only state that could lose multiple seats in the House of Representatives — and therefore, multiple electoral votes. While Roll Call projects the loss of two seats, the liberal Brookings Institution projects the loss of one seat based on its analysis of the data.
So, in terms of who would gain seats: Texas is the big winner, with three projected seats. Florida would gain two. Both of these states have been reliably red in the last two presidential cycles, which means five more potential electoral votes for the GOP.
The rest of the gainers are a mixed bag: North Carolina, Colorado, Montana, Arizona and Oregon are all set to gain a seat each.
Hope still springs eternal at the Brookings Institution, however, which said “it is difficult to predict how these changes will benefit future Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, especially since Democrats seem to be making strides in growing, formerly Republican states in the West and the South.”
Translation: Texas is gonna turn purple someday! We just know it!
Overall, though, the mood from reapportionment is dunking on Democrats in general and certain Democrats in particular. Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo — who’s been in charge of the Empire State for almost the entirety of the past decade — took a big hit.
NYS had led the nation in “out migration,” losing more people to other states than any state in America except Alaska (and in the case of Alaska, it is likely the weather). Population loss has only accelerated. We must do better… pic.twitter.com/Ewe8ZqGQS0 — Marc Molinaro (@marcmolinaro) December 22, 2020
New York is slated to lose a House seat thanks to Andrew Cuomo driving almost 1% of the state’s population away to better managed states like Florida. How many seats would blue states like NY lose if illegals weren’t counted in the census? ? — Paul A. Szypula, US Senate Candidate for NY in ‘22 (@Bubblebathgirl) December 23, 2020
Can @NYGovCuomo name a single thing he did over the past 10 years to stop NY from losing House seats as a result of 2020 #census? Someone needs to ask him bc this was preventable. #cuomo @GormleyAlbany @ccampy @TuckerCarlson @mgoodwin_nypost @candicegiove @JimmyVielkind — changeNYS.org (@changeNYS) December 23, 2020
But let’s not forget that California, which could lose a seat for the first time ever even as Silicon Valley booms, was under the stewardship of Democrat Gov. Jerry Brown and then somehow managed to make things worse with another Democrat, Gavin Newsom.
As for the states that gained seats, well, it helps to remember that state legislatures either help draw or enact congressional districts. This is a problem in general for the Democrats, who did miserably at the statehouse level in 2020.
It’s an even bigger problem in states gaining seats, however. According to Ballotpedia, seven of those nine states have Republican legislatures.
To paraphrase a certain president, elections (and population defections) have consequences. Have fun.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.