Editor's Note:  Only counting US citizens is essential when calculating how many Congressional House seats any given state is allowed. If millions of illegals have been counted in the past, it's possible that some states, like California, may have more Congressional seats than they are properly permitted.

~~~~~~~~

DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM/AP) – The Trump administration’s decision to ask people about their citizenship in the 2020 census will end up at the Supreme Court according to Civil Liberties attorney Alan Dershowitz. The question is – when?

“Whether it will end up [at the Supreme Court] in time for the next Census is a hard question because the law moves slowly,” Dershowitz told CBS 11 Political Reporter Jack Fink.

 

 

Dershowitz stressed that the Census is required by the constitution. “We get to determine who gets Congressional seats based on the Census,” he said. The Census is used to determine the number of congressional districts in each state as well as federal funding for schools, roads, and other projects.

Several states that have slowing population growth or high numbers of immigrants such as California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and Ohio are typically at risk of losing U.S. House seats when their congressional districts are redrawn every 10 years — depending on how fully their residents are counted.

Dershowitz also said that – whether a citizenship question should be on the Census – is hard to answer. “The answers to the specific question… are very complex and very difficult and we haven’t really begun to sort them out,” he said. “And I think these are the kinds of questions that we have to begin to ask. And they’ll be asked – not only in the halls of Congress – but in the courts,” he continued. “Because there will be challenges to that question. Because if that question results in Green Card holders not submitting themselves to the Census – Green Card holders are American persons under the law – [they] have to be counted,” Dershowitz continued. “Obviously illegal aliens have a different status.”

“These are very important questions but they are constitutional in nature because the Census determines the House of Representatives and other important aspects of Americas legal and Constitutional life,” Dershowitz added.

At least one lawsuit has already been filed.

California struck quickly, with Attorney General Xavier Becerra filing a federal lawsuit Tuesday that seeks to block Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’ decision to add a citizenship question in 2020.

Officials from New York and New Jersey, also Democratic-led states, were also planning on leading or participating in lawsuits. Massachusetts signaled interest, too.

Dershowitz spoke in Irving this week before the Institute of Policy Innovation, a free-market think tank.

Mark Levin interviewed House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes on the overall FISA Court abuse and political investigation by the DOJ and FBI.  In a comprehensive interview Levin walks through a timeline of media reporting.

 

 

 

Editor's Note:  Word on the street is that the next big shoe to drop will be a report by DHS that will expose the real threat to voting integrity, the Democratic party.  So, once again it seems we will find that the Left has done what they have accused Russia of hoping to cover their own rotten tracks.   Their trumped up hysteria over Russian interference is coming back to bite them in the ass.  The last thing the left wants is to get rid of electronic voting machines because they make it a lot easier to tamper with election results.  So their hysterical efforts to get rid of Trump with the Russia, Russia, Russia tampered with our election thing is now resulting in what is surely an unintended consequence of people realizing we need to go back to paper ballots.  All electronic machines should be banned!!

~~~~~~~

 

By Robert Barnes
LawAndCrime.com

Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted foreign citizens for trying to influence the American public about an election because those citizens did not register as a foreign agent nor record their financial expenditures to the Federal Elections Commission. By that theory, when will Mueller indict Christopher Steele, FusionGPS, PerkinsCoie, the DNC and the Clinton Campaign? Mueller’s indictment against 13 Russian trolls claimed their social media political activity was criminal because: they were foreign citizens; they tried to influence an election; and they neither registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act nor reported their funding to the Federal Elections Commission.

First, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make Steele a criminal: first, he is a foreign citizen; second, he tried to influence an election, which he received payments to do (including from the FBI itself); and third, he neither registered as a foreign agent nor listed his receipts and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission. Also, according to the FBI, along the way, Steele lied…a lot, while the dossier he disseminated contained its own lies based on bought-and-paid for smears from foreign sources reliant on rumors and innuendo.

Second, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make FusionGPS a criminal co-conspirator: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission.

Third, if Mueller’s theory is correct, then three things make PerkinsCoie a potential target: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its receipt of payments from the Clinton campaign as a “legal expense.”

Fourth, if Mueller’s theory is correct, then three things make the DNC a potential target: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its payments to Steele as laundered legal expenses to a law firm.

Fifth, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make the Clinton Campaign a potential target: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its funding of payments to Steele laundered through a law firm as a “legal expense.”

Don’t expect such an indictment. Mueller chose his targets because he knows they will never appear in court, never contest the charges, and cannot be arrested or extradited as Russian citizens. Mueller’s unprecedented prosecution raises three novel arguments: first, that speaking out about American politics requires a foreign citizen to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act; second, that speaking out about American politics requires a foreign citizen list their source and expenditure of funding to the Federal Election Commission; and third, that mistakes on visa applications constitute “fraud” on the State Department. All appear to borrow from the now-discredited “honest services” theories Mueller’s team previously used in corporate and bribery cases, cases the Supreme Court overturned for their unconstitutional vagueness. The indictment raises serious issues under the free speech clause of the First Amendment and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Robert Barnes is a California-based trial attorney whose practice focuses on Constitutional, criminal and civil rights law. You can follow him at @Barnes_Law.

 

WorldNetDaily
wnd.com

WASHINGTON – California will take the next step in blurring the lines between citizens and non-citizens beginning April Fool’s Day when the state complies with a court order to begin automatically registering to vote all those who are granted driver’s licenses.

The state has long provided driver’s licenses to all who simply claimed, without proof, that they were citizens of in the country legally. There were no checks made or documentation required.

But beginning April 1 every person who gets a California driver’s license will be automatically entitled to vote.

“We are very pleased that Californians will have easier access to voter registration,” said Jeremiah Levine, an attorney with Morrison Foerster who represented the voting-rights groups. “We are especially satisfied that changes will be made before California’s statewide and federal primary elections.”

What do YOU think? Is automatic voter registration by driver’s licenses smart? Sound off in the WND Poll!

The state complied with the order under a program dubbed the California New Motor Voter Act. Signed into law in October 2015, the new statute requires the DMV to forward records for all eligible applicants to the Secretary of State’s Office for registration unless those applicants elect not to register to vote.

The League of Women Voters and three other groups sued the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and Secretary of State’s Office in May 2017, claiming the state burdens would-be voters by making them fill out the same information on two separate forms to register to vote.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

According to the lawsuit filed last May, California ranks “a dismal 46th in the nation” in its rate of registered voters. More than 5.5 million eligible voters were unregistered as of February 2017, according to state data.

Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the ACCE Institute, California Common Cause and the National Council of La Raza.

 

 

By Dan Backer
Investors.com

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of my client, Alabama engineer Shaun McCutcheon, in his challenge to the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) outdated "aggregate limits," which effectively limited how many candidates any one donor could support.

Anti-speech liberals railed against McCutcheon's win, arguing it would create supersized "Joint Fundraising Committees" (JFCs). In court, they claimed these JFCs would allow a single donor to cut a multimillion-dollar check, and the JFC would then route funds through dozens of participating state parties, who would then funnel it back to the final recipient.

Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer claimed the Supreme Court's McCutcheon v. FEC ruling would lead to "the system of legalized bribery recreated that existed prior to Watergate." The Supreme Court, in ruling for us, flatly stated such a scheme would still be illegal.

The Democrats' response? Hold my beer.

The Committee to Defend the President has filed an FEC complaint against Hillary Clinton's campaign, Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic state parties and Democratic mega-donors.

As Fox News reported, we documented the Democratic establishment "us[ing] state chapters as straw men to circumvent campaign donation limits and launder(ing) the money back to her campaign." The 101-page complaint focused on the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) — the $500 million joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign, DNC, and dozens of state parties — which did exactly that the Supreme Court declared would still be illegal.

HVF solicited six-figure donations from major donors, including Calvin Klein and "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane, and routed them through state parties en route to the Clinton campaign. Roughly $84 million may have been laundered in what might be the single largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history.

Here's what we know. Campaign finance law is incredibly complex and infamous for its lack of clarity. As I've explained before, its complexity is a feature, not a bug. Major political players with the resources to hire the very few attorneys who practice campaign finance law benefit from the complexity that keeps others out. Perhaps HVF's architects thought so too, and assumed that if no one understands what's happening, no one would complain.

Here's what you can do, legally. Per election, an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party's main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits — it's legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. And state parties can make unlimited transfers to their national party.

Here's what you can't do, which the Clinton machine appeared to do anyway. As the Supreme Court made clear in McCutcheon v. FEC, the JFC may not solicit or accept contributions to circumvent base limits, through "earmarks" and "straw men" that are ultimately excessive — there are five separate prohibitions here.

On top of that, six-figure donations either never actually passed through state party accounts or were never actually under state party control, which adds false FEC reporting by HVF, state parties, and the DNC to the laundry list.

Finally, as Donna Brazile and others admitted, the DNC placed the funds under the Clinton campaign's direct control, a massive breach of campaign finance law that ties the conspiracy together.

Democratic donors, knowing the funds would end up with Clinton's campaign, wrote six-figure checks to influence the election — 100 times larger than allowed.

HVF bundled these megagifts and, on a single day, reported transferring money to all participating state parties, some of which would then show up on FEC reports filed by the DNC as transferring the exact same dollar amount on the exact same day to the DNC. Yet not all the state parties reported either receiving or transferring those sums.

Did any of these transfers actually happen? Or were they just paper entries to mask direct transfers to the DNC?

For perspective, conservative filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza was prosecuted and convicted in 2012 for giving a handful of associates money they then contributed to a candidate of his preference — in other words, straw  man contributions. He was sentenced to eight months in a community confinement center and five years of probation. How much money was involved? Only $20,000. HVF weighs in at $84 million — more than 4,000 times larger!

So who should be worried? Everyone involved — from the donors themselves to Democratic fundraisers to party officials who filed false reports and, ultimately, to Clinton campaign and HVF officials looking at significant legal jeopardy.

Don't take my word for it. Our complaint is built entirely on the FEC reports filed by Democrats, memos authored by Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook, and public statements from Donna Brazile and others.

The only question that matters: Was the law broken? If the answer is yes, then the corrupt Clinton machine should be held accountable.

• Backer is a veteran campaign counsel, having served more than 100 candidates, PACs, and political organizations, including the Committee to Defend the President. He is founding attorney of political.law, a campaign finance and political law firm in Alexandria, Va.

 

By Michael Snyder
endoftheamericandream.com

Yes, Hillary Clinton really did steal the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders, but most people have absolutely no idea how she actually did it.  In the end, it was all about the money.  A secret joint fundraising agreement that was made between the Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America gave the Clinton campaign full control of the Democratic Party nearly a year before she officially won the nomination.  Normally, a presidential candidate for a major party would only be permitted to take full control once the nomination had been secured.  But in Hillary’s case, her campaign had a stranglehold over the Democratic National Committee virtually the entire time she was engaged in a heated battle with Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination.

In her new book entitled Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House, Donna Brazile gives us the inside scoop about what really happened inside the DNC during this time period.  When she first took over the DNC, she actually had no idea of what had transpired, and when she finally discovered the truth it absolutely horrified her.  On Thursday, Politico published an excerpt from Brazile’s new book in an article entitled “Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC”…

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

Brazile ultimately found the proof that she was looking for by following the money.  The Democratic National Committee has been in terrible financial shape for years, and by the time Brazile took over it had become completely and utterly dependent on the Clinton campaign for financial support.  Here is more from her new book…

The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

But this dependence on the Clinton campaign did not begin once she had won the nomination.

Actually, it started all the way back in August 2015, which was just four short months after Hillary Clinton originally announced that she would be running for president.

Brazile was able to find the joint fundraising agreement that had begun this arrangement, and it is the “smoking gun” which proves that Bernie Sanders never had a fair shot at winning the nomination…

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

How in the world was Bernie Sanders supposed to have a fair chance if Hillary was in full control of “the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised”?

The mainstream media has spent months trying to prove that President Trump colluded with the Russians and they haven’t come up with anything.

And yet now we have smoking gun evidence that Hillary Clinton actually did collude with the DNC to cheat Bernie Sanders out of a fair shot at the Democratic nomination, and the big media outlets so far are not making a big deal out of it.

Sadly, most Americans have just become resigned to the fact that our political system has become a cesspool of filth and corruption.  Most of us simply accept that it has always been this way and that things will never change.

Well, I happen to believe that things can change if we are willing to fight back.  The election of Donald Trump showed us that anything is possible, and we need a new generation of leaders that are willing to go to Washington and drain the swamp.

We cannot let Hillary Clinton off the hook, and so please share this article as widely as possible.  Just because she lost the election does not mean that we should forget about her crimes.  We tend to get on members of Congress for doing this, but it is our responsibility as well.

It has been said that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”, and if we want to take our country back we have to hold corrupt leaders such as Hillary Clinton accountable.  Because if we don’t shine a light on this kind of corruption, it will just keep on happening…

Michael Snyder is a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District, and you can learn how you can get involved in the campaign on his official website. His new book entitled “Living A Life That Really Matters” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.

~~~~~~~~~~

Editor's Note:  Bannon is the first high profile person to really start to embrace the KTAO voting strategy.  Unfortunately he's only targeting the GOP.  The Democrat incumbents need to do as well.  There are two shots are removing incumbents.  Bannon is focusing on the first shot, taking them out in the primaries.
~~~~~~~~~~

On Monday's edition of Hannity, Breitbart executive chairman and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon talked about his plan to challenge every Republican Senator up for re-election in 2018 in the primary, except Sen. Ted Cruz. Bannon said Republican incumbents have committed "economic hate crimes" against the "forgotten man."

 

Editor's Note:   THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT.  There are two shots are removing incumbents.  One shot in the primary, which is the best place to do it.  Then you get another shot during the actual election.  Steve Bannon has the right idea.  Throw the bums OUT!  Get rid of all the worthless, traitorous incumbents across the board.

 

By Ben Kamisar
The Hill

Former White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon celebrated Roy Moore's victory in Tuesday night's GOP Senate primary runoff in Alabama as the beginning of a "revolution" for insurgent Republicans looking to challenge incumbent senators. 

Editor's Note: The primary reason we need the Electoral College is ensure each state has a equal say in decided who is going to represent them as President.  It is imperative that to a huge state like California or New York be prevented from deciding the outcome of every single presidential election.  Those two states do not represent the views and values of every other state.  For example, if the popular vote were used in the 2016 election California alone would have decided the fate of the entire country.  Each state choses who will represent them in Congress and each state must have the right to decide who will represent them as President.

 

 

By Randy Blaser
ChicagoTribune.com

I see there is some squawking about abolishing the Electoral College in favor of direct election of the president by a majority of voters in light of the results of the 2016 election.

While on her book tour, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president in 2016, who won a majority of the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College, said the peculiar institution should be abolished.

Some local newspapers agreed, calling it an outmoded method of election that really isn't fair.

I suppose when you fail to gain the presidency because of this odd institution even though you won the most votes, you're bound to want to change it. Clinton thought the same thing when Al Gore was denied the presidency in 2000, even though he won the popular vote.

And if you supported Clinton and Gore in those two elections, or if your guy was Andrew Jackson in 1824, or Sam Tilden in 1876, or Grover Cleveland in 1888, who all lost the presidency despite winning a popular vote majority, then you might want to abolish it, too.

But one shouldn't be swayed by the passions of the supporters of the losing candidate, which is something the great Alexander Hamilton feared in coming up with the Electoral College. And as we all know, Hamilton is so much in favor today he has his own musical. Could he be wrong?

Unlike those who wish to abolish it, I think that in today's America, the Electoral College is the only way to make an election for president fair.

One danger of direct election of the president by the popular vote is what James Madison called the tyranny of the majority. The founders were so concerned about this concept of the tyranny of the majority, they created a Constitution full of checks and balances.

And it's a good thing they did. I know it is counter-intuitive. We love the phrase majority rule. But if you think about it, there are all sorts of instances where the majority has been stopped.

Not long ago, the majority in California voted to outlaw same-sex marriage. And more than likely, a majority of Americans would also vote to outlaw it. Yet the tyranny of the majority on this issue has been checked by the courts.

There is no such thing as a national election for president, is there? To run for president, a candidate has to successfully get on the ballot in all 50 states. Elections are conducted by the states. How can you devise a system where a union of the states elect the only person who represents all Americans?

The answer was, and still is, the Electoral College, which fills that role neatly for a republic, which is what we have, not a democracy. A candidate must win a majority total in a majority of the states, which keeps one region having too great an influence over the rest of the country.

Finally, there is the recent issue of the alleged Russian tampering with the 2016 election. I know some of my more liberal friends believe Russia rigged the 2016 results, but think about it. Putin must be some sort of evil genius to figure out how to come up with just the right results in just the right states to give Trump the victory in an election where Clinton gains a majority of popular votes by 3 million.

Tougher than solving a Rubik's cube, if you ask me.

The Electoral College makes rigging an election impossible. A president is elected by 50 state elections all with different rules and different methods for voting and different timetables. Rigging 50 elections to get the outcome you want is impossible. Even a brainiac like Clinton couldn't figure it out.

Yes, the Electoral College is an antiquated idea. But maybe the founders were wiser than they knew. Wiser than we know.