Eric Holder, the Former Attorney General who also happens to be the first Attorney General in US history held in contempt of Congress, says that the inclusion of a citizenship question in the upcoming 2020 census is an affront to our democracy.
The theory here is that illegal immigrants, who coincidentally are breaking the law by being here, will avoid filling out their census forms for fear they may be exposed to immigration enforcement.
The census is required to count citizens and non-citizens, which would include immigrants who are here legally and have not been granted citizenship. Liberals consider this racist because it also includes illegals, most of whom are Hispanics south of the border.
Democrats say that if illegals chose not to fill out the forms out of fear of immigration enforcement, they stand to lose apportionment which could cause liberal states to lose representatives. California, which has what many say are the largest concentration of illegals in the country, may be the biggest loser, taking away precious electoral votes.
Attorney’s General from liberal states have decided to take Trump to court over this, which I’m sure will include liberal sprinkling of the term “racism” in all their briefs. They will also have to admit that illegals give them power. Is it any wonder they are upset about immigration enforcement affecting headcount?
At the same time, former Justice John Paul Stevens writes in the NY Times an (irrelevant) legal opinion that the Second Amendment is outdated. His reasoning? To give the kids who survived a massacre from a disturbed former classmate a path to achieve their objectives.
The naive activist’s message attacking the NRA and its law abiding members earned his blessing as he quoted former Chief Justice Warren Burger’s statement that the NRA itself is a “fraud”. In other words, more fodder for their cause, even though it is mostly a partisan, irrelevant argument.
This made liberals squeal, citing Stevens appointment by President Ford, a Republican, as if somehow that adds weight to his farcical commentary. Historically, Stevens was a liberal force on the bench, which makes the political party of who appointed him argument moot.
But hey, they don’t want your guns. In fact, they are willing to compromise by offering a change to the amendment to ameliorate the concerns of staunch pro Second Amendment supporters argument about hunting, or something. Here is an example of their compromising language such as this:
A revised Second Amendment could read as follows: “The right to bear arms for hunting, sport and recreation being a cherished and time-honored tradition, the exercise of this right by responsible persons for these purposes shall not be infringed.”
In other words, they have deemed a guns purpose, in responsible hands, is only good for hunting as a recreational sport. You no longer need arms to protect your family, property and in defense of a tyrannical government.
In other words, the liberals have your best interests in mind.