America is outgrowing the Democratic Party. That’s not a partisan claim; it’s demographic reality. Blue states are shedding population and will have less representation in Congress and fewer votes in the Electoral College after the next census. Two nonpartisan nonprofits, the Brennan Center for Justice and the American Redistricting Project, crunched the numbers last year and came to conclusions that ought to shock Democrats into changing the way they govern places like California and New York. States that voted for Kamala Harris this year are set to lose 12 seats in the House of Representatives, and an equal number of presidential electors, after 2030, according to the two groups’ extrapolations from Census Bureau data. California is on track to lose four congressmen and electoral votes. New York will lose three, Illinois two, while Oregon, Minnesota and Rhode Island are each going to be down one. Solidly Republican states will get most of the gains, with Texas picking up four congressional seats and electoral votes, Florida acquiring three, and Idaho, Utah and Tennessee each adding one. This year’s battleground states—all of which Donald Trump won—on balance come out slightly ahead of where they are now in the post-2030 projections: Arizona and North Carolina will be up one congressman and electoral vote, and Pennsylvania down one. In an era when control of Congress depends on razor-thin and sometimes single-digit margins, the net loss of 12 seats from reliably Democratic states, and Republican states’ gains, will give the GOP an edge in the House, even if redistricting removes some red congressional seats in blue states and adds some blue seats in red states. At the presidential level, the effect is like flipping a midsize deep-blue state to the GOP: the 12 Electoral College votes Democratic states are losing equal the Electoral College representation of Washington state today. These are much more dramatic shifts than the 2020 Census brought about; its net result was only a slight gain for Republican states. Why does 2030 look so much worse for Democrats? Governors like California’s Gavin Newsom and New York’s Kathy Hochul (and Andrew Cuomo before her) bear the blame. This decade began with blue states under strict COVID lockdowns, while Republican strongholds like Those big GOP states were already easier places to start a family or business, and they handled the COVID crisis better, coming out of it with stronger economies and presenting a more attractive picture to Americans looking to migrate within the country. Newsom, Hochul and Illinois’ J.B. Pritzker simply aren’t competitive with Republican governors like Florida’s Ron DeSantis or Texas’ Greg Abbott when it comes to making their states desirable destinations for ordinary homebuyers or employers in search of a business-friendly environment. Regulatory red tape and vertiginous housing costs are driving middle-class Americans out of the biggest blue states. If anything, the forecast for 2030 is an early warning: Unless Democrats get the cost of living under control, their biggest states will see their population plunge in the next 25 years. Demographers at Cornell University’s Brooks School of Public Policy estimate New York State could lose 2 million people, 13% of the present headcount, by 2050. “Conservative estimates suggest a population decrease of 1 million by 2050, but we think an even greater decline is more likely,” Jan Vink, lead analyst of Brooks School’s Program on Applied Demographics, told the Cornell Chronicle. High rates of foreign immigration to blue states, which were generous about offering public benefits to newcomers, kept population numbers up even as birth rates fell and the sting of bad policies grew sharper. But by voting for Trump, Americans also voted for less immigration, and now California, Illinois and New York will have to entice residents from other states to relocate if these big blues hope to hold on to their national political clout. In the long run, governors and state governments are the key to Congress and the White House. It’s not only Trump who defeated Harris this month—GOP governors have been beating their Democratic counterparts for years and turning the country red, slowly then quickly. The 2028 presidential election will be the last one fought on the present electoral map. But the elections of the 2030s are already taking shape, and several governors who aspire to the party’s nomination in ’28, such as Newsom, are only making the next decade’s fights for the House and White House much harder for Democrats to win. As the sun sets on Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, it’s premature for Democrats to think about the next presidential election until they rethink the kind of governors they elect in the largest, yet shrinking, blue states. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Why Democrats Are Losing Tomorrow’s Elections Today appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The new Republican majority in the 119th Congress has to prove its worth, beginning with how it handles President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees. Trump should give Republican senators a chance to do so, but be ready to take action if they fail to carry out their sworn duty to quickly and efficiently give him the individuals he needs to run the executive branch. The Constitution gives the president authority to nominate “officers of the United States” and, with the Senate’s consent, to appoint them. That’s the default process for executive branch officials, judges, and ambassadors. It is based on the principle of checks and balances between separated powers that is so important for our system of limited government. But the Constitution also provides a backup should the normal process prove unworkable, which has happened all too often in recent years. The president, under Article II, Section 2, “shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” In other words, the trade-off for bypassing the Senate is that a recess appointment can last no more than two years. Trump has expressed his determination to get his new administration in place and get to work promptly, warning that he will use recess appointments if he has to. He’s right not only to put that on the table up front, but to expect Republicans to fulfill the obligation that comes with a constitutional role in the appointment process now that they have taken control of the Senate. Republicans showed how this should be done at the beginning of Trump’s first term, at least with his top-level picks. The new Congress, with a 51-seat Senate majority, convened on Jan. 3, 2017. The relevant committees held hearings on 13 of Trump’s Cabinet picks even before he took office. On Jan. 20, immediately after taking the oath of office, Trump submitted those nominations to the Senate; they were confirmed in an average of 22 days. Now, with a larger Senate majority, there’s no reason that Republicans can’t follow the same plan and act just as quickly. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., who will be Senate majority leader, needs to disclose his plan for carrying out the same expeditious hearing and confirmation process as soon as the new Senate convenes Jan. 3 and he takes control. What happened with Trump’s Cabinet appointees in 2017 doesn’t mean that all nominees to sub-Cabinet positions, agency leadership, and various commissions were processed that smoothly. Unfortunately, there were long, unjustified delays during the first Trump term in confirming nominees for many lower-level but crucial posts that are essential in taking control of the executive branch. That control is vital to carrying out the policy priorities of the president—the policies that the American people voted for when they elected Trump in 2016 and the policies they recently elected him to carry out on the economy, border security, and a host of other vital issues.  The long precedent of the Senate’s providing discretion in a president’s selections, with only rare exceptions, came to an end during Trump’s first term, as one of us wrote in April 2020. Cloture votes, needed to end Senate debate and proceed to a vote on a nominee, occurred only 15 times during the first term of Barack Obama; the Senate took only 30 such votes during the first terms of the previous nine presidents combined. Democrats implemented obstructionism as a political tactic in the Senate, forcing almost 150 cloture votes on Trump’s executive branch nominations by April 2020, over three years into his first term. Then-Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had made the problem worse in December 2011, when the Senate adopted a resolution that it never would go into recess. Instead, the Senate since then has held pro forma sessions every three days in which a lone senator gavels the Senate into session and then gavels it back out.  As a result, there have been no recess appointments since then. The Senate basically took away a constitutional authority that was given to the president and used without objection for more than 200 years, including by Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and numerous other presidents of both major parties.   The best course is to start where the Constitution does—with the regular order of nomination and confirmation. If it is clear from the start that a particular nominee does not have the Senate votes to be confirmed for reasons that have nothing to do with his or her qualifications, or if the process for others is simply taking too long, then a recess appointment might be appropriate. In 2014, the Supreme Court held in NLRB v. Canning that the Senate decides when and how long it is in recess, and that a recess must be at least 10 days long before the president can exercise his authority to make recess appointments. For Trump to regain his recess appointment power, as the Senate’s new majority leader Thune has to end the pro forma sessions. In other words, stop the fake Senate sessions in which no work gets done. That practice ought to end. In the alternative, though hopefully not needed, another constitutional provision could be used against a recalcitrant Senate. In the Canning decision, the Supreme Court said Obama didn’t have the power to override a pro forma session and declare the Senate to be in recess.  However, another constitutional provision could be used by Trump—or any president for that matter—that hasn’t been used before: the adjournment clause.  The adjournment clause, in Section 5 of Article I of the Constitution, provides that neither house of Congress may adjourn for more than three days without the “Consent of the other.” And if the House and Senate disagree on adjourning, Section 3 of Article II provides that the president “may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.” As Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority opinion in Canning, these provisions give “the President (if he has enough allies in Congress) a way to force a recess.” The concurring opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia added: “Members of the President’s party in Congress may be able to prevent the Senate from holding pro forma sessions.”  Not a single justice dissented on that point. So the entire Supreme Court agreed, although not in a legally binding way, that [KM1] a president could use the adjournment clause to force an adjournment of Congress long enough to make recess appointments—as long as there is a disagreement between the Senate and the House on when to adjourn. What needs to happen is quite simple and straightforward: The Senate should get back to regular order where nominations are considered quickly and fairly without the long delays that have resulted  in nominees putting their lives on hold for years while waiting for the Senate to act.  And the artificial bar created by the Senate with phony legislative sessions should end. Then, the president’s recess-appointment authority, which the Constitution’s Framers thought was necessary for a well-run executive branch, will be restored. The post Getting New Leadership Confirmed Quickly for Next Trump Admin appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As a First Lady, the country will scrutinize their attire if something is considered too risque for the White House, such as showing their shoulders or re-wearing a dress. These First Ladies didn't back away from wearing some daring gowns throughout history, though. From Jackie O and Todd Lincoln to Michelle Obama and Melania Trump, here are some of the most controversial First Lady gowns in... Source

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Despite some of the most prominent digital rights groups warning against New York’s age verification law known as Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act – one of those singing its praises is Hillary Clinton. The former US secretary of state joined New York Governor Kathy Hochul on a panel during the Conference on Cyber Regulation, organized by Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, to single out SAFE, and also the Child Data Protection Act as positive developments, that both agreed need to be followed up with federal legislation along the same lines. Yet critics have been cautioning lawmakers not to “sneak in” sweeping surveillance and censorship in the same package with efforts to protect children on the internet, as well as that laws requiring age verification are “incompatible with privacy and free expression rights for everyone.” But Clinton commended Hochul during the conference held last week for the two “landmark” bills and wondered if more states could follow in New York’s footsteps since what would clearly be Clinton’s preferred route – the federal government and Congress – are not doing that. In an ideal world, Hochul responded, “These would all be national federal policies” – and went on to assert that tech companies running social platforms should have implemented those policies on their own. Under the SAFE Act, social media must determine their users’ age by deploying “commercially reasonable methods,” whereas the New York Child Data Protection Act is supposed to allow companies to collect data without consent only from those over 18 – and determine who is a minor and whether there is consent by using “device communications or signals.” Hochul was dismissive of the serious and consistent opposition by rights groups in the US to the attempts to introduce online age verification through proposed methods. They cite the unconstitutional nature of these efforts (including blocking adults’ access to lawful content.) However, the governor said she is “really proud” of the two bills, framing this criticism as coming mainly from the companies themselves, and saying they have used “every argument under the sun to say we can’t do this” – only to then, according to her, implement it. “But the rest of the country and other states should absolutely follow suit. I believe in this so strongly,” said Hochul. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Hillary Clinton, Kathy Hochul Back Controversial Internet Laws Promoting Digital ID appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Well-known British feminist writer Julie Bindel is among those who had the police knock on their door for what turned out to be one of the anonymous “hate crime” complaints denouncing social media posts. But in these cases, the supposed offender is not even informed which post is in question. All that Bindel was able to learn from the police officers who showed up at her home on a Sunday afternoon was that “a transgender man from the Netherlands” was the one behind the complaint. Given such circumstances, it’s not surprising the author chose to reveal her experience in an article scathingly, and succinctly titled, “My Orwellian ordeal at the hands of time-wasting police.” The testimony comes amid another controversy involving the UK police investigating similar “offenses” – namely, Allison Pearson for one of her posts on X. The Telegraph reporter said she was told it was a suspected “non-hate crime incident.” The behavior of the law enforcement in this case has been slammed as anti-free speech, particularly conspicuous since it affected a journalist. Now Bindel describes how the police who made the “house call” would not divulge what kind of hate crime she was suspected of committing, nor how the issue of legal jurisdiction works here – given that the complaint arrived from another country. Which court would deal with the case, Bindel was left wondering. Just as with Pearson, she was told she could voluntarily go to the police station to make a statement. “I said, ‘Absolutely not.’ Why should I do that, when I have no idea what I was being accused of? I had better things to do,” Bindel recounts the interaction, adding that she advised the “bewildered-looking” Scotland Yard officers to instead spend their time investigating violent crimes. The following day, she was informed over the phone that the police would not pursue the investigation. “I was disappointed,” Bindel writes – noting that had the case proceeded all the way to trial, it would have made for a teachable moment – her friends and colleagues protesting in front of the court would have been a way to “educate the public about this Orwellian state of affairs.” Bindel makes a point of the fact she was able to handle the situation calmly because she knew that the police “had no chance” of getting the prosecution to actually charge her for what she assumes is “transphobia.” But, she continues – “I thought about the women who have lost jobs, been hounded out of college courses, friendship groups, and university societies, as well as those who would have found it distressing to be threatened with a hate crime conviction for no good reason.” “Police coming after those of us who do nothing more than speak the truth about gender madness and refuse to bend the knee to the crazy cultists, are doing a massive public disservice,” Bindel concludes. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Knock Knock, It’s Orwell: British Feminist Slams Police Over “Hate Crime” Farce appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

BREAKING: Bragg Recommends Postponement of Trump Sentencing

Boston's Democratic mayor has worked hard to depreciate the value of citizenship and degrade the quality of living in her city. Michelle Wu, a soft-on-crime defender of race-segregated events who drafted a list of critics for police to check on, has funneled taxpayer funds to nonprofits that aid illegal aliens; advocated for closing the Boston Police gang database as well as for allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections; conditioned participation in city life on vaccination status; stood idly by while undocumented migrants overwhelm her city; and looked to noncitizens and children to make potential budgetary decisions. Given her track record and Boston's "sanctuary city" status, Wu's recent suggestions that Beantown might try to hinder the incoming Trump administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens were altogether unsurprising. She may have, however, been surprised by the frankness of the response by President-elect Donald Trump's incoming "border czar." 'They can't cross a clear line.' Wu, who is planning to run for re-election in 2025, reminded GBH News last week that Boston law prohibits police and city officials from helping federal authorities track down and deport illegal aliens. While the laws on the books only guarantee passivity from local law enforcement, she intimated that the city might take an active role in impeding deportation efforts, noting that she has been planning for a number of different scenarios. "We still have other mechanisms where we can identify spaces that might be most targeted and think about protections there," said Wu. When speaking to WCVB-TV on Sunday, Wu appeared to suggest that the city will exhaust its options when protecting illegal aliens from consequence. What we can do is make sure that we are doing our part to protect our residents in every possible way, that we are not cooperating with those efforts that actually threaten the safety of everyone by causing widespread fear and having large-scale economic impact. And then we are providing the spaces to reach out directly to our residents because the last thing we want is for people who are part of our economy, part of our school system, part of our community and the fabric of our city to feel that all of a sudden, they have to retreat in the shadows. In response to Wu, former acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Thomas D. Homan told Newsmax TV's Greg Kelly, "She's not very smart." "President Trump is going to prioritize public safety threats. What mayor or governor doesn't want public safety threats out of their communities? That's our number one responsibility: to protect their communities, and that's exactly what we're going to do," said Homan. "So she helps us [or] she gets the hell out of the way because we're going to do it." Homan stressed that federal law is explicit and Wu would do best to follow it. "There's a clear line here. They can't cross a clear line. I would suggest that she read Title 8, United States Code 1324 iii that says you can't harbor, conceal an illegal alien from federal law enforcement officers," said Homan. "I hope she don't cross that line. They can not cooperate, but there are certain laws in place that they can't cross." The law that Homan referred to makes it a punishable offense if one "conceals, harbors or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor or shield from detection" illegal aliens. If violating the statute and placing someone's life in jeopardy, the offender could be fined and/or imprisoned for up to 20 years for each alien involved. If by violating the statute an individual gets someone killed, then the offender could be "punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life." Like Wu, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) has indicated that she would use "every tool in the toolbox" to shield "residents" from accountability. Blaze News previously reported that Homan intends to send more ICE officers to sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials. "If they're not gonna help us, then we'll just double the manpower in those cities. They don't want ICE agents in their neighborhoods, but they don't let ICE agents in the jail. They don't understand, if you let us in the jail, that'd be less agents in your neighborhood," Homan told "Fox News Live." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

ARGLE! Scott Jennings Leaves HOSTILE CNN Panel Speechless Debating Military Deporting Illegals (Watch)

'What Are You Scared of, Nancy?' Virtue Signaling CongressMAN Scolds Nancy Mace, Gets RATIOED Into Orbit

Third Verse, Same as the 1st! Julie Kelly NUKES David French for His 'Recycled' Anti-Trump Column and LOL