Indiana Governor Calls Special Session To Redraw Congressional Maps

'If Indiana doesn’t act like it wants to win, it shouldn't be surprised when it loses,' said Indiana state Sen. Liz Brown, a supporter of redistricting.

Free Abortions And No Prisons: 6 Craziest Beliefs Of The Socialist Faction Infiltrating The Democrat Party

Democrats who embrace rotten DSA policies festering in their party are paving the way for a nation that would make our founders weep.

Leftists Admit They Can’t Win Without Rewriting The Constitution

In his new book, Osita Nwanevu, a contributing editor at The New Republic, offers the same ideas the left has been repeating for years now.

Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration could greatly impact Democrats' political clout



Over 30 members of the Democrat-dominated California legislature signed a letter last month urging Republican congressional members from the Golden State "to request the President to end the crackdowns on hardworking, taxpaying immigrants in Southern California and throughout the state, as the actions are causing significant harm to our economy."

The June 18 letter noted that over one-quarter of the state's residents are "immigrants, totaling nearly 11 million people, including about 1.8 million who are undocumented," and suggested that "the vast majority of these folks contribute to California's economy and way of life."

For the first time in its history, California lost a seat in Congress in 2021, down from 53 to 52 following the 2020 census.

Those migrants, both legal and illegal, also contribute to the state's headcount in the decennial census.

While California Democrats might be genuinely concerned about the potential impact of losing low-wage foreign laborers who stole into the homeland, they also have cause to be concerned about what their party stands to lose as a result of a population decline precipitated by immigration enforcement.

As California is the most populous state in the union, it presently enjoys the most representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. However, for the first time in its history, California lost a seat in Congress in 2021, down from 53 to 52 following the 2020 census and a year marked by a drop in the state's population by more than 182,000 souls.

Owing to California's anemic population growth and significant growth elsewhere in the country, the state could lose additional seats in Congress and votes in the Electoral College through census-driven apportionment, as well as receive proportionately less of the federal money that is distributed by population.

RELATED: Build back better? Then stop outsourcing our agricultural soul

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Citing December 2023 U.S. Census Bureau population estimates, the Brennan Center for Justice indicated in a report that California could lose four congressional seats after the 2030 census, and may fall to second place behind Texas in total population before 2040 if current trends continue.

"Based on the most recent trends, Texas would gain four seats and Florida three seats in the next reapportionment, placing Texas within striking distance of becoming the largest state, perhaps as early as 2040," said the report. "Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee also would each gain a new congressional seat, as would three mountain states: Arizona, Idaho, and Utah."

In a December update, the Brennan Center noted that "these big apportionment changes would also significantly change political parties’ Electoral College math starting with the 2032 election."

Even if a Democrat carried the so-called blue wall states and both Arizona and Nevada, they would eke out only a narrow 276-262 victory in 2032 if the Brennan Center's projections are correct.

RELATED: JD Vance rejects Democrats' narrative, names the 'real threat to democracy'

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

While the American Redistricting Project changed its forecast of California congressional seat losses from five to three, the Democratic stronghold's dominance still appears to be waning.

California has hemorrhaged residents to other states in recent years, though CalMatters noted that the intranational population loss is offset by inbound international traffic.

Democrats' dominance could be undermined further not only by the Trump administration continuing to remove illegal aliens but by the administration slowing down legal immigration into the country. After all, state officials credited the first Trump administration's immigration policies with helping set the stage for the 2021 congressional seat loss, reported the New York Times.

"If that immigration stops, then that's going to have some real consequences for our population growth and ultimately for our representation, for sure," Eric McGhee, a demographer at the Public Policy Institute of California, told CalMatters.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump’s Effort To Remove Noncitizens From Census Would Affect Elections

If the second Trump administration fails to win court approval of its expected effort to exclude illegal migrants from the census, this time around, it will have backup.

This Bad Legal Interpretation Allows Democrats To Skew Congress With Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigrants enjoy many privileges while unlawfully in the United States — but being counted for apportionment should not be one of them.

Biden Engineered A Border Crisis To Secure Political Power

The Biden administration, activist judges, and the propaganda press formed a three-pronged machine... to dismantle the system's ability to deport en masse.

Agree to disagree? More like surrender to the script



Wouldn’t you know it? It was bound to happen.

You’re chatting with a friend about this, that, and the other thing — carefully steering clear of politics, just like always.

You both know you don't see eye to eye when it comes to today’s contentious political landscape, so you do your best to keep things light. But then, out of nowhere, the forbidden topic appears. It sneaks into the conversation, innocently enough — until suddenly, it’s front and center.

I knew my friend Jeffrey didn’t like Trump, so I always tried to avoid politics when we talked. But somehow, I found myself on the phone with him getting a lecture on “how bad Trump is for democracy.”

What happened?

All I did was mention a film I thought we both appreciate: “Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin.”

With people in general justifying the absolute obvious craziness of the far left by being silent and looking the other way, we can announce a brand-new term: ‘political immaturity.’

I genuinely believed it was a safe topic. We’re both Christians, both admirers of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his courageous stand against Hitler and the Nazis. We also share respect for Eric Metaxas, whose book on Bonhoeffer many consider the definitive biography and which inspired the film adaptation.

Plus, Jeffrey knows I was Metaxas’ radio producer for many years. So really, I thought we were on solid, non-controversial ground.

But Jeffrey immediately jumped in to point out that Bonhoeffer’s descendants don’t support Eric Metaxas — because Metaxas supports Trump. That, in his view, proved just how awful Trump is and, dare I say it, how Hitler-like. From there, it was only a short leap to his inevitable conclusion: Trump is bad for democracy.

I calmly responded that descendants of historical figures, while entitled to their opinions, are just as influenced by the culture of their time as anyone else. Then I added what I considered the most glaring problem with his argument: the United States isn’t a democracy — we’re a constitutional republic.

I suggested that, in many ways, democracy can be a lousy form of government. After all, it allows 51% of the people to impose their will on the other 49%, forcing them to live under rules they didn’t choose and might not benefit from. In my quick tutorial on democracy versus the American system, I didn’t even get into the brilliance of the framers’ creation of the Electoral College — a safeguard that gives individual states real power and influence.

To my surprise, Jeffrey actually agreed with me on that point. But then he pivoted, arguing that Trump was just doing whatever he wanted — like sending back all the “asylum-seekers” who crossed the border during Joe Biden’s presidency.

I asked him how he knew all 15 million migrants (give or take) were asylum-seekers. Who vetted them? And I reminded him that Trump had nearly been blocked from deporting even the worst of the worst — violent criminals — by an unelected judge from ... well, somewhere.

Then I said, “It’s hard to imagine the words ‘Christian’ and ‘Democrat’ even appearing in the same sentence these days.”

That didn’t go over well.

I listed just a few of the issues Democrats continue to support. I left out the wide-open borders — which my friend seemed fine with, even after I brought up the rise in sex trafficking, fentanyl deaths, and inner-city crime — and focused on other examples. I mentioned sex-change procedures for children, drag queen story hours in public libraries, and men competing in women’s sports.

That’s when Jeffrey cut me off.

“Of course I don’t agree with those things,” he said.

And then came the words every far-left friend says when he's on the brink of losing an argument to inconvenient facts: “Let’s just agree to disagree.”

End of discussion.

Since Jeffrey is a friend, I let the conversation fizzle out. We exchanged a few more pleasantries and then said our goodbyes.

But not long after I hung up, I realized how disingenuous “agree to disagree” can be in a discussion or debate. That phrase shuts down dialogue. It signals that neither side will reconsider his position and, worse, that neither side is allowed to keep making his case or challenging the other’s facts.

What struck me even more was how casually Jeffrey used the phrase — not just with me, but seemingly with his own party. It was as if he could personally find things like child gender surgeries or men in women’s locker rooms repugnant — especially as a Christian — but still wave it all off because Democrats “stand up for the little guy.”

To avoid making waves, many Christians stepped onto the slippery slope of so-called “political correctness” years ago. The idea was simple: Being on the “right side” of politics meant standing up for marginalized people. And what Christian wouldn’t want to be seen doing that? After all, didn’t the Bible and the saints speak out for the disadvantaged?

But over time, political correctness evolved. Or rather, it escalated. “PC” gave way to “woke,” and suddenly we were all expected to embrace a new worldview — one in which anyone with a shred of sanity and compassion would naturally join the swelling ranks of the awakened. Christians, of course, were included in that expectation — if they knew what was good for them and wanted to belong to the era’s grand new “Awokening.”

So what’s next?

With people in general justifying the absolute obvious craziness of the far left by being silent and looking the other way, we can announce a brand-new term: “political immaturity.”

When you ignore common sense to do whatever you are told is “correct” and “woke,” you have not matured into rationally thinking for yourself. You might start with a wish to "go along to get along," and now you are being led around and told what to think and do like somebody's child.

The only hope for America over these next few critical years is a true Great Awakening to the truth within the church that can lead to a foundational restoration within this great country.

Optimistically speaking, if we take this route, future generations might look back and say with joy: “Wouldn’t you know it? It was bound to happen!”

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at American Thinker.