TO THE DISMAY OF HILLARY SUPPORTERS, 'AGENDA JOURNALISTS,' AND LIBERALS, TRUMP IS RIGHT!
If there is one thing these progressive politicians and their followers don’t want, it’s a national voter ID Laws! If it weren’t for Hillary’s feckless campaigning in states where hard workers are considered unimportant to the path of her expected coronation, and the silent majority coming to the rescue, we might all be living in the Socialists States of America today!
Why did Obama open the borders, override our immigration laws, not bother to ‘vet’ illegal immigrants and refugees, and allow other than our Constitutional blueprint for our constitutional republic to take hold in, and survive using their own separate laws, and at the same time demonizing Christianity and its symbols, when the same ideology has been eliminating Christians by the millions overseas?
The White House has ignored the fact that back in 1952 and still today, Islam, by law, is prohibited from US immigration!
Click here > WHY WOULD THIS FACT BE IGNORED BY OBAMA?
So, let’s get back to the topic at hand, voter fraud, and why voter ID should be on Trump’s top ten issues needed to protect America’s sovereignty moving in to the future! What reason would Obama be spending a Trillion Dollars of taxpayers’ money a year supporting unvetted illegal immigrants and refugees if it weren’t for their vote? Now let’s look at why our election process is ripe for Obama’s Socialist transformation of America game plan:
Although some states require some form of ID before voting, California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C. all require no identification before voting……This list of states that don’t have any ID required is all you need to know!
According to The Daily Caller, Sarsour was recently spotted posing with an accused financier for the terrorist group Hamas at a large Muslim convention in Chicago.
It is unclear if the two are related even though they have the same last name.
Linda Sarsour has acknowledged in past interviews that she has cousins serving time in Israel due to their work for Hamas....Move on, nothing new here......
THE ‘PAID TO REPORT’ MEDIA WITH ITS ‘AGENDA JOURNALISTS’ ARE PROTECTING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF VOTER FRAUD BEING THE ‘REAL DEAL!’
Three million votes in the U.S. presidential election were cast by illegal aliens, per Greg Phillips of the VoteFraud.org organization.
If true, this would mean that Donald Trump still won the contest despite widespread vote fraud and almost certainly won the popular vote.
"We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens," tweeted Phillips after reporting that the group had completed an analysis of a database of 180 million voter registrations.
Per current indications, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by around 630,000 votes, although around 7 million ballots remain uncounted.
Virtually all the votes cast by 3 million illegal immigrants are likely to have been for Hillary Clinton, meaning Trump might have won the popular vote when this number is considered.
Vote fraud using ballots cast in the name of dead people and illegal alien voters was a huge concern before the election.
On the morning of the election there were 4 million dead people on U.S. voter registration rolls.
But, in fact, it's almost certain that illegals did vote — and in significant numbers. Whether it was three million or not is another question.
While states control the voter registration process, some states
are so notoriously slipshod in their controls (California, Virginia and New York — all of which have political movements to legalize voting by noncitizens — come to mind) that it would be shocking if many illegals didn't vote. Remember, a low-ball estimate says there are at least 11 million to 12 million illegals in the U.S., but that's based on faulty Census data. More likely estimates put the number at 20 million to 30 million.
What's disappointing is that instead of at least seriously considering Trump's charge, many media report merely parrot leftist talking points and anti-Trump rhetoric by pushing the idea that Republicans and others not of the progressive left who seek to limit voting to citizens only are racist, xenophobic nuts.
But there is evidence to back Trump's claims. A 2014 study in the online Electoral Studies Journal shows that in the 2008 and 2010 elections, illegal immigrant votes were in fact quite high.
"We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections," wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.
Specifically, the authors say that illegals may have cast as many as 2.8 million votes in 2008 and 2010. That's a lot of votes. And when you consider the population of illegal inhabitants has only grown since then, it's not unreasonable to suppose that their vote has, too.
Really? That's simply preposterous, frankly, as anyone who has lived in California can attest. Leftist get-out-the-vote groups openly urge noncitizens to vote during election time, and the registration process is notoriously loose. To suggest there is no illegal voting at all is absurd.
What's appalling, as we said, is not the media's skepticism, but its denial. But why? Illegal votes shouldn't be allowed to sway U.S. elections. So why tolerate them?
When the far left began insinuating that the Russians had hacked the election, the media treated the non-supported claims with the utmost of respect. They still do. But not Trump's suggestion that illegals voted, and in large numbers, mainly for Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton.
And, yes, Trump is right: Illegal votes may in part explain why Hillary now has a nearly two-million-vote lead in the popular vote, even though she lost convincingly in the Electoral College. A Rasmussen Reports poll earlier this year found that 53% of the Democratic Party
supports letting illegals vote, even though it's against the law. It's pretty clear why.
Yes, there is room for skepticism of any claim that's made. But every vote cast by someone who isn't by law permitted to vote disenfranchises American citizens. The charge should at least be taken seriously.
Meanwhile, we will expect the media to continue to give its fawning attention to the spurious challenges of nonexistent vote tampering leveled by Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein, on behalf of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
While the media savage Trump and his motives, please recall what Hillary said in the debates: that the idea a defeated candidate wouldn't recognize the results of the election was "horrifying." And she has also agreed there is no "actionable evidence" of either hacking or outside interference, despite joining with Stein to seek recounts.
So, what about Clinton's motives?
As for Stein, who barely registered a blip on the 2016 electoral screen, the $5 million or so she has raised to pay for recounts really seems more like a ploy to bail out her failed campaign than a serious attempt at a recount. But the media continue to treat her like a serious political operator — not the far-left kook she is. ~~By 'Help' ?, a Friend of America!
RELATED:
Will Illegal Foreign Voters Steal the Election?
Sorry, But Illegal Aliens Cost the U.S. Plenty!
Democrats Want Illegals to Vote Because They Vote Democrat!
The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power.
Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to ensure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.
The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less than 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously, this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes count more than those people living in medium and large states.
While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constitutional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing. One way of modifying the system s to eliminate the winner take all part of it. The method that the states vote for the electoral college is not mandated by the constitution but is decided by the states. Two states do not use the winner take all system, Maine and Nebraska. It would be difficult but not impossible to get other states to change their systems, unfortunately the party that has the advantage in the state is unlikely to agree to a unilateral change.
Donald Trump was proven right again. Much to the dismay of Hillary supporters, the media, and liberals
Trump Was Right, Recount Discovers Massive Voter Fraud in Detroit!
If you haven’t been paying attention, Hillary used her proxy, Jill Stein, to start multiple recounts. Hillary would use Jill Stein and Jill would get access to Hillary’s heartbroken supporters to use as her personal ATM machine.
And use she did — she has raised close to $7 million from these gullible dupes.
But that dynamic duo was not prepared for what happened in Michigan, one of the states they recounted.
Michigan has a very unique election law. To protect from this exact situation.
There are 3 types of items Michigan tracks. First is the computer votes. Second is the total
number of ballots they ran through the computers. Third is the signature of the voter on the official voter rolls.
If the last 2 – number of ballots and signatures don’t match the votes can’t be recounted.
And therein lies the doom of Hillary’s plan.
Hillary had hoped to make up the 10,000 votes she lost by in Wayne County. Which she won 2-1. This is Detroit and it is rife with fraud and corruption.
So, Hillary liked her chances. Except that she, like a typical liberal, didn’t fully understand the law when she called for a recount. If she did she wouldn’t have dared risk exposing what officials found when they tried to reconcile the numbers before the recount even began.
One-third of precincts in Wayne County, 610 out of 1,680 precincts did not match.
Meaning someone, and it wasn’t Trump, stuffed these ballots with Hillary votes.
In a blatant attempt to steal the election.
Those counties will not be recounted as a result ending Hillary’s attempt.
Hillary? Anyone know Trey Gowdy’s cell phone number?
Someone should answer for this assault on democracy.
The Heritage Foundation has compiled a database of hundreds of fraud cases nationwide -- and those only count the people who were caught. Requiring that voters prove that they are who they say they are is common sense. The concept enjoys lopsided support across a wide ideological spectrum. Voter ID laws aren't a silver bullet to stop all fraud, obviously, and elements of some legislation sometimes push too far in ways that deserve scrutiny. But in general, they represent a reasonable and sensible safeguard against illegal voting, and claims of discriminatory and disparate racial impact are overblown. The Left's effective pro-fraud stance is both wildly
unpopular and wrong. This is a worthwhile and winnable political fight to wage -- and if the courts overreach on this front by flouting clear Supreme Court precedent, they should be criticized harshly. Pointing to robed lawyers overturning overwhelmingly-supported voter integrity laws is a fairly straightforward method of illustrating and attacking judicial activism.
With the current threat of Facebook's feckless ability to be bipartisan, feel free to befriend me at 'Jonathan E P Moore' to get direct and instant access, or follow 'While You Were Sleeping' at www.whileyouweredozing.blogspot.com Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, and Google Plus, and PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.
Friends Of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.
Friends Of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment