Category: Elections

Hmmm…I’m sure our title made you ask a few questions about today’s story. We could mean “Left, as in Democrats and those politically left of Democrats.” Or we could mean “Left, as in ‘Left Behind.'” (That’s a Christian movie that depicts how people here respond after the Rapture happens. The Rapture is the Biblical event when Christ reappears to take Christians who are alive to Heaven) But our story today doesn’t reference either. Today we are looking at “Left,” as in “What is remaining.” It may have been more appropriate to title today’s offering as “What is Remaining.”

It is pretty simple for every American to know what has not been left in current American governing: “Investigate.” We have just completed 2+ years of a federal Special Counsel investigation of the President and his 2016 campaign for the purposes of establishing the validity of claims that he or his campaign staff members or both worked with Russia to impact the 2016 presidential election results in his favor. Special Counsel Mueller left NOTHING to question in his 488-page report detailing their findings. Mueller made it abundantly clear that through that intense investigation in which 37 indictments were issued, none of which were for the President or those in his campaign for working with the Russians or even having ties to the Russians regarding his campaign.

During the investigation, Democrats along with several Establishment Republicans feared that President Trump would somehow either fire Mueller or interfere with his investigation. There were serious discussions on Capitol Hill about passing legislation to prevent the President from doing so. No such legislation was passed. And it certainly came as a surprise to those Democrat and Republican worriers that the President nor anyone in his administration made any attempt to fire Mueller, interfere with the investigation in any way, or even to use a declaration of Executive Privilege to shield from the public any of the Mueller findings that directly impacted the investigation of the President. You probably know this: the President had every legal right to fire Mueller and/or to exert Executive Privilege, both of which he declined to use.

But even with the exhaustive Mueller report, Democrats 2+ years of fawning over “their guy” Mueller and how he was the only person in D.C. with any legal credibility, and that he certainly would find any dirt on the President who they all knew had worked with Putin to change the election results, Democrats en masse refuse to accept Mueller’s results. Instead, they have another plan: “INVESTIGATE!” And it has already turned into a three-ring circus. Who is surprised?

Everyday Americans find themselves staring into a quagmire of government today that they depend on for protection, for governing, and for assurance that everything is O.K. Yet those Americans see their elected officials abandon THOSE necessary and committed to accomplishing tasks. In their abandonment, they are simply today doing one thing and one thing only in their governing responsibilities: INVESTIGATE President Trump.

They are doing so in spite of the fact that their proverbial “Good Guy” — Robert Mueller — found NOTHING to justify taking any action against President Trump. Yet Democrat leaders are totally committed to forcing Trump out of office. In doing so, if they are successful, they will accomplish one thing and one thing only: the subversion of the results of a legal presidential election. In doing so, if successful they will negate the votes of over 60 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump.

To that end, today we are bringing to the forefront a question that few are yet asking and even fewer are concentrating on: What things in D.C. are NOT getting done — “Left” undone — that our lawmakers could and should be doing? We at TruthNewsNetwork have done the “deep-dive” for you, and the results are below. They will certainly shock you. But more than shock, they will anger you — as well they should. Take a ride with us on today’s “Deep-Dive.”

What’s “Left?”

Before we look at what’s “Left” that is undone in Congress, would you like to see just how busy Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives is this week? After all, their promise was that if voters gave Democrats back the House, they would push through all the legislation that Republicans failed to implement that are critical to the U.S. and its citizens. They won the House. And, Boy, they are really busy! Here is the full agenda of the House of Representatives for the last 3 days: April 22,23, and 24 of 2019. (This story is being written Wednesday, April 24, 2019, to be published Thursday, April 25)

Monday, 4/22

Mondays are usually really busy when the House is in session. That’s the day that lawmakers file most of the bills to be considered during that week. This past Monday, they loaded up their agenda for legislation for the entire week:

1. H.R.2348 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) To require automatic sealing of certain criminal records, and for other purposes.

2. H.R.2349 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) Climate Change Education Act

3. H.R.2350 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) To award a Congressional Gold Medal to the 23d Headquarters, Special Troops, and the 3133rd Signal Service Company, in recognition of their unique and highly distinguished service as a “Ghost Army” that conducted deception operations in Europe during World War II.

4. H.R.2351 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) Protecting Airport Communities from Particle Emissions Act

5. H.R.2352 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) To improve the ability of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Coast Guard, and coastal States to sustain healthy ocean and coastal ecosystems by maintaining and sustaining their capabilities relating to oil spill preparedness, prevention, and response, and for other purposes.

6. H.Con.Res.35 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States is committed to ensuring a safe and healthy climate for future generations, and to create solutions for restoring the climate.

Whoo-Who! They worked their butts off, didn’t they? Gotta’ seal those criminal records; plan to educate today’s tender youth to the vast truths about climate change; award those mighty men who served as a “Ghost Army” in WWII  (definitely a worthy cause); Particle emission police desperately needed for Airport communities; Earth would disappear without NOAA’s exhaustive preparations for that next oil spill; and that resolution to tell the World that Congress is committed to Climate Change!

Wednesday, 4/24

The House had no floor action on Wednesday and had one committee meeting:

Committee on Education and Labor Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Investment and Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity joint field hearing entitled Protecting Those Who Protect Us: Ensuring the Success of our Student Veterans

But wait: you forgot about Tuesday!

They were so worn out from Monday’s massive workload, they decided to take care of ZERO legislation on Tuesday of this week.

But one thing is certain: there were dozens and dozens of House meetings — many were one-on-one — to discuss the latest plethora of intricate plans to initiate the most important legislation of this century: IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP!

Let’s Get to “What’s Left”

This is not really a hard one. We’ve all known for the 2 years since the 2016 election and even the 2 years before what the most important issues in American’s lives are. But just in case you forgot, we’ll mention them here:

1. Immigration  To Americans, (depending on what’s happening on any one day in the U.S.) fixing the immigration system is the #1 issue, or at least always in the top 3. The promises to totally repair our broken legal immigration system, stop ALL illegal immigration, and to first build a wall on our southern border was the #1 reason Americans voted Donald Trump into office. The President put several bills in front of Democrats in his first 2 years. One of them even included the Holy Grail of immigration for Democrats: a path to citizenship for DACA recipients! Democrats have screamed for that for years. But Democrats obviously turned down that offer and every other immigration reform offer from the President. Why do you think that is? Simple: they refuse to do ANYTHING in legislation that any American will consider something initiated by President Trump. They simply don’t want to give him a win on anything. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of illegals flock to our southern border every week and are — because of judicial political partisanship — crushing our financial, educational, and medical systems by pushing the usages of those processes beyond their capabilities. And let’s not even think about the hundreds of thousands of felonies committed by many of these illegals that not only have filled our prisons but have raped, murdered, robbed, and invaded homes of thousands of Americans while the immigration system looks exactly like Barack Obama left it: broken, wide-open, and dangerous. (No House Immigration legislation being considered this week)
2. Healthcare is another big reason why Donald Trump was elected President. The American Healthcare System does NOT need to be fixed: it’s in great shape and is one of the best in the World. Healthcare “finance” is broken and needs a drastic change. Don’t confuse the two. ObamaCare was and is a nightmare for Americans. You all know the horrors of its financial structure and the lies told by everyone at the top of the Obama Administration (including Obama himself) to shove it down the throats of a willing American populace. Candidate Trump and almost every GOP member of Congress ran for election and re-election on the promise of “We’ll repeal and replace Obamacare if elected!” They were elected — and, thanks to the late Senator John McCain (R-AZ), could not even bring it to the floor of the Senate to debate alternatives after the House sent over a bill passed to repeal ObamaCare. Healthcare finance’s traumatic condition is about to tear our nation’s healthcare system apart. Democrats promised — if they won the House — to fix healthcare finance. (No House Healthcare Finance legislation being considered this week)
3. Infrastructure America’s highways, including interstate routes, are in almost universal disrepair. This was the one American political issue most thought could easily get done. Donald Trump while campaigning made a promise for legislation he would get Republicans to offer and pass in a Trump administration. In his first year as president, he sent an infrastructure bill to Congress that was a behemoth. It’s framework including massive spending made possible by federal, state, and private entities working together to underwrite and implement the greatest U.S. infrastructure rebuilding program in history. It did not even get to first base! Democrats, however, promised to (with a win in the House in 2018) make Infrastructure their priority. They won the House, but no Infrastructure bill has shown up. (No House Infrastructure legislation being considered this week)
4. Middle-Class Tax Cuts Many in America laughed at President Trump’s campaign promises to reduce federal income taxes on the Middle Class if he was elected. And he did just that. 95% of all Americans saw their 2018 personal income taxes reduced. Democrats, however, clung to a lie for the entire year of 2018, telling Americans that those tax cuts benefited only America’s wealthy. When “Tax Time” for 2018 tax filing began, surprise, surprise: the Middle-Class tax cuts were confirmed! Democrats promised that with a win of the House, THEY would give the Middle Class a well-deserved tax cut. (No House Middle-Class legislation being considered this week)
5. Foreign Policy Democrats have always fashioned their party to be the only group to have legitimacy with citizens and leaders of foreign nations. Americans watched during the 8-year Obama presidency as American credibility overseas dwindled dramatically. Foreign leaders did not feel comfortable that they could trust the U.S. to fulfill its promises and its obligations to their countries. Democrats spent the first 2 years of Trump’s term deriding his attempts to bridge gaps that had become so rampant and obvious between the U.S. and other countries. But, lo and behold, respect for America zoomed back to the world stage with President Trump. Democrats promised with their control of the House they would reclaim the once stellar foreign policy reputation with government counterparts around the world. Speaker Pelosi even made a world tour to Europe during the Christmas/New Years holiday to assure our foreign allies that Democrats would now control foreign policy legislation and that SHE has the same power as the U.S. President. By all accounts, Pelosi was virtually laughed out of Europe! (By the way: No House Foreign Policy legislation being considered this week)

Summary

We could go on and on, but we won’t. Americans on the most part see and recognize that President Trump — even with 95% negative slant of all media stories about him, those in his administration, his policies, his haircut, and even members of his family, this President has accomplished almost all of the things on which he campaigned. And those he has failed on were due to the unwillingness of Congress to pass his proposed legislation. No other President in my lifetime has achieved nearly as much in their first 2 years as Donald Trump.

AND MOST AMERICANS DON’T EVEN KNOW THE MAJORITY OF HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS. WHY? THE MEDIA DO NOT REPORT THEM!

Do you know what Democrats are doing instead of conducting the business of America, which is supposed to be legislating? They ONLY look ahead to the next election. All of their activities are to assure their existing power in that election while hopefully adding the Senate AND the White House to their “power-stash.”

So what’s their plan? What’s their platform? What are they going to do for Americans if they get that additional significant power?

ANSWER: Whatever they want to do. And certainly with little or NO regard for the desires of the American electorate.

Don’t be shocked; don’t be angry at TruthNewsNetwork for telling you that. You’re all plenty capable to grasp what’s going on. In case you missed it, here in brief bullet point format to close today is exactly what Democrats are doing now and plan to do through the 2020 election.

Now they are doing this:

• Investigating Donald Trump

What else are they going to do until the 2020 election?

• Investigate Donald Trump

What is the Democrat Party Platform for 2020?

• Investigate Donald Trump

” C’est tout!” (French for, “That’s All, Folks!)

 

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

No other part of our election system is as important as the Electoral College. No other part of our election system has come under fire through the years since its establishment than the Electoral College. The furor over its existence ebbs and flows through cycles. But in recent presidential elections that were decided by the voting results of the Electoral College which totals were different than the results of the American popular vote have put discussions about ending the Electoral College front and center again.

It IS controversial. And that controversy in large part is the result of American voters not understanding its structure, its purpose, and its controversy. Those Americans that are confused pretty much all subscribe to the thinking “Why even have it at all, especially when in 2000 the Bush 43 election and then in the 2016 Trump election its results (and ultimately the presidency and vice presidency) were decided by other than popular vote totals of ALL Americans?”

So in all the confusion and misunderstanding, we thought it best to delve into ALL the details of the Electoral College so everyone can participate in educated discourse about its value, its history, and its impact on the country going forward.

Let’s take a look, after which in our Summary we will share OUR conclusions.

The Electoral College

The Electoral College members for each state are voted on by the state’s residents on voting day. In some states, the electors’ names are printed on the ballots directly under the presidential candidates’ names or grouped by party somewhere else on the ballot. In other states, the names of electoral college nominees are not even listed on the ballot.

When you vote for a presidential and vice-presidential candidate on the ballot, you are really voting for the electors of the political party (or unaffiliated candidate) by which they were nominated. Take the North Carolina General Statute § 163-209, for example: “A vote for the candidates for President and Vice-President named on the ballot is a vote for the electors.”

This is the case for 48 states. It’s known as the winner-take-all system, where all electors go with the candidate who wins the popular vote regardless of how close the vote is. So if the Democratic candidate narrowly wins the popular vote in Texas, for instance, 38 Democratic electors (38 being the total number of electoral votes in the state) will represent Texas as a voting block.

The other system, known as the congressional district method, is observed in Maine and Nebraska. In these states, the vote is split between the electoral vote which goes to the winner of the statewide popular vote and the congressional district vote. The state is divided into congressional districts, each with one electoral vote. The winner of the popular vote in each district is awarded an electoral vote. Potentially, this could result in a divided electoral vote but so far it has not happened in either state.

Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in the state he or she represents, or for the candidate affiliated with his or her political party. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people’s decision. When electors cast their vote without following the popular vote or their party vote, they are known as faithless electors.

In response to faithless electors’ actions, at least two dozen states have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party vote or the popular vote. Some states even assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine. For example, the state of North Carolina fines faithless electors $10,000. However, a number of scholars believe such state-level laws would not survive constitutional challenge; of the 158 faithless electors, none have ever been punished.

In most presidential elections, the candidate who wins the popular vote will also receive the majority of the electoral votes, but this is not always the case. Some electors abstain from voting, while others vote differently than they pledged to vote. Despite 11th hour changes within the Electoral College, only five candidates in U.S. history have won an election by losing the popular vote and winning (or deadlocking) the electoral vote:

Today, a candidate must receive 270 of the 538 votes to win the election. In cases where no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the decision is thrown to the House of Representatives by virtue of the 12th Amendment. The House then selects the president by majority vote with each state delegation receiving one vote to cast for the three candidates who received the most electoral votes.

Who Decides an Impasse?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

It is becoming more and more obvious that Democrats are dead-set on finding ways to allow illegals to vote in U.S. elections. Their reasons are many, but all rely on one basic premise that is being confirmed again and again as being true: rank and file Democrats who have voted for their party’s candidates are falling to the wayside. More and more are becoming true independents while many are deciding they are conservatives. This is due in part by the dramatic slide to the left in Democrat Party policies. As an example, economically comparing 1960 J.F.K.’s tax policies to those of this Democrat Party would define President Kennedy as an outright hard right conservative!

Each American understands the dangers in our two-party political system. We will not go into the details of its structure nor the good or evil each possess in their methods, but it IS important for all to understand this one thing: membership in the Democrat Party in America is NOT growing. In fact, their membership is sliding away. Americans can no longer ignore the #Walkaway campaign formed in 2016 that has embraced Democrat Party voters who have become disenfranchised with Democrat policies and candidates and have moved “across the aisle.” This swift yet steady decline in party membership has sent Democrat leaders into a frenzy: “We MUST find Democrat voters!”

That’s the fundamental reason — no, the ONLY reason — Democrats in Congress refuse to honestly and sincerely address the Nation’s unimaginable illegal alien problem: VOTES!

But admitting that is what the Democrats really want, can they get away with somehow allowing non-citizens to vote in United States federal elections? There is evidence of at least 800,000 non-citizens’ votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 actually happening. (see the proof of that in our 3/20/2019 story “Illegal Voters ARE Changing Our Elections”) Democrats certainly “want” that to happen, have already “allowed” it to happen in certain cases, but without changing Constitutional law cannot “allow” illegals to vote in federal elections legally.

But that has NOT stopped them from trying. Like here:

“Wednesday, Sept. 26, 2018, only 49 House Democrats voted “Yes” on a resolution ( H. Res. 1071) expressing disapproval of non-citizen illegal aliens voting in U.S. elections, which is a criminal act. 71 Democrats outright voted “No”; 69 Democrats took the cowardly way out by answering “Present”; 4 Democrats refused to take a stance by not voting. In effect, 144 Democrats refused to agree with the resolution that it is wrong for illegal aliens to vote in U.S. elections.
House Resolution 1071, sponsored by Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), states the following:
Recognizing that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.
Whereas voting is fundamental to a functioning democracy;
Whereas the Constitution prohibits discrimination in voting based on race, sex, poll taxes, and age;
Whereas it is of paramount importance that the United States maintains the legitimacy of its elections and protects them from interference, including interference from foreign threats and illegal voting;
Whereas the city of San Francisco, California, is allowing non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to register to vote in school board elections; and
Whereas Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in elections for Federal office: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.
H. Res. 1071, which is not a bill and has no legal power, was passed on Sept. 26, 2018. The roll call vote was 279 Yeas; 72 Nays, 69 Present:
* Republicans: 230 Yeas, 1 Nay, 4 Not Voting
* Democrats: 49 Yeas, 71 Nays, 69 Answered “Present”, 4 Not Voting
The Republican who voted “No” is Justin Amash (Michigan).

But it gets even worse! Fast-forward to March of 2019 and the House now with a Democrat Majority. One California television station reported this:

“The House passage of the For The People Act (H.R.1), a bill designed to improve election integrity by focusing on voting and election laws, campaign finance, and ethics. The bill also defends localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections.
‘It sounds like I’m making it up. What kind of government would cancel the vote of its own citizens, and replace it with noncitizens?’ said Rep. Dan Crenshaw, Texas Republican.
Supporters say the For The People Act expands early voting while simplifying absentee voting. It enhances federal support for voting system security. It expands disclosure requirements for donations and campaign transparency while creating a multiple matching system for small campaign donations. Lastly, it will ease the creation of automatic voter registration rolls as well as restoring voting rights to the formerly incarcerated.
The bill now moves to the Senate where it is highly unlikely to pass, let alone be voted on. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said it would not receive any floor time ‘because I get to decide what we vote on.’
San Diego Congressman Scott Peters voted to pass the  For the People Act saying, “These groundbreaking reforms will help us rebuild trust in government. Now, we must continue to work together to solve problems most important to San Diegans and all Americans like climate change, gun violence prevention, access to higher education, comprehensive immigration reform, and more,” said Rep. Peters.
Earlier this week, Speaker Pelosi spoke on the importance of passing H.R. 1, ‘So, when we talk about newcomers, we have to recognize the constant reinvigoration of America that they are, that we all have been – our families. And that, unless you’re blessed to be Native American – which is a blessing in itself that we respect – but that constant reinvigoration of hope, determination, optimism, courage, to make the future better for the next generation, those are American traits. And these newcomers make America more American. And we want them, when they come here, to be fully part of our system. And that means not suppressing the vote of our newcomers to America.'”

What The U.S. Constitution Says

Which right appears most often in the Constitution’s text?

It’s “the right to vote.”

In voter ID cases all over the country, courts are considering the proper level of “scrutiny” to apply to “burdens” on the right to cast a ballot. In 2008, the Supreme Court approved an Indiana voter ID law, even conceding that it had a partisan basis because it was not “excessively burdensome” to most voters. (Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, concurred separately to suggest that the proper level of scrutiny was more like “whatever the legislature wants.”)

Courts will defer to the wishes of legislators who wish to protect the election process. There was no evidence of fraud in the Indiana case; there’s none in the Pennsylvania case or the others currently being heard. State officials claimed to be worried that someone somewhere might think there was fraud.

This is deference to bureaucrats that neither courts nor citizens would tolerate where a right considered truly important is at stake. Consider the right to free speech. The majority in Citizens United brushed aside public perceptions of corruption to allow unlimited “independent expenditures,” even though far more citizens are cynical about campaign donations than about “fraudulent” voters. What about freedom of religion? Would we tolerate licensing of churches so atheists won’t worry that “fraudulent” religion is being practiced?

Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, “All individuals have the right to vote.” It simply rules out specific limitations on “the right to vote.” A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn’t really a “right” in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say “here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person,” there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Our Constitution is more in the “rights-preserving” than in the “rights-proclaiming business.” The First Amendment doesn’t say “every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion.” In the Second, the right to “keep and bear arms” isn’t defined, but rather shall not be “abridged.” In the Fourth, “the right of the people to be secure … against unreasonable searches and seizures” isn’t defined, but instead “shall not be violated.” In the Seventh, “the right of (civil) trial by jury” — whatever that is — “shall be preserved.” And so on.

In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge “the right to vote at any federal or state election … to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, … except for participation in rebellion, or other crime.” The Fifteenth states that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote” can’t be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can’t be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote” in federal elections can’t be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects “the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote.”

So if our courts treat the ballot as less than a fundamental right, they aren’t reading that in the Constitution but projecting it onto the Constitution. The projection comes from a longstanding belief that the vote is not a “right,” but a “privilege” — something granted by the powerful to the deserving.

But the fundamental inferred and stated that CITIZENS are those in the U.S. whose rights to vote “shall not be abridged.” CITIZENS are the only people who can legally vote in federal elections.

Summary: “The Democrat Party Illegal Voting Plan”

Before we summarize and discuss the objective of the Democrat Party as a whole regarding illegal voting, here’s what Independent Bernie Sanders who caucuses with the Democrat Party said about criminals’ right to vote WHILE THEY ARE BEHIND BARS:

 “I think that is absolutely the direction we should go. In my state, what we do is separate. You’re paying a price, you committed a crime, you’re in jail. That’s bad,” Sanders explained. “But you’re still living in American society and you have a right to vote. I believe in that, yes, I do.”

The average American voter cannot understand why Democrats are so resistant to stopping illegal immigration at all costs. In spite of the hundreds of thousands of criminal acts committed by illegals against American citizens, Democrats refuse to take whatever legal measures are necessary to stop this criminality! And those Americans want Democrats to work with Republicans to do just that: STOP IT!

Voters continue to view illegal immigration as a serious problem but don’t think Democrats want to stop it. Cutting foreign aid is one tool voters are willing to consider. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 67% of all Likely U.S. Voters think illegal immigration is a serious problem in America today, with 47% who say it’s a Very Serious one. Thirty-two percent (32%) say it’s not a serious problem, but that includes only eight percent (8%) who rate it as Not At All Serious.

One would think Democrats — who will say and do anything to pave the way to seize total control of Congress AND the White House in 2020 — would examine these polls and assist conservatives in creating and implementing immigration legislation to streamline the existing legal immigration laws, shorten the process for immigrants to become U.S. citizens, while ferreting out the gang members, human traffickers, and cartel drug traffickers who are by all accounts flooding across our southern border. Democrats unwillingness to enter this process that MUST begin by demanding enforcement of ALL immigration laws prove their objective can be one and only one thing: get enough illegals into the U.S. and find ways to surreptitiously insert them in the election system to vote in the 2020 federal election. There can be NO other explanation for Dems resistance.

Oh, they couch it with fake stories about caring for the abused and poor who inhabit Central American countries that wish only to find a “better life” for their family members. How can we say their charitable feelings are fake? If they REALLY care for those people with legitimate issues mentioned above, they would DEMAND immediate repair to the U.S. immigration system so as to pave the way for the American Dream these immigrants supposedly desire — and many do.

What price is being paid for Democrats open-border policies? Forget about the hundreds of billions of dollars. Just look back at our stories about illegal immigration from March of this year to get statistics that validate the hundreds of thousands of criminal acts perpetrated by illegals against American citizens. They range from purse-snatching to auto theft, assault and battery, all the way to child sex trafficking, rape, and murder. AMERICANS ARE PAYING THE PRICE DEMOCRATS FORCE US TO PAY FOR THEIR QUEST TO GET NEW DEMOCRAT VOTERS! And the price is often the losses of our sons and daughters.

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer: how many more must die, be trafficked, robbed, assaulted, or raped before you think enough is enough and that Americans should NOT have to beg you to stop the criminality at the southern border?

I close with this: Isn’t it a travesty that Americans even have the need to have a conversation because our elected officials want ICE and U.S. Customs to simply turn their backs on illegals flooding across our southern border? Democrats are hoping that “Mob Rule” will cause our resistance to illegals to crumble and that Americans will just say, “OK. We give up. Let’s just give them all blanket amnesty and citizenship.”

Members of Congress: Are you going to continue to allow that to happen?

 

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

This from the New York Times:

The Texas secretary of state’s office on Friday called into question the citizenship status of 95,000 registered voters who were found to have identified themselves at some point to a state law enforcement agency as noncitizen, legal residents of the United States. The office said its findings were a result of an 11-month investigation with the Texas Department of Public Safety that also found that about 58,000 people on the list had voted since 1996. The results of the investigation were referred on Friday to Attorney General Ken Paxton, who said he planned to open a potentially sprawling investigation.

It’s only 58 thousand folks who voted illegally, so not a super big number, well, I suppose it all depends on how much voter fraud by illegals you find acceptable. My bigger question is, knowing that these numbers exist in Texas, wouldn’t it be fair to use this as a reason to investigate other states to see just how far this goes? Or should we allow these noncitizens to vote in our country?

2016 Election Fraud

Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens in November 2016, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud. Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting.
Based on national polling by a group of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in that 2016 presidential election. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump. Mr. Richman calculated that Mrs. Clinton would have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes.

“Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes,” Mr. Richman wrote. “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.” Still, the finding is significant because it means noncitizens may have helped Mrs. Clinton carry a state or finish better than she otherwise would have.

Mr. Trump’s unverified accusation to congressional leaders sent the issue and those in the media into a frenzy that continues to this day. He apparently was referring to all types of fraud, such as the “dead” voting or multiple votes from the same person. But the heart of his estimate appears to be that illegal immigrants and noncitizens carried the popular vote.

He returned to the issue in 2017 when he spoke to congressional Republicans mapping the year’s legislative calendar:

“We also need to keep the ballot box safe from illegal voting,” the president said. “And, believe me, you take a look at what’s registering, folks. Take a look at what’s registering. We are going to protect the integrity of the ballot box, and we are going to defend the votes of the American citizen, so important.”

The mainstream media reacted to Mr. Trump’s assertion with anticipated pushback. Liberal pundits said there is no evidence of fraud.

CNN’s Jake Tapper called it “a stunning allegation for which the White House is providing no evidence. And there is a reason they are providing no evidence — there is no evidence. It is not true.” Esquire.com said, “The most bizarre lie of Donald Trump’s presidency so far is his claim of widespread voter fraud in an election he won.”

But conservative activists say the liberal media are ignoring evidence — that noncitizen voting is illegal and, thus, fraud. They say the Justice Department in the Obama administration was more concerned with preventing states from cleansing rosters of dead and inactive voters than in mounting an investigation into fraud.

“Most voters are never asked for voter ID, so it is dishonest to suggest that with the tens of millions of illegal and legal aliens here, there is no voter fraud,” said Tom Fitton, who heads the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. “If the key Old Dominion study results on the 2008 election are applied to 2016 — 1.41 million aliens may have voted illegally, with 1.13 million voting for Democrats.”

“A federal voter fraud investigation is long overdue,” Mr. Fitton said. “It would be a simple matter of analyzing voter registration databases against federal databases of aliens and deceased individuals. Why is the left afraid to even ask the questions? The jig is up.”

There does not appear to be any concerted postelection effort by states to take on the tremendous task of checking voter rolls and ballots to verify citizenship. In some states, no ID is required to register and vote. In the absence of detailed accounting, the only scientific way to make an estimate is by post-vote polling.

Mr. Richman relies on a one-of-a-kind poll: the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. Every two years, a consortium of 28 universities produces a detailed report on voters and their views based on polling by YouGov. Tucked inside the lengthy questionnaire is a question on citizenship status: A significant number of respondents anonymously acknowledged they were not citizens when they voted. You know, that question regarding citizenship that was to be inserted in the U.S. Census questionnaire that courts ruled is unconstitutional.

Three professors at Old Dominion University — Mr. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha and David C. Earnest — took these answers, did further research and extrapolated that of a 19.4 million estimate of adult noncitizens, about 620,000 were illegally registered to vote in the 2008 presidential election. Using other measuring tools, they said, the actual number of noncitizen voters could be as low as 38,000 and as high as 2.8 million.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2012 that there are 22 million noncitizens in the country. The group comprises illegal immigrants and people in the U.S. legally on a visa or permanent resident green card. Of this 22 million, 20 million were 18 or older, the U.S. voting age requirement.

Conservatives have long suspected that Democrats are tacitly encouraging illegal immigrants to vote. Liberal leaders have created “sanctuary cities and states” across the nation that refuse to work with federal immigration enforcement authorities.

President Obama was asked during the campaign in 2016 if illegal immigrants had anything to fear from federal authorities if they voted in the presidential race. “Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting,” he was asked on a Latino YouTube channel. “‘So if I vote, will Immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?’”

“Not true, and the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself,” Mr. Obama said. “And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential.”

Some conservatives interpreted Mr. Obama’s answer as a go-ahead signal, with his questionable assertion that voter rolls are off-limits to federal investigators.

The WikiLeaks dump of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta’s emails contained one message on directing immigrants to vote. He said immigrants should obtain driver’s licenses and then attest at a polling place that they are U.S. citizens.

2018 Midterm Election Fraud

Government Accountability Institute (GAI) research director Eric Eggers says California’s latest changes to state election law that allow so-called “ballot harvesting” most recently aided Democrats in the midterm elections. Eggers detailed how the state of California has implemented ballot harvesting that allows political operatives to collect voters’ ballots and deliver them to polling stations.

“A lot of things that we perceive to be voter fraud … are actually legal,” Eggers said. “So California changed the law so that ballot harvesting allows for a third party … participants to collect ballots or harvest them from voters and then be able to drop them off at polling places. They just changed the law in 2016.”

“As soon as these people get on the rolls, you now have political campaigns, regardless of whether people should be voting or not, the political campaigns now have free license to go find you, and essentially even if they don’t find you, just turn in a ballot in your name,” Eggers continued. “That’s what ballot harvesting is.”

Eggers said California’s enormous noncitizen and illegal alien population — almost 11 million foreign-born residents reside in the state — is likely contributing to potential voter fraud that is facilitated because of ballot harvesting.

What’s fraudulent or suspect about it? Well, a number of things. Number one, we know we have a million illegal immigrants in California who have Driver’s Licenses. So right away, the threshold there is between who can vote and who is registered to vote I think is quite different. So we know we have illegal voters registered to vote. In fact, ahead of the election, they admitted they had over 1,500 people because of the new automatic voter registration.

“They’ve completely changed the landscape in California and I think that’s one of the reasons why you’re seeing the results be what they are,” Eggers said.

“The impact has not been good for Republicans,” he continued.

North Carolina: Midterms

As a late note to this story (and this is NOT about illegals voting) a further instance of ballot harvesting has been confirmed across the continent in North Carolina. We thought it important to report on this so that TruthNewsNet partners can put this entire Election Fraud/Tampering issue in a relatable fashion.

Democrats are blamed most of the time for sketchy election results. But the GOP has dirty hands too. This issue is NOT a partisan issue. Jason Snead of the Daily Signal put this part of election fraud in perfect perspective:

Widespread fraud by a political operative working for a Republican is forcing a redo of the 2018 midterm race for North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District. The news confirms just how vulnerable our elections are to voter fraud, and how profound the consequences can be.

That should be the takeaway. Yet many on the left and in the media seem far more interested in spinning the situation for partisan gain than finding genuine solutions to the election insecurities that enabled this fraud in the first place.

They focus on the fact that this is “Republican” voter fraud, and accuse conservatives of “deafening” and hypocritical silence. They even refuse to call it “voter fraud” to avoid embarrassment after years of denying that voter fraud is a problem.These claims debase the political process. They are cynical, politically motivated, and miss the point entirely. Election integrity is about much more than partisan politics—it is about preserving faith in the democratic process itself.

That’s why Heritage Foundation analysts were quick to condemn this instance of “Republican” voter fraud and called for an investigation, writing: “It is incumbent on conservatives and Republicans to resist the urge to circle the wagons or reflexively support the outcome in North Carolina as it stands today merely because of who won.”

While some on the left were busy arguing over whether to call it “election fraud” or “voter fraud,” we call a spade a spade: Securing elections isn’t a semantic game, it’s about taking voter fraud seriously, adopting election integrity reforms, and holding responsible parties accountable—regardless of their political persuasion. In North Carolina after the Republican operative’s methods were revealed a court negated results of the race and ordered a new election.

Election fraud did NOT win in North Carolina.

Summary

There are thousands and thousands of cases of election fraud across the nation that have been discovered and prosecuted. They don’t make it into the press. Why? Because the mainstream media play into the hands of who the author of the majority of these cases implicates: Democrat Party operatives.

No, this is not solely a Democrat issue. As shown in North Carolina, Republicans have problems too. Folks, this is an American problem!

I personally do not care who gets slapped in jail after prosecution for election tampering or voter fraud. The injured parties in these cases are NOT party members. The injured parties are legal citizens of the United States and the U.S. Government AND the Rule of Law. If that’s true, why doesn’t this get more attention? Besides the obvious political explanation, it’s because elections — including local, state AND federal — are designed, operated, and policed by the individual states. We don’t have federal elections.

Let’s be honest: there are federal election laws — and plenty of them. But it is impossible for the federal government to monitor every voting precinct in the nation, investigate every voting irregularity that may be uncovered in every precinct, and to prosecute every wrongdoer. Primarily those are state issues.

In thinking through to find a realistic answer to that question, while knowing the magnitude of assuring just, fair, and accurate voting being managed by states, can’t you see how states that have implemented sanctuary state and sanctuary city designations would turn a blind eye on any illegal voting in federal elections? Those states have far too much to gain WITH illegals who vote than if they don’t vote. And most of those illegals are of the liberal political persuasion and therefore vote for liberals: Democrats.

It is imperative that in an undefinable and unimaginable quest for political power and might, any individual or group of people could amass such illegal political support through election fraud to implement laws and change laws for political purpose. But that is the only explanation one can summarize from viewing facts about election fraud.

A hundred thousand votes here and there across the nation surely changes the composition of our governing institutions. I don’t know about you, but I’d like to think that Constitutional law and its implementation, monitoring and enforcing would be the ONLY thing that determines that. Wouldn’t you?

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

It’s official! Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has thrown her hat into the ring for the 2020 Democrat Party nomination for President. It comes as no surprise to almost everyone that the far-left Warren is in the hunt for the nomination AND that she has already shown in just a few days she has actually moved farther to the left politically. Why would she do that? To keep up with the crowd!

Warren in her 2016 campaign for president made herself a lightning rod for Republicans — especially Candidate Donald Trump. The Warren scandal of sorts came from her application to teach at Harvard University in which she claimed to be of Native American descent. Even though she grew up in Oklahoma and claimed that her mother had Cherokee roots, many felt like she used what little Native American she had for personal benefit to claim minority status favoritism in her Harvard job application. And Trump during the campaign gave her the title of “Pocohantes,” a very obvious jab at her minority status claim.

Even with all of her exposure while campaigning, many do not know much about her. Let’s take a look.

Elizabeth Warren

Warren was born and raised in a middle-class family in Oklahoma. She is a graduate of the University of Houston and Rutgers Law School. Her career as an academic focused on bankruptcy law, where she focused primarily on empiric decision-making of the public following legal changes. Warren taught at several law schools, including the University of Houston, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard University.

Warren’s initial foray into public policy began with opposing what eventually became a 2005 act restricting bankruptcy access for individuals. Warren saw her profile rise in the late 2000s for her forceful stances in favor of more stringent regulations following the 2007–2008 financial crisis. She served as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and was instrumental in the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), for which she served as the first Special Advisor.

Unable to overcome Republican opposition to become the Director the CFPB, Warren instead challenged and defeated Republican incumbent Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts in 2012. She was the keynote speaker of the 2016 Democratic National Convention and became Vice Chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus the following year. A noted liberal leader, Warren has focused on consumer protection, economic opportunity, and the social safety net while in the Senate. Following her reelection to the Senate in 2018, Warren announced the formation of an exploratory committee for her campaign in the 2020 presidential election.

You may be interested to discover that Warren was registered as a Republican from 1991 to 1996. Warren voted as a Republican for many years, saying, “I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets.” According to Warren, she began to vote Democratic in 1995 because she no longer believed that to be true, but she states that she has voted for both parties because she believed that neither party should dominate. According to her, the Republican Party was no longer “principled in its conservative approach to economics and to markets” and was instead tilting the playing in favor of big financial institutions and against “middle-class American families.”

On September 14, 2011, Warren declared her intention to run for the Democratic nomination for the 2012 election in Massachusetts for the U.S. Senate. The seat had been won by Republican Scott Brown in a 2010 special election after the death of Ted Kennedy. A week later, a video of Warren speaking in Andover became a viral video on the Internet. In it, Warren replies to the charge that asking the rich to pay more taxes is “class warfare”, pointing out that no one grew rich in the U.S. without depending on infrastructure paid for by the rest of society, stating:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. … You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

President Barack Obama later echoed her sentiments in a 2012 election campaign speech.

Warren’s Political Actions

• In December 2016, Warren announced plans to introduce a bill to address President-elect Donald Trump’s perceived conflicts of interest related to his business empire. Under her proposed bill, Donald Trump could face impeachment if he fails to declare conflicts of interest between his presidential role and his business interests. Warren states, “The only way for President-elect Trump to truly eliminate conflicts-of-interest is to divest his financial interests and place them in a blind trust.”
• In November 2018, Warren said she will not vote for Trump’s United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) saying, “It won’t stop outsourcing, it won’t raise wages, and it won’t create jobs. It’s NAFTA 2.0.”
• In 2018, Warren had called for the abolition of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
• In January 2019, Warren criticized President Donald Trump’s announcement of his decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan.
• In January 2019, she announced the details of her proposed “Wealth Tax” to be levied on the wealthiest of Americans. Rather than bullet-point details, let’s look and listen-in to an expert’s analysis of Senator Warren’s proposal as given on “Fox and Friends:”

“The Warren” plan would tax the net worth of people with assets over $50 million at 2 percent a year, plus another 3 percent on fortunes over a billion dollars. And it would apply to all assets — even the wealth hidden outside the US to avoid income tax. There would be some wrinkles to work out, like how the IRS would get an accurate measure of those assets.

The mega-wealthy seldom hold their riches in cash. Most are tied up in corporate stocks and bonds, real estate investments, and other holdings. That would make it pretty difficult to get those accurate measures every year of the real values of their holdings. And in many cases, this would force annual liquidation of enough of these hard assets to pay those taxes.

Just one example of this dilemma would be Jeff Bezos. Bezos, the world’s richest person, would have to pay $4.1 billion in the first year under U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax, based on his current net worth of $137.1 billion. Most all of his wealth is tied up in Amazon stock, and a portion of that stock would probably be sold to pay that $4.1 billion in year one of the tax plan. Other billionaires like Warren Buffet would face the same dilemma.

Most of the wealthiest of Americans keep most of their wealth in corporate investments just like Bezos and Buffet. When interviewed recently on MSNBC, Warren scoffed when asked how difficult it would be to annually ascertain the accurate values of all these assets of the richest Americans on which to base these taxes. The Senator forgets that most of those in Congress — including her — are worth millions meaning that millionaires make most of the federal laws that control these things.

To some, Warren’s tax idea may seem like a good idea. But making good ideas actually BE good is often harder implementing than creating them in the first place.

Warren’s Electability

This is a sketchy one to establish. Many feel her failure to make it through the Democrat primaries had more to do with Hillary Clinton’s name and lengthy 30-year tenure in national politics because of her husband. Democrats definitely wanted a woman in the White House in 2016, but just not Warren.

Warren’s reputation as a smart and wise political manager is a bit sketchy. Though she has spent much time in various political roles — most in appointed positions — she seems really pushy to many voters. Her likability in the very early stages of the 2020 White House run lags behind those of the two other already-announced female candidates Senators Kamala Harris of California and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. But remember: it’s a LONG way to November of 2020!

The greatest problem for Warren in this campaign other than her ability to garner the necessary political support considering her Democrat primary opponents is the requirement for massive fundraising. By most accounts, it will take $1 Billion + to fund the necessary campaign to beat the incumbent President in the race. Warren would probably find that a bit tough, especially with her very obvious and very public recent lurch further left in her political positions. Big campaign spenders are on the most part sitting on their hands to find out who among the plentiful stable of Dem candidates can weather the early-going in this very young campaign cycle. Getting large financial support quickly will be mandatory to develop campaign staying power. Warren is unlikely to be able to get that done.

Summary

Some candidates from both sides of the aisle just have the knack of rubbing a lot of voters the wrong way. It may be because of their voices, messaging, appearance in public, even in the way they speak to political opponents and even supporters. Senator Warren has the ability to slip into that category.

In facing the likes of Harris and Gillibrand in the early going, Warren may dig herselfa hole in which she finds she is too deep to survive comparisons with those two in many ways. She’s not as polished as Harris and Gillibrand even though she is a more experienced politician.

Most often we see the ability to raise a lot of money decides presidential races. It may seem sexist to say this, but when multiple female candidates appear together on-stage in debates, mannerisms, and Q & A impact voters’ opinions more than party politics. And Sometimes appearance IS everything.

I think that impacted Warren’s staying power when she ran against Hillary in 2016. I think she will struggle to beat that stigma in 2020. And I don’t think she’ll successfully make the trip.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download