Sheriff Joe scores victory against Obama's amnesty

Legal challenge now on fast track

From: World Net Daily

by - Bob Unruh

A judge has sided with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in the first clash in what is expected to be a major court fight over the legality – or not – of Barack Obama’s looming amnesty program, ordering a fast track for case arguments and hearings.

The announcement came on Wednesday from U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell in Washington, and granted a motion from Arpaio’s attorney, Larry Klayman of FreedomWatch, to move things along quickly.

Two Justice Department lawyers representing Obama in the fight had wanted their initial response delayed for weeks – for one thing because of the coming Christmas season.

But Howell ordered Obama to respond to Arpaio’s motion for a preliminary injunction – to protect the U.S. while the merits of the amnesty program are debated in court – by Dec. 15. A full preliminary injunction hearing is set for Dec. 22.

Arpaio, through his attorney, was the first to file a complaint regarding Obama’s executive order that grants legal status to approximately 4.7 million illegal aliens who broke U.S. law to enter.

“We are very pleased that Judge Howell has ordered an expedited hearing on our motion for preliminary injunction which asks to preserve the status quo and stop the implementation of President Obama’s executive order,” Klayman said. “The executive order violates the Constitution, as it seeks to circumvent the powers which the Framers delegated to Congress.”

He continued, “Importantly, if this executive order is not preliminarily enjoined at the outset of this litigation, severe irreparable harm will result, as it thwarts Sheriff Arpaio’s duties and responsibilities as the chief law enforcement officer of Maricopa County, Arizona. As stated by the sheriff upon filing suit: ‘This unconstitutional act will have a serious detrimental impact. Specifically, it will severely strain our resources. Among the many negative [e]ffects of this executive order, will be the increased release of criminal aliens back onto streets of Maricopa County, Arizona, and the rest of the nation.’”

“As was true in the recent case which I filed against the NSA, styled Klayman, et. al v. Obama, et. al (13-cv-00851), one day that constitutional rights are violated is one day too long,” Klayman continued. “In the NSA case, the Fourth Amendment rights of nearly all Americans were violated. In this case concerning Obama’s immigration order, the constitutional powers of the Congress are being flouted.”

WND had just reported that Obama’s attorneys were trying to throw a wrench in Arpaio’s attempt to prevent the amnesty.

The timing is crucial, his complaint argued, because the government already is pouring resources into meeting the orders, and the offer of amnesty likely will draw a whole new flood of illegal aliens.

Department of Justice attorneys Adam Kirschner and Brad Cohen had argued to a federal court in Washington, D.C., that Christmas is coming, and they need a lot more time.

The attorneys had asked that they be allowed until the second half of January even to submit an initial response to Arpaio’s motion for a preliminary injunction, even though the administration has boasted it has thoroughly examined the legality of Obama’s immigration action.

“This timeline is also warranted because it will be particularly difficult to address the array of issues presented on a condensed schedule in light of the upcoming holidays,” the attorneys said.

Klayman told the judge, however, that “the defendants obviously have already extensively reviewed and analyzed their view of the law and precedents. On Nov. 20, 2014, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice released its 33 page legal memorandum for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.”

Klayman told the judge the Obama administration officials “have not only evidenced but publicly boasted that they have extensively examined these issues legally.”

Klayman’s submission to the court noted that even though Obama never signed a formal executive order on his immigration action, the impact is that programs and procedures are being changed already to meet his demands.

The president’s decision, Klayman wrote, “orders direct DHS personnel including the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE to immediately suspend enforcement of immigration laws with regard to any who appear to be eligible for the new deferred action programs, even though such persons might not yet be able to apply for formal recognition.”

The instructions also tell law enforcement officials to “immediately” begin identifying those who could be given the special benefit.

Klayman also argued that the federal government already has leased office space and begun the process of hiring 1,000 new workers to process the illegals through Obama’s amnesty program.

All of those actions would be for nothing if a court rules that the program doesn’t meet the Constitution’s requirements, he wrote.

“By contrast if the implementation is simply delayed until a court decision, there will be no such harm,” he said.

Another injury would result from a new flood of illegals drawn by the promise of amnesty, he said.

“America witnessed the tragedy and the shock as thousands of ‘unaccompanied minors’ rushed across the nation’s southern border shared with Mexico in the summer of 2014. Some of these ‘unaccompanied minors’ were middle-aged men with gray hair claiming to be 17 years old without identity documents, some intact families but misreported among the news, but some children as young as four (4) years old. Young men and middle-aged men – lacking any documentation but claiming to be 17 years old – were placed in high schools next to 16 and 17 year old girls.”

The fallout has resulted in “an epidemic of Enterovirus D68 and most likely hepatitis,” he said.

“The Department of Homeland Security should be ordered to stop issuing any new DACA amnesty or work permits or renewing DACA status and Employment Authorization Cards until the court can analyze, review, and decide upon whether DACA status is legally valid and constitutional.”

The original lawsuit, filed only hours after Obama’s immigration announcement was made, names Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Immigration Services chief Leon Rodriquez and Attorney General Eric Holder as defendants.

It seeks to avoid “irreversible harm” from Obama’s actions because they will “encourage[e] more illegal aliens to enter the country unlawfully.”

Arpaio, who has been consistently at odds with the Obama administration, released a statement at the time: “I am not seeking to myself enforce the immigration laws as this is the province of the federal government. Rather, I am seeking to have the president and the other defendants obey the U.S. Constitution, which prevents this executive order from having been issued in the first place. This unconstitutional act must be enjoined by a court of law on behalf of not just myself, but all of the American people.”

 

God bless,

JohnnyD

Grass-roots revolt over 'huge deception' by GOP

Massive push for ouster of Boehner, McConnell

From: World Net Daily

by - Leo Hohmann

The time to fight amnesty is now, say the leaders of 10 activist groups, but with leaders in the Congress like Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the fight looks more like a dog rolling over for its master.

That’s why the groups – which include tea party and anti-illegal immigration activists – have signed a letter calling on Republicans to oust Boehner and McConnell from their respective posts in the House and Senate, citing evidence they have colluded with the White House to legalize five million illegal aliens. That, they say, can only be interpreted as an open invitation for more illegals to cross the border.

An omnibus spending bill up for a vote this week, possibly as early as tonight or Thursday, includes spending for the Department of Homeland Security that will be used to implement amnesty. Nearly $1 billion in aid would go to integrate illegals into communities nationwide.

William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration and one of the signatories to the letter, says the bill before the House is a betrayal of the values represented by more than 70 percent of the people who voted in last month’s mid-term elections.

“They’re mocking the public and it’s a huge deception. We can’t allow that deception to prevail. What we need right now is we need the phones ringing off the hook,” Gheen said. “Word in D.C. is Boehner is hell bent on getting his plan through to help Obama with the budget and American citizens out there now have less than 48 hours to respond and take action to change that.”

Gheen is joined in the letter by the leaders of Tea Party Nation, Restore American Liberty, 2 Million Bikers to D.C., Overpasses for America, Minnesotans Seeking Immigration Reform, N.C. Listen, NCFIRE, Riders USA and The Remembrance Project.

Numbers USA is also motivating its members to send a message to the Republicans in Congress. The nation’s largest anti-immigration group has thus far stopped short of calling for Boehner and McConnell to resign their leadership posts, but the group sent an email alert to its members Tuesday that said any vote for “Boehner’s CR omnibus amnesty bill” will be remembered and duly noted as a vote for amnesty.

“Numbers USA will score as a vote for amnesty a vote for the CR omnibus that House GOP Leaders intend to bring to the floor this week, unless it includes language to defund the President’s unconstitutional amnesty,” the email said.

“It should be obvious to all Members, as it is to Americans, that Congress cannot in good faith fund an unconstitutional act for any period of time,” the email continued. “Without question, the Department of Homeland Security, and more specifically, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, would play the central role in carrying out the President’s unconstitutional amnesty. There should be no debate about restricting their ability to use fees or appropriations to do so.”

But the DHS should not be the only agency that gets handcuffed by Congress, the Numbers USA email said. It listed the Social Security Administration, the IRS, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Justice Department as all having roles in amnesty that must be defunded.

According to the Senate Conservatives Fund, the following Republican leaders in the House want to pass a $1.1 trillion spending bill that funds the president’s “unlawful executive amnesty.”

1. Rep. John Boehner, Speaker of the House
2. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., majority leader
3. Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., majority whip
4. Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., chief deputy whip
5. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., conference chair
6. Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., NRCC chair
7. Rep. Luke Messer, R-Indiana, policy committee chair
8. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky,, appropriations committee chair
9. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, rules committee chair
10. Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, Republican study committee chair

They are ignoring millions of Americans who oppose this action and tens of thousands of people who have been urging them to honor their oath and defend the Constitution, the Senate Conservative Fund stated.

Gheen sees the actions of Boehner and McConnell as nothing short of a criminal conspiracy in which the two congressional leaders talk as if they are against amnesty while working to support it.

At this point, only “burning up the phone lines” will stop the collusion of the two parties, he says. But time is running out.

The vote on the spending bill is scheduled to take place within the next 12 to 48 hours.

On an earlier bill, House Bill 5759 that passed last Friday, the House leadership changed the text at the last minute, swapping out language that was meant to condemn Obama’s executive actions as illegal for language that actually gives Obama legal cover for his amnesty policies. The legal cover came in the form of an “exception” where amnesty would be allowed in cases where immigrants are at “imminent risk of serious bodily harm,” which is what Obama has been arguing all along was the pretext for granting amnesty.

So many of the Republican House members who thought they were voting in favor of stopping Obama’s executive amnesty were actually voting to protect the president from any legal challenges, as explained by Rep. Louie Gohmert in a statement over the weekend.

“Switching the text of that bill, a lot of people are shocked and in disbelief about Boehner’s procedural slight of hand,” Gheen said. “It is so disturbing to people that they don’t want to believe it’s true. ‘I hope this isn’t true’ or ‘this can’t be happening,’ they’re saying. There’s a lot of denial, it’s not really sinking in for some folks.”

But as more people get wind of the story coming out of Washington this week, more of them don’t like the way it smells, he said.

“From our viewpoint Boehner and McConnell are both too far gone, too closely tied into the Obama camp on immigration to ever be trusted,” he said.

ALIPAC has identified 30 Republican senators as against the Obama-Boehner-McConnell camp, which means they out-number the pro-amnesty Republicans by a 2-to-1 margin in the Senate. In the House the advantage for anti-amnesty lawmakers is even greater at 3 to 1.

“We have the numerical advantage, what we need is just the amount of public output here to push lawmakers to oust Boehner and McConnell,” said Gheen, who believes secret meetings on amnesty have been held “through proxies” between the Republican leaders and the White House.

He also cites a report by radio host Mark Levin that McConnell worked behind the scenes last year to pass Senate Bill 744, widely considered by conservatives to be an amnesty bill.

“He was organizing for it and then voted against it to avoid the wrath of the conservative Kentucky voters,” Gheen said.

“It is becoming obvious that if Boehner and McConnell retain their positions there will be no real resistance to Obama and illegal amnesty,” he said. “Obama, Boehner and McConnell are on the same team, and with the evidence we are documenting here the American people should have no real hope that anything will be done to stop Obama.”

Numbers USA has also reported on a vision for America within the Congress that divides across party lines on the issue of immigration.

A large percentage of Congress — a majority on certain measures — believe that virtually all illegal border crossers along with those who enter legally but overstay their visas should be allowed to remain in the U.S. forever, says a report on the Numbers USA website.

“Since 1997, Congress and presidents have several times decided to give various groups of those illegal aliens the right to U.S. citizenship as a reward for their resourcefulness in evading our Border Patrol and immigration laws,” the report states. “Not surprisingly, news of these rewards has spread globally and enticed hundreds of thousands more to become resourceful illegal aliens.

“In Congress, there now is a serious debate about whether the nation should even try to enforce its immigration laws. The debate is between “national-community Americans” — those who continue to believe in the idea of a separate, self-governed nation — and those who have a “post-American” vision. The post-American vision is for (1) America’s workers to be “allowed” to compete directly with every worker in the world who makes the effort to move to this country and for (2) the quality of life of a local community to be determined by global forces rather than by democratic self-determination.”

Gheen says the Constitution is being undermined by a criminal conspiracy to get an unpopular policy, amnesty, implemented in defiance of the expressed will of the American voters.

Gheen says he doesn’t believe Obama would have acted so boldly coming off of an election sweep of his party had he not been assured ahead of time by the GOP leadership in Congress that there would be no serious consequences for taking unilateral action.

He sees any comments by Boehner or McConnell in opposition to Obama’s amnesty as mere lip service meant to fool the public.

“What we need right now is the phones to be ringing off the hook,” Gheen said. He believes that may be the only way to break up the “Obama-Boehner-McConnell amnesty plot” that 74 percent of voters in the last election oppose.

“That’s the ammo right there. That’s the sharp point that can break through this deception,” he said.

Gheen said he hopes the list of leaders calling for Boehner and McConnell to resign will continue to grow. He urges leaders any tea party or liberty groups, any government watchdog organizations, sheriffs or party leaders who wish to join the other 10 organizations to call him at 919-272-8238.

 

God bless,

JohnnyD

Rams make clear they have no idea what happened in Ferguson

From: Canada Free Press

By Dan Calabrese  December 1, 2014 


 The St. Louis Rams did just about everything right yesterday during the game, as the tire tracks on the backs of the Oakland Raiders can tell you following a 52-0 Rams victory. Before the game was another matter, though, as Rams players Stedman Bailey, Tavon Austin, Jared Cook, Chris Givens and Kenny Britt took the field during pre-game introductions in the so-called “hands up, don’t shoot” pose

This, we’re told, is the gesture being used on the streets of Ferguson to symbolize the total innocence of Michael Brown and the brutality of Darren Wilson in the shooting whose aftermath has set Ferguson ablaze.

It’s a pretty good indication of why professional athletes should stick to the game on the field and not presume to make grand public statements about matters they don’t really understand. It’s gutless and mindless to offer an empty gesture in “solidarity” with people who are burning down an entire community in response to an event they don’t even understand. The media narrative here - that a racist white cop shot an innocent, unarmed black youth - is so far removed from what the evidence suggests actually happened, there’s no way to even begin to bridge the distance between the two.

.And crap like this only exacerbates the problem. A lot of the violence in Ferguson is sheer opportunism, as some people just like to engage in random violence and the atmosphere there gives them the opportunity to do it. But to the extent any of this is fed by a real belief that racist police brutality occurred here, public figures like these morons fuel the fire with such ignorant gestures.

Now that doesn’t mean the NFL should discipline them as St. Louis County Police are asking. I believe people should have the freedom to express themselves however they want without sanction, but their expressions should also be held up for scrutiny in the public arena. The Rams players who participated in this display are ignorant fools who don’t understand anything about what really happened when Michael Brown attacked Darren Wilson, and Wilson was forced to make a split-second decision about how to defend his own life. They’ve not only bought the media narrative, they’ve now advanced it by telling the world that they stand with the thugs.

People went absolutely bananas because Ray Rice hit his wife and because Adrian Peterson struck his son, and I’m not saying they were wrong to do so. But in Ferguson, violent mobs have destroyed much of the city based on a complete media lie, and Bailey, Austin, Cook, Givens and Britt have now congratulated them for it.

Thugs. All of them.


God bless,
JohnnyD

2016 nightmare: Bush vs. Clinton

From: World Net Daily

by: Joseph Farah

Now that Thanksgiving is past and we’re just a month away from the beginning of 2015, it’s time for America to consider its political future.

I know many are still basking in the repudiation of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party in the 2014 midterm election, but it’s time to look forward.

The 2016 presidential election, perhaps the last chance to undo the “fundamental transformation” of the country, is around the proverbial corner.

What are we likely looking at as the choice?

Bush vs. Clinton.

No kidding. This is not a bad joke. That’s how the political game is rigged right now by the two major political parties. It’s not an inevitability, but it’s the best bet based on the way the political establishments of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have manipulated the process.

Mitt Romney didn’t just fail to beat Obama in 2012. He also led an effort to rig the 2016 Republican nomination to ensure someone like him would be picked as the GOP nominee. Right now, the odds-on favorite is Jeb Bush – or Chris Christie or maybe even Romney, again.

Can you imagine how bad that would be for America?

Just when it’s critical that the Republican Party, the only viable alternative to the Democrats’ Insane Clown Posse, be strong, bold, innovative, with an eye to redefining itself in the way Ronald Reagan did, it’s drifting along in business-as-usual mode.

The House speaker is John Boehner.

The Senate majority leader is Mitch McConnell.

The presidential nominee is likely to be a Bush or a Christie or a Romney, when it should be a Rand Paul, a Ben Carson, a Ted Cruz or a Mike Huckabee.

There’s only one thing that can change that – very, very hard work by grass-roots activists starting now. And maybe one other thing: The need for one or more of these worthy, anti-establishment candidates to put their own ego in check in favor of the best interests of the country.

Maybe some group of influential Americans who want to restore the country to greatness can get these four worthy men in a room somewhere and winnow down the anti-establishment candidates to just one or two. Otherwise, the primary process, as it has been set up by the establishment, just won’t support a good outcome.

I don’t consider myself wise enough to choose between these four men. There are too many variables. But four good candidates will spread the vote too thin – leaving someone like Jeb Bush to win. That’s the way it looks to me.

What that means will spell disaster for the country.

Do you really think President Jeb Bush, House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are capable and willing to roll back the damage inflicted by eight years of Barack Obama?

No way!

That’s why it’s important for grass-roots activists to engage immediately.

I would be happy with any one of the four – Paul, Carson, Cruz or Huckabee. There’s a lot of talent on the Republican bench. The problem is the “coaches” just won’t play them.

It will take a political miracle to get any of them selected under the rules set forth by Romney, Karl Rove and the other GOP establishment “experts.” They are feeling empowered and energized by the results of 2014. They think they were responsible for the big Republican gains in the House and Senate.

So it’s time to get busy. They are.

If left to inertia, it’s going to be Bush vs. Clinton in 2016, again.

That’s not a choice. It’s a sentence for America.


God bless,
JohnnyD

THE CRUSADES: A Direct Response To Islam’s Bloodlust

From: Clash Daily

Written by Audrey Russo on November 9, 2014


Most of us infidels in the West have been lied to. Trusting the education system, foolishly, we believed all the bunk bundled into our textbooks concerning the period in history (1096 AD -1272 AD) when the Crusades took place…they left out an itty bitty piece of info…This will be great for all your “enlightened” friends…

The real reason WHY the Crusades took place…and here’s the shocker: It was a response to Islam’s aggression!

That’s right…it all began with Muhammed’s implicit threat more than 450 years before the Crusaders entered Jerusalem. He said: “embrace Islam and you will be safe.” (Muhammed’s extortion letter to the Khaibar Jews)

Some facts for your ill-informed friends/family/colleagues:

— The Crusades were a delayed response for CENTURIES of Muslim aggression, that grew ever fiercer in the 11th Century. The Muslims focused on Christians and Jews…forcing conversions, plundering and mortally wounding apostates.
— The Crusades were a DEFENSIVE action, first called for by Pope Urban II in 1095 at the Council of Clermont.
— The Crusades were a response against Jihad, which is obligatory against non-Muslims entering “Muslim lands’”. (Muslim lands are any lands invaded and conquered by Islam.)
— The motives of the Crusaders were pure. They were jihad-provoked and not imperialistic actions against a “peaceful”, native Muslim population. The Crusades were NOT for profit, but rather to recover the Holy Land brutally invaded and conquered by Muslims…who conquered for profit and as a notch on their superiority belt.
— The lands conquered by the Crusaders were NOT colonized under the Byzantine Empire. The Empire withdrew its support so the Crusaders renounced their agreement.

The Islamic world ripped through the Christian world on a bloody Jihad crusade to propagate Islam. Muslim imperialistic conquest wars were launched for more than 1,500 years against hundreds of nations and over millions of square miles (larger than the British Empire at its peak). The Jihad crusade went from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea.

The dictionary defines imperialism as “the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of weaker countries.” This historical Islamic Jihad WAS imperialistic…and its goals remain the same.

Islam’s greed and lust for bloody domination of non-Muslims and their property CAUSED the Crusades…it doesn’t get simpler than that!

Shalom through strength…

Image: http://joshuanidercrusade.wikispaces.com/What+were+the+Causes+of+the+Crusades%3F


God bless,
JohnnyD

Confirmed: Non-citizen voters boosting Democrats

Blockbuster study backs claim illegal ballots behind Obama's 2008 victory

From: World Net Daily

by - Bob Unruh - October 30, 2014

A new study puts numbers behind the claim that the votes of non-U.S. citizens in the 2008 presidential election handed the White House to Barack Obama. 

The study authored by Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha and David C. Earnest, who are affiliated with Old Dominion and George Mason universities, found the number of non-citizen voters “could range from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum.”

Of the non-citizens who voted in 2008, the study found “81.8 percent reported voting for Barack Obama compared to 17.5 percent for John McCain.”

The tendency of non-citizens to vote Democrat was confirmed two years later.

“Similarly in 2010, 53.8 percent of non-citizens reported voting for the Democratic House candidate while 30.7 percent indicated that they voted for the Republican,” the study said.

The results affirmed the contention of many, including the Washington watchdog Judicial Watch, that a “large number of non-citizens cast ballots in U.S. elections, and it’s possible that the illegal votes were responsible for President Obama’s 2008 victory.”

Using data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Studies, the large-scale academic survey found “in fact, enough ineligible voters cast ballots in 2008 to conceivably account for Democratic victories in a few close elections,” Judicial Watch said in a report on the study.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the study confirms Judicial Watch’s “working theory that foreign nationals illegally vote in federal elections in large numbers and have allowed Democrats, including this president, to steal elections.”

“This is why the left does not want voter ID, loves same day registration, by mail voting, etc., and craves amnesty and open borders,” Fitton said. “It is not about the Hispanic vote – it is about the illegal alien vote (and the legal alien vote), it is about stealing elections. Makes all the talk about targeting, messaging, issues, candidates and policy seem quaint.”

Judicial Watch noted the study supports its work on vote accountability, which includes the Election Integrity Project, described as a “widespread legal campaign to clean up voter registration rolls and support election integrity measures across the country.”

Judicial Watch said its efforts have proved voter rolls in Mississippi, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Texas, Florida, California and Colorado contained ineligible voters.

The study also found non-citizen votes “could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities.”

The political science professors pointed out that Sen. Al Franken, the comedian who was elected to the Senate from Minnesota, won by only 312 votes.

“Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin,” the authors said.

Judicial Watch noted most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote, but the study showed “enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.”

The study found more than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote and some actually voted.

“Based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010,” Judicial Watch said.

“This is outrageous, to say that least, and illustrates the need to clean up voter rolls in this country.”

The authors of the study said: “There were five states in 2008 where less than 100 percent turnout among non-citizens could have accounted for Obama’s victory margin. … It is likely though by no means certain that John McCain would have won North Carolina were it not for the votes for Obama cast by non-citizens.”

The study also found requiring photo identification from voters does not necessarily prevent fraudulent votes, and laws adopted recently in Kansas and Arizona may work better.

“A potential response to the inefficacy of photo-id at preventing non-citizen voting is found in laws recently passed by Kansas and Arizona that require voter registrants to prove citizenship. By highlighting and emphasizing the citizenship requirement (and by requiring documentation non-citizens should be unable to provide) it seems likely that such laws would prevent more noncitizens from voting.

“Ultimately, the results of our analysis provide a basis for informed reflection concerning the role of non-citizens in U.S. elections. They demonstrate that in spite of de-jure barriers to participation, a small portion of non-citizen immigrants do participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation is at times substantial enough to change important election outcomes including Electoral College votes and Senate races.”

‘This isn’t Chicago, now’

In Maryland, a watchdog group is suing the state over allegations of “massive and ongoing fraudulent voting by non-U.S. citizens.”

The president’s response to concerns about the integrity of the election ballot in the U.S., meanwhile, has been to joke about it.

At an appearance in Wisconsin recently, he reminded voters of their civic duty.

“You can only vote once – this isn’t Chicago, now,” he said at a political rally.

WND has reported extensively on efforts to combat fraud through voter ID laws.

While Obama’s Justice Department had fought the voter ID laws in court, the president recently affirmed the laws don’t minorities from voting.

“The bottom line is, if less than half of our folks vote, these laws aren’t preventing the other half from not voting. The reason we don’t vote is because people have been fed this notion that somehow it’s not going to make a difference. And it makes a huge difference,” Obama said.

“If we have a high turnout in North Carolina, then we will win. If we have a high turnout in Georgia, we will win. If we have a high turnout in Colorado, we will win. So, across the board, it is important for us to take responsibility and not give away our power,” he said.

Obama himself presented his driver’s license so poll workers could verify his identity when he voted in Chicago on Oct. 20.

One example of the need for voter ID was the discovery by Board of Elections officials in the Bronx that 850 New Yorkers registered to vote who purportedly were alive when Abraham Lincoln was president, the New York Post reported.

Board members said people apparently didn’t provide their birthdays when registering to vote, with some simply writing “21+.”

The Texas attorney general assembled a detailed list of evidence in his response to the DOJ’s latest attack on Texas voting laws.

“Evidence … shows that Attorney General Holder’s list of voters who lack government issued photo identification is fatally flawed because DOJ’s list includes dead voters, failed to exclude non-Texas residents, and did not attempt to match voters with photo ID databases maintained by the federal government – such as the State Department’s passport database or the Department of Defense’s military identification database,” the report said.

The DOJ’s list of voters who allegedly “lack photo identification” includes 50,000 dead voters, 330,000 voters over 65 who can vote by mail without ID and “countless” voters who actually have a government-issued photo ID but who were improperly included on the DOJ’s no-identification list, the Texas report said.

Among those on the no-ID list were state Elections Director Keith Ingram, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, former Sen. Phil Gramm, state Sen. Leticia Van De Putte and former President George W. Bush.

WND reported last week an accusation of vote fraud in an Arizona primary election through ballot-box stuffing.
The chairman of the Maricopa County Republican Committee, A.J. LaFaro, said he obtained video of a man bringing a box of what looked like hundreds of ballots in and stuffing them into a ballot box.

“I believe it’s inconceivable, unacceptable and should be illegal for groups to collect hundreds, if not thousands, of voter’s ballots and return them to the elections offices or poling locations,” said LaFaro.

See the BIG LIST of vote fraud reports coming out of the 2012 election.

WND also reported the National Conference of State Legislatures, which tracks the latest developments on voter ID, reports 34 states currently have laws on the books requiring some form of identification for voting.


God bless, 
JohnnyD

If It Damages America, It's Good for Democrats

From: Town Hall Daily

by - Dennis Prager | Oct 28, 2014


In almost every area of American life, the better things are, the worse it is for the Democratic Party. And vice versa.

Marriage. 
Even today, after decades of feminism, most Americans agree that it is better for women (and for men) -- and better for society -- when women (and men) marry. Yet, when women marry, it is bad for the Democratic Party; and when women do not marry, even after -- or shall we say, especially after -- having children, it is quite wonderful for the Democratic Party.

Married women vote Republican. Unmarried women lopsidedly vote Democrat.

It is both silly and dishonest to deny that it is in the Democrats' interest that women not marry. 

Blacks. 
Blacks who are not angry at America, especially white America, are more likely than those who harbor such anger to vote Republican. On the other hand, the more a black American considers America a racist society, the more he or she is a guaranteed Democratic voter.

Therefore, it is in the Democratic Party's interest to ensure that as many blacks as possible regard America negatively. If Democrats feel it will benefit their party, they will play with fire -- the fire of violence. Take Ferguson, Missouri. No Democrat or Republican knows what happened in Ferguson just before a black teenager was shot by a white policeman. The only thing almost any American has known about Ferguson is that a white police officer shot and killed a black teenager. Yet, while blacks in Ferguson demonstrated, some violently, the reaction of Democrats -- both politicians and the mainstream left-wing media -- has been to side with the demonstrators. 

There does not appear to be any level of black anger at white America that is too much for Democrats, who would rather see riots -- no matter how unwarranted -- than potentially lose black votes.

Latinos.
The more a Latino assimilates into American society, the more likely he or she is to vote Republican. On the other hand, the more Latinos continue to identify with the country they or their parents fled, the more likely they are to vote Democrat.

Thus, Democrats and the rest of the Left have engaged in two massive undertakings for decades: One has been to label Republicans "nativist," "anti-Hispanic," "xenophobic" and "anti-immigrant." The other has been to promote "multiculturalism," the anti-assimilation doctrine that cultivates ethnic identity over American identity.

Democrats repeatedly assert that America is "a nation of immigrants." This is undeniable. But there is a big difference today. In the past, nearly all immigrants sought to become American and to shed their previous national or ethnic identity. Today, many, perhaps a majority of, immigrants from Latin America do not have that goal. They come primarily or exclusively for economic benefits (and no one should blame them for doing so). Meanwhile, under cover of "multiculturalism," Democrats and the rest of the Left cultivate these immigrants' Latin American identities, knowing that the more American an immigrant feels, the less likely he or she is to vote Democrat.

Victim identity.
Americans who do not see themselves as victims -- of an "unfair" or "racist" or "misogynist" society -- are more likely to vote Republican. On the other hand, Americans who see themselves as victims of American society are likely to vote Democrat.

Therefore, the Democratic Party and its supportive media cultivate victimhood among almost all Americans who are not white and male. 

Dependency.
The more Americans depend on themselves or on their family or community, the more likely they are to vote Republican. On the other hand, the more Americans depend on the government -- whether for a job or for economic assistance -- the more likely they are to vote Democrat. Therefore, it is in the Democrats' interest to have more and more Americans depend on the state. 

In other words, in almost every area of life, the better things are, the worse it is for the Democratic Party. Democrats have placed themselves in the role of benefiting from social and moral dysfunction.

And they have embraced this role. The Democratic Party cultivates singlehood, black anger at America, Latino separatism, victimhood, group grievance and dependency on government. Nor is this the only way in which Democrats do terrible damage to America. They are also tearing America apart, setting women against men (with such falsehoods as "the war on women," "the rape culture" at American colleges, and the nonsense that "women are paid less for the same work"), blacks against whites, and Latinos against other Americans. They do this because the less women see men as an enemy, the less blacks regard whites as an enemy, and the more Latinos see themselves as Americans, the worse it is for Democrats.

The Democratic Party has been become a wholly destructive force in this country. Even though you may not intend to, if you vote for any Democrat, you contribute to that damage.


God bless,
JohnnyD