The Democrats’ Alien Voting Strategy

In a book from the 1950s entitled And Not a Shot is Fired: How Parliament Can Play a Revolutionary Part in the Transition to Socialism, Jan Kozak, a Czech Communist, explains how Czechoslovakia was transformed from a free country into a communist dictatorship in 1948 without armed revolution taking place.  They voted the communists in and, once they had a taste of power, they held on to it for 40 years.  That would not be possible in the United States, right?  After all, President Trump has said America will never be a socialist country.  Let’s take a look at something happening now that may make you wonder.

The 1948 Czechoslovakia model uses the voting booth to obtain power.  To do that they need voters.  Here’s one way to get truckloads of new voters.  Immigrants who become citizens vote overwhelmingly Democratic.  Table 4 from this Center for Immigration Reform link shows voter changes as immigrant population increases in 25 U.S. cities.  It gives a pretty good reason why Democrats want more immigrants.  They result in Democratic election wins.

Step one of the plan is to recruit voters.  Pueblo Sin Fronteras (People Without Borders for you English speakers out there) is a nonprofit group based in Chicago.  Glenn Beck gives a good summary of the group, its primary organizers, and some of its activities in this video if you’d like to know more about them.

PSF advertises in Honduras and Guatemala for people who would be interested in coming to the United States to live.  That would be a hard sell, wouldn’t it?  They then help organize and finance the “caravans” that march 1000 miles across Mexico and end up at our southern border.  And you thought it was all a spontaneous.

Once the “caravan” gets to the border and some of the participants begin to get across and into the U.S. immigration system, the question becomes what to do with them?  You would think someone who comes into the country illegally could be sent back but some judges are foot soldiers in the Left’s multi-pronged attack and block attempts to deport illegals.

The federal government is so big it’s hard to keep track of what kind of people populate it.  The 1948 Czech plan utilizes pressure from above with high-level politicians and the media as well as from below with unions, activist groups, and sympathizers in the government.  Some of today’s leftist sympathizers were political appointees of Obama’s who have managed to get lifetime civil-service jobs and others are actual card-carrying Democratic Socialist of America members who work on behalf of Left wing objectives as revealed in recent Project Veritas undercover videos.

With these kind of people occupying various positions in government it stands to reason that a plan would be hatched to use these “new potential voters” to help swing Florida, the nation’s third-largest state firmly into the Democratic left column.  If they can do this there is no way Republicans can win the presidency in the foreseeable future.  Someone in the Border Patrol decided to start shipping 500 illegal aliens a month from the southwestern border to Florida.  These aliens would subsequently be processed and released into the general population.  The plan got out and news from the weekend seems to indicate President Trump, who was unaware of the plan, will not allow it to go forward.

For the sake of our discussion, let’s say the plan goes forward.  These are new recruits who likely won’t be able to get citizenship by 2020 but will be the next generation of “new Americans.”  The bureaucracy is working feverishly right now to get new citizens processed and voting with Florida citizenship classes seeing increased attendance in the run up to 2020.  If they can’t win in 2020 they’ll have another four years to continue the importation of voters.

Keep in mind that citizenship is really no barrier to voting.  Some of these people could actually vote in 2020.  Judicial Watch estimates at least 900,000 aliens illegally voted in the midterm elections.  How can that be?  I suspect there are a number of ways but if you care to listen to the portion of the May 10. 2018 Mark Levin Show starting at the 31:26 minute mark you can hear a caller who claims to work for the U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Service.  He says multiple applicants he has interviewed admit they have voted without being citizens.

It looks like we have problem.  The first step in solving a problem is to identify what the problem is and why it exists.  Once you know that you can begin to formulate solutions.



As the 2020 election cycle gets underway with candidates announcing presidential campaigns and respective platforms, the Muslim Brotherhood agenda for the United States demonstrably seeks through subversive infiltration of American institutions the triumph of shariah.

The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), a political umbrella group for the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, represents a leading edge of the jihadist movement in this country. While the USCMO seeks to cloak itself in red, white, and blue, it is only for the purpose of accomplishing what can aptly be described as “Star Spangled Shariah”.

The ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ set in motion by the Muslim Brotherhood decades ago now has been operationalized to specifically political objectives through the establishment of the USCMO. The formation of the USCMO in 2014 marked the first U.S. Muslim Brotherhood political party, and indeed the first religious identity political party, in the history of this country.

USCMO senior leadership led by Secretary General Oussama Jammal and Council on American Islamic Relations Executive Director Nihad Awad has pledged its fidelity to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has neither concealed his support for HAMAS, nor been slow to act when HAMAS has called upon AKP leadership and required his assistance.

Alarming as this should be for U.S. national security as HAMAS is designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. Department of State, the recent election of USCMO-backed Ilhan Abdullahi Omar to the U.S. House of Representatives is even more troublesome.

She not only demonstrates openly her affiliation with CAIR (the U.S. HAMAS branch) and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups represented in the USCMO,  but also has established a political relationship with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party at a time when Erdoğan is running hostile foreign influence operations against the U.S. government.

Suburbs return to Trump, GOP fights to keep them.

When the 2018 elections practically wiped out GOP members from suburban districts, the party went into a panic. But since, the suburban vote, especially among women, has come back to the Republicans as the economy has surged.

“President Trump remains popular among suburban and rural voters, especially suburban women. Trump polls very close with suburban women among” 2020 Democratic challengers, said pollster Jonathan Zogby of Zogby Analytics.

“The suburban data is interesting and is a good reminder that midterm elections tell us almost nothing about what’s going to happen in the presidential election,” added pollster Chris Wilson of WPA Intelligence.

Why Second Amendment Supporters Must Fight Campaign Reform Laws

United States – -( One of the biggest threats to our right to keep and bear arms is not a gun ban like that proposed by Eric Swalwell. It’s not Cory Booker’s licensing scheme. Nor it is Kamala Harris promising to ban imports of modern multi-purpose semiautomatic firearms.

No, the biggest threats are various campaign reform laws, like the For the People Act that passed the House of Representatives earlier this year.

In 2002, Michael Barnes, then the president of the Brady Campaign, explained the reasoning behind their support for McCain-Feingold:

“Even though the measure will impact our election activities as well, it will cut into the NRA’s even more, reducing the gun lobby’s ability to obstruct the progress of sensible gun laws.”

Translation: The NRA was doing too well in persuading Americans that millions of law-abiding gun owners shouldn’t be punished for the actions of criminals and nutcases, so the Brady Campaign wanted to change the rules. It seems the Second Amendment isn’t the only part of the Bill of Rights that they hated. They tried to use the power of the government to muzzle their opponents. It was a concession that they were losing the argument.

You have to admit, at least they were being honest.

It would have been far easier for Al Gore or Hillary Clinton to win if the NRA (or other pro-Second Amendment groups) had to jump through hoops set up by some Lois Lerner wannabe. Even if the anti-Second Amendment candidate lost, FEC investigations could saddle Second Amendment supporters with legal bills in the best of situations.

Of course, given the many intricacies and complexities of campaign finance law, it is very likely that the FEC investigation will come up with violations. As a result of those findings, the Second Amendment supporters get hit with fines and possibly jail time. Who might be the targets? Figure they’ll go for the most effective advocates for the Second Amendment first. [GOA, NRA, SAF, state groups]

Furthermore, you can bet that anti-Second Amendment extremists will get a pass. Dinesh D’Souza got a felony conviction for his scheme to bypass campaign donation limits in one election, but Rosie O’Donnell has yet to face any legal repercussions for repeatedly violating campaign donation limits in support of candidates who oppose our Second Amendment rights.

The goal is not just to bog down Second Amendment supporters who get involved, although the likes of Michael Bloomberg and Shannon Watts do benefit from that. The real target of this campaign of legal and bureaucratic harassment are those Second Amendment supporters who are thinking about becoming activists and advocates.

By making examples of activists supporting the Second Amendment, they hope to deter others from coming forward.

In essence, they will give us a choice: Either let them punish millions of law-abiding American citizens for crimes and mass shootings they did not commit, or they will proceed to use the power of the government to harass us and ruin our lives.


Anyone want to bet on whether or not any of the demoncraps running for  president will note what just happened in Australia’s election?


The Midwest state where Democrats should give up already.

Republicans have come a long way since 2012, when I ran Mitt Romney’s campaign in Ohio. President Barack Obama took an op-ed Romney had written with the headline “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” four years earlier and used it to slam the GOP. Romney never had an answer to Obama’s attack depicting Romney as a heartless corporate raider who cared more about profits than people.

“When some wanted to let Detroit go bankrupt, we made a bet on American workers, on the ingenuity of American companies,” Obama said in a Columbus speech in May of 2012. He was still at it in October: “[We] refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way.” I had nightmares about that “bankrupt” headline; I couldn’t turn on a TV or pick up a newspaper without seeing Obama’s team relentlessly hammering that nail.

The gambit worked perfectly: Obama bested Romney by three points in Ohio, en route to winning a second term.

But four years later, Ohioans, like many other Midwestern voters, had soured on Democrats, with Trump owning Hillary Clinton by eight points. In fact, Trump’s margin of victory in Ohio was bigger than Georgia (5) and Arizona (3.5), states that pundits routinely think of as being redder than Ohio. And Trump’s work in the state will make it more likely than not that Trump will outperform any earlier poll that predicts a Democratic edge.

What These Wannabe Dem Presidents Plan For U$.

• Slap a new tax on banks with more than $50 million in assets. Kamala Harris especially likes this one, which would bring in an estimated $61 billion. Banks are big and bad, unless you want or have home mortgage.

• Increase by 88 percent the amount of income Americans must pay Social Security taxes on from the current $132,900 up to at least a quarter-million. Maybe more. Yeh, sure, some middle-class families will be caught in the cash net. But see, silly person who doesn’t understand how government works, they’re spending all the current Social Security tax income already. So, they need more for new programs, probably another $800+ billion.

• People are making too much money from investments that can help create jobs. So, jack the capital gains by 50 percent to 30 percent. That might rake in more than $600 billion, assuming it doesn’t stop much investing..

• And let’s cut into that mortgage interest tax deduction. Too many Americans are owning or buying homes and affording it. That’s worth a good $972 billion at least.

• Here’s a good one: Hike the federal tax on a gallon of gasoline by “only” 10 cents, which is actually 65 percent. This should bring in another $170 billion. Sure, it hits regular working folks the hardest, but we all must make financial sacrifices for the greener good. Also, tell town halls the money will pay for infrastructure repairs. That’s a good line. Some Republicans might even go for it, unless they know Grover Norquist.

• Oh, and index that enlarged gas tax to inflation so it’ll increase automatically forever and politicians won’t have to wait another 26 years for new revenues.

• Finally – well, it’s not really final because there are many other tax ideas – let’s install a value-added tax. This will be a five percent levy on every step of any item’s production process. Europe loves them. Yes, yes, it would hike consumer prices considerably. But it would bring in – are you sitting down? – nearly $6.2 Trillion.

Joe Biden: Soul Man.
The former senator and veep thinks Trump-era America needs some moral straightening out.

I’m not sure the country wants to hear lectures on morality from a hypocrite who made his son filthy rich playing footsie with Moscow and Beijing.

The current field of Democratic presidential candidates is no gift to the science of politics, but in some ways Joe Biden may be the most alarming of the crop crap.

The Democratic aspirants mostly want to invite government more deeply into our lives as arbiter of who gets how much money. Biden wants—or says he wants—to go to work on our souls.

“We are in battle,” said the former vice president, throwing his metaphorical hat into the metaphorical ring, “for the soul of this nation. If we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation—who we are. And I cannot stand by and let that happen.”

After he chases the Trumpmonster out of public life, will he then and thereupon explain what politics has to do with human souls? That would be a start, and a challenging one. The notion that Biden or any other political figure, from far Left to far Right, will be shaping our souls as well as our economic prospects is ludicrous and, in many contexts, frightening. Therein lies the deep dark shadows of 1984: “He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”……

Biden, the Moses who would straighten us all out if you take him at his word, has in mind a miracle nearly as large as the parting of the Red Sea. He would turn America into the first nation ever saved by the wringers of hands at election rallies; by the solicitors of campaign cash, the beady-eyed inquisitors at televised committee hearings.

AOC And Bernie Have A Brilliant New Idea For Banking

There are dumb ideas and then there’s whatever this is.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders have teamed up to introduce the idea of “non-profit banking services” done via the post office, where sub-prime loans would be given out to people who are terrible credit risks, thereby causing high default rates. Because absolutely nothing bad could come of that.

Wait, didn’t we have a financial crisis the last time this was tried?

This is simply moronic and I don’t use that term lightly.

No one “discriminates” against people of color when it comes to loans. Banks want to turn a profit, full stop. That’s their only motivator. They don’t care if you are purple. The reason minority groups have a harder time getting loans is because they include higher rates of individuals who do not have the credit nor capital to be lent to. Loans are not handouts or a right. They exist with the sole supposition being that the person given the loan must pay it back with interest. Handing out loans to high credit risks is how you get a crash like we had in 2008.

Yet, here’s AOC and Bernie suggesting that not only should banks give out junk loans, but that the Postal Service should be doing the lending. That’s the same Postal Service that lost $3.6B last year alone. Now these two socialists want them to take on even more losses via giving out bad loans? It’s completely insane.

Never mind how big of an invasion of privacy it would be for the government to have round the clock, full access to everyone’s banking records.

What’s happening here is obvious though. AOC is just a crazy person, but Bernie is doing this to help bolster his floundering Presidential campaign. Biden has stepped in and cleaned his clock since announcing. Bernie is now losing to Elizabeth Warren in some polls. He needs to get back in the news and this is his way of doing so.

Biden senior adviser: We don’t need white men leading the Democratic Party

Well, allrighty then!

Symone Sanders, who has just joined Joe Biden’s presidential campaign as a senior adviser, must have reconsidered her earlier position on Democratic Party leadership.

In November 2016, shortly after President Trump’s victory, Sanders told CNN’s Brianna Keilar that “we don’t need white people leading the Democratic Party right now.”

“The Democratic Party is diverse, and it should be reflected as so in our leadership and throughout the staff at the highest levels from the vice chairs to the secretaries all the way down to the people working in the offices at the DNC,” she added.

The comments were puzzling at the time, considering Sanders, an African American, had earlier served as press secretary for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign. Since leaving that position, she has worked as a political strategist and CNN contributor.

Trump’s army of ‘the uncovered.’

A funny thing happened on the way to the 2016 presidential election. The unelectable, uncouth, unintelligent, unpolitical, unlikeable, and utterly unthinkable guy won. Clearly, the “deplorables” assisted, as did the “bitter clingers” — owners of guns and Bibles — and the so-called uneducated, unsophisticated, and ridiculed patriotic swath of the American people.

But it took more. The uncovereds carried President Trump over the finish line to unbelievable victory.

Who and what are the uncovereds? They are the silent army who are passionately pro-Trump but wouldn’t and still won’t admit it. Why? one might ask. Were they cowards?

In the months leading up to the 2016 election, the reasons for secrecy were very different from and far more benign than those dictating secrecy today. In 2015, Trump’s inner circle was aware of the phenomenon, as were the ancillary Trump campaign volunteers who walked the streets, knocking on doors, and toiling for hours at phone banks.

What did they collectively discover? Diverse but large groups of people were committed to voting for Trump. However, while they would admit their pro-Trump predilection to anonymous pollsters or door-knockers or phone surveyors, they would not tell their family, friends, co-workers, bosses, or teachers. Universally, their response would be “I’m voting for Trump, but I’m not telling my spouse, or anyone else.” In 2015, it just wasn’t worth the hassle and ridicule to them. They didn’t want to argue with friends and relatives, teachers and students. And they didn’t want to be perceived as dumb. . . .

In 2019, going into the upcoming presidential election cycle, the uncovereds’ reticence stems from far more profound fears. There is a fear of violence. There is a fear of being fired. There is a fear of grade retribution. There is a fear of a car with a pro-Trump bumper sticker being vandalized. This fear radiates in America. Incredibly, the Democratic Party has created an atmosphere of free speech suppression — “if you disagree with us, we will silence you.”

The Democrats, with their anarchistic thug minions, blackmail serial con artists, and monolithic control of public education and social and print media, have terrorized many Trump aficionados into diving underground and undercover. By doing so, they have perpetuated the inevitability of their second and seemingly more comprehensive demise. That is because, by pushing more uncovereds underground, they don’t know how many uncovereds exist.

Yet despite massive intimidation, another funny thing is happening on the way to the 2020 presidential election: Many of the heretofore uncovereds are banning together and openly bursting forth from the Trump closet. These include the Jewish groups Jexit and Jexodus and the ever-expanding black American and Caucasian movement #walkaway.

The groundswell of Jewish appreciation for President Trump, in some Jewish enclaves, is so overwhelming that it has permeated the 2019 Jewish celebration of Passover.

HR 1: Blueprint for an Electoral Takeover

Call your Stentator to stop this .

HR 1, a bill sponsored by Representative John Sarbanes (D-Md.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has already passed in the House of Representatives and has been read in the Senate. The title of the bill is For the People Act of 2019, but a more accurate name for the bill might be The Federal Takeover of Elections Act of 2019. This bill includes components that, while being portrayed as making voting easier on Americans, are not only going to lead to corruption but to an unconstitutional takeover of elections by the federal government.

Is HR 1 Constitutional?

Is HR 1 Constitutional? The obvious answer for anyone familiar with the U.S. Constitution and the Federalist Papers is a resounding “No,” because there is no grant of power given to the federal government to simply take over elections.

This bill’s supporters would likely disagree with that claim and quote Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution as justification, which says:

The times, places, and manner of holding elections, for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof, but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

To the casual observer, this could reasonably appear to be a general grant of power to Congress to take over and regulate elections nationwide, but it’s not.

Of course, the first clue that this isn’t a general grant of power for ongoing operations can be seen in its placement. It is not among the 18 specifically enumerated powers listed in Article I, Section 8 where one can find grants of power for routine ongoing operations of the federal government, such as coining money, establishing post offices, etc………..

The Wisdom of Alexander Hamilton

This bill, which would essentially accomplish a federal takeover of elections in this country, is quietly moving forward in Congress and public awareness needs to be raised that such a dangerous bill is in Congress and that it needs to be defeated in the Senate. Alexander Hamilton put it best when he said as previously quoted in this article:

Suppose an article had been introduced into the Congress empowering the United States to regulate the elections for the particular States, would any man have hesitated to condemn it, both as an unwarrantable transposition of power and as a premeditated engine for the destruction of the State governments?

He was talking about bills such as HR 1.

Senate demoncraps introduce measure to abolish Electoral College

When they can’t win, they want to change to rules. This won’t go anywhere anyway, as I can guarantee that the small population states will not pass the amendment even if it did make it through the Senate. So, since they know this, as they’re not that stupid, it’s grandstanding and virtue signalling to the base demoncrap voters who are stupid enough to believe this crap-for-brains idea.

A group of Democratic senators on Tuesday introduced a measure to do away with the Electoral College, picking up on a talking point that has caught fire in the 2020 Democratic presidential field.

The measure serves as companion legislation to one put forward in the House by Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., and counts one presidential candidate — Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York — among its co-sponsors. Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein of California and Brian Schatz of Hawaii also sponsored the resolution.

The Electoral College has been the focus of renewed Democratic criticism in the wake of President Trump’s 2016 win. While he defeated Hillary Clinton in the electoral vote, he lost the popular vote by 2.9 million ballots.

Pete Buttigieg (demoncrap for president)Wants to Free You from Freedom.

I scoffed at Pete Buttigieg when he announced he was running for president, but as I learn more about him, he seems pretty tolerable for a Democrat. He’s a veteran, he’s a Rhodes scholar, he became the mayor of a mid-sized city before 30, he speaks seven languages, he likes Chick-fil-A, etc. He’s pleasant and well-mannered. He’s a white male, which puts him at a disadvantage as a Democrat in 2019, but he more than makes up for it by being both gay and married to someone who happens to be gay. He’s even inspired headlines from conservative writers like, “Next to Buttigieg, Beto Is a Joke.” Plus, as a Hoosier I feel a certain element of pride in him, even though the only two things I know about South Bend are that it’s adjacent to Notre Dame and it’s nowhere near North Bend or North Bend.

I even learned how to pronounce his name: BOOTY-jay-peg.

But just when I’m starting to like the guy, just when I’m ready to reach across the aisle and say, “Not bad, kid,” he has to go and blurt out something like this:

“I don’t think we need different values. I believe in the values of this party, that’s why I’m doing this. But I do believe we could adjust the way we talk about it just a little bit. And it’s one of the reasons why you always hear the word ‘freedom’ on my lips.

We’ve allowed our conservative friends to get a monopoly on the idea of freedom. Now, they care about freedom, but they care about a very specific kind of freedom. Freedom from.

Freedom from regulation. As though government were the only thing that can make us unfree. But that’s not true, is it? We know that your neighbor can make you unfree.

Your cable company can make you unfree. [LAUGHTER] If they’re telling you who you ought to marry, your county clerk can make you unfree. [APPLAUSE] You’re not free if you’re afraid to start a small business because leaving your job would mean losing your healthcare. [APPLAUSE] You’re not free if there’s a veil of mistrust between you as a person of color and the officers who are sworn to keep you safe. [APPLAUSE] You’re not free if your reproductive choices are being dictated by male politicians in Washington. [APPLAUSE] So don’t let anybody tell you that the other side is the side that’s got a handle on freedom. We are the party of freedom, and we shouldn’t be afraid to go out there and say it.”

Orwell wept.

I don’t know where Pete gave this speech, but he might be breaking the law because Indiana still hasn’t legalized marijuana. For a guy who speaks so many languages, he needs to brush up on his English.

So freedom means getting things from the government? Freedom means everybody has to approve of, if not actively participate in, your personal choices? Freedom means you put responsibility for your own feelings in the hands of law-enforcement officers? Freedom means you should be able to kill as many babies as you want, for any reason or no reason at all?

“Your neighbor can make you unfree.” Sure, if he locks me up in his basement. Short of that, what in the world does this mean, Pete?

And hold on a second… your cable company can make you unfree? Since when? I know Pete was only born in 1982, but if he’s as well-read as his supporters claim he is, he must know that Americans managed to survive for hundreds of years with no cable companies at all.

Freedom doesn’t mean being free from anything bad ever happening to you. It doesn’t mean being free from fear, or need, or want. Most of the things Pete lists aren’t a loss of freedom. They’re the price of freedom.

As some old dead white guy once said: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have.”

Oh, by the way, county clerks and cops and congressmen are representatives of… government! Well, forget it, Pete’s rolling.

That said, I’m glad at least one of the candidates is talking about these fundamental ideas. Buttigieg is completely wrong about the very definition of the word “freedom,” but it sure beats jumping up on restaurant counters and ranting about the time (now) and the place (America). All politicians are liars, but there’s no need to be obnoxious about it.

Elizabeth Warren says she wants to eliminate the Electoral College.


Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren said she supports eliminating the U.S. Electoral College during a town hall broadcast on Monday night.

“Every vote matters and the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College,” Warren told an audience at the historically black college Jackson State University in Mississippi.

Warren’s statement on CNN came after an audience member asked the Massachusetts senator about voting rights and so-called voter suppression laws.

“I believe we need a constitutional amendment that protects the right to vote for every American citizen and makes sure that vote gets counted,” she said. “We need to put some federal muscle behind that, and we need to repeal every one of the voter suppression laws that is out there.”

House votes in favor of illegal immigrant voting

And certainly during national elections, when there are always local and state issues on the ballot, these illegal immigrants and other non-citizens are kept from casting votes for federal candidates.
If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

House Democrats voted Friday to defend localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections, turning back a GOP attempt to discourage the practice.

The vote marks a stunning reversal from just six months ago, when the chamber — then under GOP control — voted to decry illegal immigrant voting.

“We are prepared to open up the political process and let all of the people come in,” Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and hero of the civil rights movement, told colleagues as he led opposition to the GOP measure.

The 228-197 vote came as part of a broader debate on Democrats’ major legislative priority this year, HR 1, the “For the People Act,” which includes historic expansions of voter registration and access, as well as a major rewrite of campaign finance laws.

The measure would have had no practical effect even if it had passed. Illegal immigrants — and indeed noncitizens as a whole — are not legally able to participate in federal elections.

But Republicans had hoped to send a message to localities such as San Francisco, where noncitizens are now allowed to vote in school board 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.

He pointed to last year’s vote, when 49 Democrats joined the GOP to decry noncitizen voting.

On Friday just six Democrats voted in favor.

A 1996 federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, but there is no prohibition on localities, and indeed a number of jurisdictions allow it, to some extent.

Famously liberal Takoma Park, a small jurisdiction in Maryland, has for several decades allowed noncitizens, including illegal immigrants, to vote in local elections.

Experts say as many as 40 states or territories allowed noncitizen voting dating back to the nation’s founding.

San Francisco in July began allowing noncitizens to vote in school board elections — though they must be parents or legal guardians of students.

Bernie Sanders hires illegal immigrant to be press secretary

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ new deputy national press secretary likely won’t be eligible to vote in the 2020 election due to what she says is her status as an undocumented immigrant.

The hiring of Belen Sisa, an Arizona leftist activist, was announced Wednesday evening. Sisa, who says she was brought to this country illegally from Argentina by her parents at age six, is currently protected from deportation under President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program.

Despite her immigration status, Sisa has remained active in liberal politics over the years. In 2016, she worked as a page to the Arizona delegation at the Democratic National Convention and in Latino outreach for Sanders’ 2016 campaign.

 Judge demands that Texas get his approval to stop non-citizens from voting

Shouldn’t we all agree that someone’s citizenship should be verified before he or she casts a vote in our elections?

There is no greater interest of a state than protecting the integrity of its franchise from foreign nationals voting in our elections. Yet repeatedly, the federal courts, which have unconstitutionally crowned themselves king over election law, have prevented states from taking any logical measures to stop non-citizens from voting. With the latest court ruling in Texas, conservatives must ask themselves how much longer they will tolerate this judicial tyranny and how many more elections they are willing to lose as a result of our passive approach to the judicial power grab.

Judges have already prevented states from requiring proof of citizenship on the voter registration forms under the motor-voter process. As such, states like Texas are left with the option of retroactively comparing existing voter rolls to citizenship information. Last month, the Texas secretary of state revealed that approximately 95,000 registered voters’ driver’s license information from the motor vehicle department indicate they submitted non-citizen documents. This is a red flag for voter fraud, because while an unknown number of them might later have become naturalized citizens before voting in our elections, it’s unlikely that all of them have become citizens.

To try to determine their status, Texas Secretary of State David Whitley instructed the county clerks to send out letters to these voters and request them to notify the county government if they indeed have become naturalized.

Isn’t that a reasonable request to protect the interests of the state?

In comes an obnoxious judge, Fred Biery, and rules that the state cannot even inquire about someone’s status “without prior approval of the Court with a conclusive showing that the person is ineligible to vote.” He asserted in the four-page order that “there is no widespread voter fraud” that would warrant this process set forth by the state.

These names are not picked out of a hat. There is a conflict between their DMV records, which indicate they are aliens, and their voter registrations, which should indicate they are citizens. Texas is not automatically purging these voters; it is simply asking these people to update their status. Yet Biery said this is too much of a “burden” on potentially naturalized citizens and will “intimidate the less powerful among us.”

Thus, while no judge has officially said “non-citizens shall vote in our elections,” judges have walled off every logical way for states to prevent them from registering and from voting. Judge Biery’s assertion that Texas’s concern is bogus is simply ludicrous. The threat of non-citizens registered to vote is a prima facie problem.

Pennsylvania gov’t admits that more than 11,000 non-US citizens were registered to vote. Democratic governor tried to block the info.

More than 11,000 people who were registered to vote in Pennsylvania were found to not be citizens of the United States — and the state’s Democratic governor didn’t want anyone to know about it.

What’s the story?

Two Republican state lawmakers, Reps. Daryl Metcalfe and Garth Everett, released the information Tuesday. Metcalfe had requested this information from the state in February 2018, but the request was appealed by Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, and stalled until Dec. 3, after the elections had already wrapped up.

On Dec. 3, the Pennsylvania Department of State sent a letter to Metcalfe, which indicated that a “possible” 11,198 voter registrations existed for people who were identified by the state as non-citizens.

Pennsylvania is considered a crucial state for the 2020 presidential election.

Metcalfe told the Washington Times that he believed “we need to take action and have those people removed immediately from the rolls,” adding “[t]hey were never eligible to vote.”

Some Dems float idea of primary challenge for Ocasio-Cortez

And this is on The Hill, a leftist publication. When you’re losing them, well….Yeah, so it looks like the little commutard twit torqued off some in her party. I’m not surprised. They all know her election victory was not as has been advertised and a determined challenger could easily do to her what she did to Crowley. And as she still appears to be a thorn in the side of the party elite, she could find herself back tending bar in ’21.

Rep. Alexandria OcasioCortez (D-N.Y.) has infuriated colleagues by aligning with a progressive outside group that’s threatening to primary entrenched Democrats. Now some of those lawmakers are turning the tables on her and are discussing recruiting a primary challenger to run against the social media sensation.

At least one House Democrat has been privately urging members of the New York delegation to recruit a local politician from the Bronx or Queens to challenge Ocasio-Cortez.

“What I have recommended to the New York delegation is that you find her a primary opponent and make her a one-term congressperson,” the Democratic lawmaker, who requested anonymity, told The Hill. “You’ve got numerous council people and state legislators who’ve been waiting 20 years for that seat. I’m sure they can find numerous people who want that seat in that district.”

The New York delegation has eyed Ocasio-Cortez with skepticism ever since last summer when the 29-year-old self-described democratic socialist shocked the political world and defeated then-Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) in what many thought would be a sleepy primary race. Crowley, a Queens powerbroker and affable House Democratic Caucus chairman, had been considered a possible future Speaker.

Many New York and Congressional Black Caucus lawmakers were also furious with Ocasio-Cortez after a recent Politico report stated she and the grass-roots group aligned with her, Justice Democrats, were considering backing a primary challenge to fellow New York Democrat Hakeem Jeffries, a Black Caucus member and establishment insider who succeeded Crowley as caucus chairman.

Both Ocasio-Cortez and Justice Democrats have denied the report, but the group of insurgent progressives has vowed to target centrist Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) and is eyeing other potential 2020 targets.

For now, New York Democratic lawmakers are playing nice with Ocasio-Cortez and her 2.6 million Twitter followers and say no one in the Empire State’s delegation is currently contemplating backing a primary challenger against her.

“We are going to see what happens. Generally for me, I’m giving folks the benefit of the doubt, the presumption of innocence. You might say one thing before you get in here, and then after you get to meet folks, you see what happens and how the body works … things are different, so we’ll see what happens,” Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), whose district includes part of Queens, said in an interview.

“I can only tell you that the times I’ve spoken to her, and at the times she’s been at the New York delegation meetings, she’s been cooperative and wants to be a team player. That’s what she said, so you gotta take her at her word until something changes,” Meeks added.

Jeffries, the No. 4 House Democrat who some say could someday become Speaker, insisted none of his House colleagues have approached him to run a primary challenger against Ocasio-Cortez. In fact, the 48-year-old Jeffries said, delegation members this month lobbied Democratic leadership to grant Ocasio-Cortez’s request that she be appointed to the House Financial Services and the Oversight and Reform committees.

“I don’t think that is something the New York delegation would contemplate. As you can see, we are totally united behind each other. … The New York delegation sticks together,” Jeffries told The Hill. He said Ocasio-Cortez denied the news report that she was backing a challenger to him, “so there was nothing to work through. I haven’t seen a primary candidate emerge, so I assume when she denied it, she was correct that there was nothing to it.”

No potential challengers to Ocasio-Cortez have yet emerged. But one New York political insider noted that the Queens and Bronx district is home to many ambitious pols who are close to Crowley and don’t like that a political outsider took his seat.

Kamala Harris Vows to ‘Eliminate’ Private Insurance Market.

I guess the new hot is: If you like your plan, you can’t have it.
It appears that Harris is the media anointed demoncrap nominee. She’s the only one, so far, that has a one of these “town hall” propaganda rallies. She’s younger than any of the other candidates that actually have a shot at the nomination, and she’s not white.
I expect more swooning over her like they did for Hillary Clinton, which I think is good as she doesn’t have a lot that Obama had going for him at this point in 2007.
She’s not the political zero Obama was, and she definitely doesn’t have the slick charm he still has. She’s a harpy SJW and that is going to be what does her in, just like it did Hillary.

Senator Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) advocated the elimination of the private health insurance industry during a CNN town hall event in Iowa Monday night.

Harris, who announced her 2020 presidential candidacy this week, broke from previous Democratic healthcare orthodoxy, which held that Americans could retain their private insurance if they so chose, in favor of a single-payer plan in which the government is the sole health insurance provider.

“I believe the solution — and I actually feel very strongly about this — is that we need to have Medicare for all,” Harris said in response to an audience question about healthcare affordability. “That’s just the bottom line.”

“So for people out there who like their insurance, they don’t get to keep it?” CNN’s Jake Tapper asked.

“Let’s eliminate all of that,” Harris responded, “let’s move on.”

She’s also as, or more, anti-gun than the rest of the herd.

Texas Secretary of State:
As Many as 58,000 Non-Citizens Voted in Elections

Texas election officials said Friday that tens of thousands of people whose U.S. citizenship could not be confirmed cast ballots in one or more election in the state during the past 22 years.

Texas Secretary of State David Whitley said a year-long evaluation found about 95,000 people described as “non-U.S. citizens” who are registered to vote in Texas. About 58,000 of them voted in Texas elections between 1996 and 2018, Whitley said.

“Integrity and efficiency of elections in Texas require accuracy of our state’s voter rolls, and my office is committed to using all available tools under the law to maintain an accurate list of registered voters,” Whitley said.

These voters were found as state workers updated voter registration lists, comparing data with the Texas Department of Public Safety, to make sure those who cast ballots were eligible to do so, Whitley said.