Illegals Voting Gave Hillary the Edge

The AntiFa Resist 45 Movement loves to point out that Hillary won the popular vote.

However, if you get down into the weeds a bit the picture that materializes isn’t quite what we have been led to believe by the Democrat Party, their bully-boy street thugs, or their media megaphone.

As reported in Investor’s Business Daily if you take California out of the equation it is a completely different picture.

If you look at every other measure, Trump was the clear and decisive winner in this election.

Number of states won:
Trump: 30

Clinton: 20Trump: +10

Number of electoral votes won:
Trump: 306

Clinton: 232Trump: + 68

Ave. margin of victory in winning states:
Trump: 56%

Clinton: 53.5%Trump: + 2.5 points

Popular vote total:
Trump: 62,958,211

Clinton: 65,818,318Clinton: + 2.8 million

Popular vote total outside California:
Trump: 58,474,401

Clinton: 57,064,530Trump: + 1.4 million

In other words, if you take California out of the popular vote equation, then Trump wins the rest of the country by 1.4 million votes. And if California voted like every other Democratic state—where Clinton averaged 53.5% wins—Clinton and Trump end up in a virtual popular vote tie.  Then again for several reasons California doesn’t vote like every other state.  Besides the fact that it has become a one party State it isn’t called Mexifornia for nothing.  It is the destination of choice for more illegals coming north for economic and social reasons than any other State.  Although we all know and have experienced the reality that in the aftermath of open borders illegals are now a sizable portion of the population anywhere you go in the U.S. of A.

Why does this have an impact on our understanding of the 2016 election?

Remember President Trump’s famous tweet:

In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

For this he was ridiculed by the ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBCPBSNPR Cartel who presented it as nothing more than a “Twitter-born conspiracy theory.”  Investor’s Business Daily once again did the heavy lifting that the Lamestream Media refuses to do.  In an editorial they provide us facts and projections based on actual studies, surveys, and scholarly research as opposed to the baseless character assassination which the media megaphone tries to pass off as journalism.

In 2008, as many as 5.7 million noncitizens voted in the election. In 2012, as many as 3.6 million voted

Such as a study in 2014 in the online Electoral Studies Journal which made a quite similar claim: In the 2008 and 2010 elections, they said, as many as 2.8 million illegal noncitizen votes were cast, “enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes and congressional elections,” said the study, authored by Jesse T. Richman and Gushan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.  Which contained this bombshell: “Noncitizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.”

Concerning the possibility that as the President said illegals had an impact on the popular vote totals; a new study by Just Facts, a libertarian conservative think tank that used data from a large Harvard/You.Gov study that every two years samples tens of thousands of voters, including some who admit they are noncitizens and thus can’t vote legally.

The findings are eye-opening. In 2008, as many as 5.7 million noncitizens voted in the election. In 2012, as many as 3.6 million voted, the study said.

Democrats had extensive get-out-the-vote campaigns in areas heavily populated by illegal aliens

In 2016, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that there were 21.0 million adult noncitizens in the U.S., up from 19.4 million in 2008. It is therefore highly likely that millions of noncitizens cast votes in 2016.

And it was no accident. Democrats had extensive get-out-the-vote campaigns in areas heavily populated by illegal aliens. As far back as 2008, Obama made sure that those who wanted to vote knew it was safe, announcing that election records would not be cross-checked with immigration databases.

And last year, the Obama White House supported a court injunction that kept Kansas, Alabama and Georgia from requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. The message was sent, loud and clear: If you’re a noncitizen or here illegally, don’t be afraid. You’re free to vote. No one will stop you.

We don’t know the exact number of illegal votes. No one does. But the data that are available suggest that the number of illegal votes was substantial—probably in the millions, as Trump said—and likely had a significant impact on the election’s outcome.

Did illegals voting in 2016 give Hillary the edge in the popular vote?  Sure they did

Think about this for a moment.  To become an American Citizen a person has to pass a test on American History in English.  These people would have no need for a ballot printed in another language.  They can read English.  That is a requirement of citizenship.  In every State of our nation ballots are printed in Spanish.  Since citizens have no need of them, who are they printed for?  Isn’t the answer self-evident?

How can we avoid this type of fraud in the future?

First of all we could have fewer illegals in our country.  Secondly we could require that people show proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.  Also we could allow States to purge voter rolls of the dead, cross reference voter rolls across State lines, and require a photo ID to vote.  Perhaps as the rule of law is re-instituted after the unconstitutional excesses of the Obamanation we will see such commonsense procedures instituted.

The truth will always eventually win out over the lie.  And just as we can rest assured that those who believe the greatest lie of all time will eventually bow their knee and proclaim, “Jesus is Lord,‚” so to we can rest assured that even in this fallen world the truth is always visible to those who seek it.

Did illegals voting in 2016 give Hillary the edge in the popular vote?

Sure they did.

July 1, 2017 | 20 Comments » | 498 views

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

20 Comments / 20 Comments

  1. Naturally. Anything to do with Clinton, all of them, involves illegality, be that voters being illegally voting, Internet servers illegally used to keep and distribute US Government secret information, using a front organization to quite likely illegally gathering foreign funds…
    etc.

  2. In California they have given close to a a million illegals drivers licenses under a program they have. Illegals regularly obtain social security cards. These are the two things you need to register to vote in California.

    So how many of these illegals voted in California? One, two, 100,000, 500,000, 900,000? We do not not know.

  3. So what? Now this is shocking! I just came from the Brooklyn Costco where there is a prominently displayed notice at the returns counter that attempts to cash in bottles to be recycled for which no money was tendered in the first place, are punishable by a fine of $25,000 or imprisonment. And here’s Michigan:

    “Man faces prison after allegedly trying to deposit 10,000 bottles in Michigan
    Brian Everidge accused of attempting to pull off a caper straight out of Seinfeld, hoping to cash in on bottles bought out of state”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/michigan-bottle-deposit-recycling-seinfeld
    Horrifying, no?

    But, It’s good to see the law being enforced. We’re a country that cares about that. Deeply.

  4. “29 States Refuse To Give Data To Voter Fraud Panel, “What Are They Trying To Hide” Trump Asks”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-01/what-are-they-trying-hide-trump-asks-after-29-states-refuse-give-data-voter-fraud-pa

    “…As of noon on Saturday, the states who have refused the Commission’s demands are: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.”

    But, who cares, so long as we’ve got the important issues covered. Like identifying and cracking down on bottle recycling scoflaws. I mean, just imagine if we didn’t. Why, we could have a constitutional crisis, no?

  5. Is there a way to legislate to the following purpose?
    A month before Federal elections all states must disclose to the Interior Secretary, INN and FBI, the state’s voters listings including voter’s names, date of voter registration, citizenship status, SSN’s, addresses, drivers licences numbers…

  6. @ SHmuel HaLevi 2

    The crooked politicians do whatever they want, so there’s always a way.

    The fact that exercising one’s right to vote is supposed to be as effortless as dropping a slightly marked-up slip of paper into a box is irrelevant.

  7. @ Sebastien Zorn

    Naturally.

    There must be very many governments that require consumers to pay a surcharge on “returnable” beverage containers, even though many payers will never go through the hassle of saving/redeeming the vessels.

    Even though many of those same governments require residents to separate their trash, i.e. the bottles will end up recycled anyhow.

  8. @ Abolish_public_education:
    Yes, it is only natural that the State government should imprison or impose a fine of $25,000 on individuals who, whether deliberately or mistakenly, tried to get their nickel back for a bottle they didn’t pay an extra nickel for as part of the price while refusing to cooperate with the Federal Government’s fraud commission to determine whether illegal immigrants voted in the Presidential election.
    Perfectly reasonable.

  9. @ ebyjeeby

    I agree that there are way too many people, who are eligible (actually!) vote in civil elections, who should NOT be allowed.

    For starters, anyone who works for the government (including its retirees), or who is a spouse or a dependent of such a worker, or who receives a special interest, material, government benefit (like public skool parents), needs to be disenfranchised.

  10. @ Sebastien Zorn
    NY State Constitution (1777)
    Article 7:

    That every male inhabitant of full age, who shall have personally resided within one of the counties of this State for six months immediately preceding the day of election, shall, at such election, be entitled to vote for representatives of the said county in assembly; if, during the time aforesaid, he shall have been a freeholder, possessing a freehold of the value of twenty pounds, within the said county, or have rented a tenement therein of the yearly value of forty shillings, and been rated and actually paid taxes to this State

    The point is that voting rights in America were traditionally granted pretty liberally.

    The problem of “illegal” immigrants voting (illegally) is really a problem of ‘too much government’, i.e. the welfare state: Citizens who legally mooch fear that new arrivals jeopardize the delicate status quo.

  11. @ Sebastien Zorn
    I don’t really follow those issues, so I don’t know where the DEMs stand on them.

    Generally, I think folks who are already in the USA legally present a bigger problem than the occasional foreign visitor to the US who might wish to attack Americans.

    I oppose deportation of individuals whose “crimes” are non-crimes such as not filling out government forms, selling drugs, etc. I support deportation of tax leeches.

  12. @ Sebastien Zorn
    I don’t really follow those issues, so I don’t know where the DEMs stand on them.

    Generally, I think folks who are already in the USA legally present a bigger problem than the occasional foreign visitor to the US who might wish to attack Americans.

    I oppose deportation of individuals whose “crimes” are non-crimes such as not filling out government forms, selling druhgs, etc. I support deportation of tax leeches.

  13. @ Abolish_public_education:
    You don’t? Where have you been? This has been one of the central issues in Trump’s campaign and one of the main pillars of the Dems attacks against him. Since you are so concerned about public mooching, hospitals have had to close on the border because of all the non-tax paying illegals using their services. There have been many violent crimes by illegals who have come back again and again. Examples:

    http://www.fairus.org/issue/examples-of-serious-crimes-by-illegal-aliens

  14. The federal law must only apply to hospitals which accept federal funds, e.g. Medicare.

    So, yeah. Of course I would abolish that law, as well as Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, TrumpCare, and all the rest.

Comments are closed.