Wednesday, January 10, 2018



According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform’s 2017 report, illegal immigrants, and their children, cost American taxpayers a net $116 billion annually -- roughly $7,000 per alien annually. While high, this number is not an outlier: a recent study by theHeritage Foundation found that low-skilled immigrants (including those here illegally) cost Americans trillions over the course of their lifetimes, and a study from the National Economics Editorial found that illegal immigration costs America over $140 billion annually. As it stands, illegal immigrants are a massive burden on American taxpayers.


‘Eleven of California’s 58 counties have registration rates exceeding 100% of the age-eligible citizenry.’  
‘California has the highest rate of inactive registrations of any state in the country. Los Angeles County has the highest number of inactive registrations of any single county in the country’


America surrenders its borders to the MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA, now masquerading as UNIDOSus.

An American immigrant is not someone supported by government funds in a "relocation" center; flown over here at government expense; given a cash allowance, free housing, and medical care; and then eased onto local public assistance: Section 8 rental grants, food stamps, WIC, AFDC, clothes from one government-sponsored charity or another, Medicaid, and public schooling, with free lunch and breakfasts and even help with furniture. 
That's not an immigrant.  That's a future Democrat voter.  ----- RICHARD F. MINITER – AMERICAN THINKER         COM


Leaked memo reveals they are fighting to make the DREAMer nightmare permanent.

Democrats at the Left’s premier think tank have finally admitted in a leaked memo that illegal immigration is key to their party’s future electoral success.
Republicans may not be angels but they have never wielded compassion as a cudgel the way Democrats do. But this memo ought to end Democrats’ phony compassion shtick for all time. Power is the only thing that matters to them. They don’t care about America or Americans. They care only about winning. Honest observers have known this for years.
What did Democrats actually do this time to help solidify their image as the party of power over principle?
Specifically, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a sister organization of the Center for American Progress, distributed a brief to allies Monday calling the so-called DREAMers, that is, illegal aliens brought to the country at a young age, a “critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” the Daily Caller reports.
Democrats can’t win elections without cheating. They pushed the 1993 Motor-Voter law to make voter fraud easy to commit and difficult to prosecute. They oppose voter ID laws tooth-and-nail for the same reason. They changed immigration laws a long time ago so they could change the electorate by importing new voters.
That’s why left-wingers invented chain migration in the Sixties. It is a magic carpet that brings terrorists, public charges, and low- and no-skilled workers to the United States. Democrats rigged the game by modifying immigration law. The resultant tsunami of immigrants from authoritarian Third World countries over the past half century helped Democrats grow their political base. It supposedly takes generations for immigrant families to back away from collectivism and big government as solutions to life's problems and become Republicans. Continued high immigration rates benefit Democrats and the crony capitalists who bankroll them, impoverish the workers already here, and virtually guarantee endless growth in the size and scope of government.
Worker skill levels dropped after the enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1965 which began the flood of immigrants from countries hostile to the traditional American values of limited government, individualism, and a healthy respect for markets and civil society. When the INA was overhauled, a "national origins" formula calculated to maintain the existing population demographic in the nation as of 1924, was dumped in favor of one based on immigrants' skills and family relationships with U.S. citizens or residents.
Democrats aren’t stupid.
Protecting those who’ve benefited from former President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy is so important to the Left that Democrats have to “refuse to offer any votes for Republican spending bills that do not offer a fix for Dreamers and instead appropriate funds to deport them,” reads the document dated Jan. 8 co-authored by CAP Action Fund President Jennifer Palmieri and Executive Director Navin Nayak. Both worked for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Palmieri was Clinton’s communications director; Nayak was her director of opinion research.
DREAMers, by the way, are the stuff of leftist myth. The misleading sobriquet comes from the DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act, a legislative proposal to grant underage illegals immigration amnesty. The conceit was invented to promote the illegal immigration Democrats need to win elections. They’re not the rock stars or rocket scientists people like DNC chief Tom Perez claim. DREAMers tend to be less educated and less established than typical Americans.
Supporters of DREAMers created the expression to imply that these particular illegals were gifted individuals the U.S. could not afford to deport, perhaps like the talented defectors who seemed to flood out of the Soviet bloc during the Cold War. But the DREAMers bear little resemblance to defectors like movie director Milos Forman, ballet dancers Mikhail Baryshnikov and Alexander Godunov, athletes Sergei Fedorov, Martina Navratilova, and Nadia Comaneci.
Although the media has romanticized DREAMers, portraying them as heroic all-American figures worthy not just of sympathy but also admiration, many DREAMers seem ill-equipped for life in the United States.
“Watching television reports concerning Dreamers, one would think that the DACA program applied only to college-educated immigrants who were just a few years old when their parents brought them into the country illegally,” writes Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former attorney at the Department of Justice.
We are led to believe that most are so fully Americanized that they would now have trouble speaking their native language and are all but ignorant of their birth countries’ cultural norms. Thus, we are supposed to believe, returning them to their native lands would be a cruel hardship.
But in the real world DACA-eligible individuals are underachievers. About 24 percent of them are functionally illiterate and 46 percent possess only “basic” English ability, he writes.
Only 49 percent of DACA beneficiaries have a high school education, even though a majority are now adults. And while military service could also qualify an illegal alien for DACA, out of the current 690,000 DACA beneficiaries, only 900 are serving in the military.
Left-wingers are now freaking out because President Trump indicated in September he intends to terminate DACA, which Obama unconstitutionally implemented by executive fiat, and gave Congress six months to come up with a legislative fix.
On Tuesday night a Democrat judge in San Francisco who must have failed First-Year Constitutional Law class in law school ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting renewal applications under DACA, a program even its creator, former President Obama, admitted was unconstitutional. “I am not king,” Obama said in 2010, adding the next year that with "respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case."
U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup, appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1999, ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting renewal applications from DACA status-holders who failed to meet an October deadline. Attorney General Jeff Sessions' belief the program was unlawful seems to be "based on a flawed legal premise," Alsup ruled, based upon nothing apart from his personal policy preferences.
According to Sessions, DACA "contributed to a surge of unaccompanied minors on the southern border that yielded terrible humanitarian consequences." Given that most DACA beneficiaries are now adults, "it also denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens.”
The CAP Action Fund memo also states that safeguarding the grotesquely unlawful DACA program is both the right and politically expedient thing to do.
“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” states Palmieri’s memo.
“If Democrats don’t try to do everything in their power to defend Dreamers, that will jeopardize Democrats’ electoral chances in 2018 and beyond,” the memo states. “In short, the next few weeks will tell us a lot about the Democratic Party and its long-term electoral prospects.”
And the memo smears President Trump and Republicans as heartless racists playing to their supposedly bigoted voter base.
The Republican Party, particularly with Trump as its leader, has been plainspoken about its disdain for immigrants and is more interested in bashing immigrants to cater to its base than it is in acknowledging that immigrants are an important part of America’s social fabric.
In fact, almost no one on the GOP side has shown “disdain for immigrants,” including President Trump, but the Left’s narrative necessarily conflates immigrants with illegal immigrants so these radicals can paint their opponents as racist xenophobes. There is no anti-immigrant fervor in America. There is widespread revulsion at illegal immigration and the government’s long-running refusal to do anything about it. This backlash is what elected Trump.
Trump created the problem with DREAMers by not leaving DACA intact, the memo states.
If a legal challenge to the program had been brought he could have allowed it to be addressed by the courts. The current crisis could have been averted. Instead, Trump seized an opportunity to play to the racists in his base by proactively and abruptly ending the program.
Democrats have to stand with DREAMers “and do whatever it takes to ensure they remain in this country—often the only one they’ve ever known,” the memo states.
News of the memo comes after a televised White House meeting with lawmakers Tuesday at which President Trump seemed to embrace amnesty for illegal aliens after promising during the election campaign to enforce the law against them.
“I think my positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with,” he said.
Trump spoke of legislation to be introduced in coming days by House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). It is “absolutely vital” that Democrats be part of the process “because it should be a bipartisan bill. It should be a bill of love. Truly, it should be a bill of love, and we can do that,” he said.
The phrase bill of love seemed to echo GOP primary rival Jeb Bush’s fateful description of illegal immigration as “an act of love.” In August 2015 Trump posted a video online ridiculing Bush for the comment. “Love? Forget love, it’s time to get tough!” appears onscreen in the video after a clip of Bush’s statement.
Meanwhile, the new head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, emphatically supports amnesty for DACA illegals. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Protection are “child” agencies of DHS.
At her confirmation hearing Nov. 8, she said “we owe” amnesty to the illegal aliens now shielded from deportation under DACA.
“I believe that we must and we owe it to them to find a permanent solution,” she said of a prospective DACA amnesty that through the magic of chain migration could lead to an estimated 19 million foreign nationals immigrating to the United States legally. “It’s no way to expect anyone to live a month or two months at a time,” said Nielsen, pulling out the bogus we-have-to-bring-them-out-of-the-shadows argument.
Should conservatives be worried that Trump is going soft on a signature issue?







In 2013, California lawmakers passed legislation that allowed illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses if they can prove to the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) their identity and state residency. The plan was one of the largest victories to date by the open borders lobby.… JOHN BINDER –



''California is going to be a Hispanic state," said Mario Obeldo, former head of MALDEF. "Anyone who does not like it should leave."

And M.E.Ch.A's goal is even more radical: an independent ''Aztlan,'' the collective name this organization  gives to the seven states of the U.S. Southwest – Arizona,  California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Utah." NOW ADD THE OTHER STATES!


“Mexicans cheat, distribute drugs, lie, forge documents, steal and kill as if it’s a normal way of life. For them, it is. Mexico’s civilization stands diametrically opposed to America’s culture.” FROSTY WOOLDRIDGE

“Based on that investigation, a federal grand jury in Sacramento recently returned a nine-count indictment against Gustavo Araujo Lerma, 62, and his wife Maria Eva Velez, 64. Araujo is charged with aggravated identity theft, passport fraud, conspiracy to commit unlawful procurement of naturalization and citizenship, and five counts of voting by an alien.”  LLOYD BILLINGSLEY

The letter notes that the percentage in L.A. 
Country may be as high as 144%.

Judicial Watch Warns California: 11 Counties Have More Voters than Voting-Age Citizens
Justin Sullivan / Getty
by JOEL B. POLLAK5 Aug 20171,949
Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog organization, has sent a letter to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla on behalf of the Election Integrity Project, noting that there are 11 counties in the state with more registered voters, and alleging that the state may be out of compliance with Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
The letter reads, in part:
NVRA Section 8 requires states to conduct reasonable list maintenance so as to maintain an accurate record of eligible voters for use in conducting federal elections.1 As you may know, Congress enacted Section 8 of the NVRA to protect the integrity of the electoral process. Allowing the names of ineligible voters to remain on the voting rolls harms the integrity of the electoral process and undermines voter confidence in the legitimacy of elections.
As the top election official in California, it is your responsibility under federal law to coordinate California’s statewide effort to conduct a program that reasonably ensures the lists of eligible voters are accurate.
Judicial Watch lays out the specifics: 
“[T]here were more total registered voters 
than there were adults over the age of 18 
living in each of the following eleven (11) 
counties: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), 
Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San 
Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San 
Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano 
(111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%).” 
The letter notes that the percentage in L.A. 
Country may be as high as 144%.
The letter contains a threat to sue the Secretary of State if Padilla does not remove from the rolls “persons who have become ineligible to vote by reason of death, change in residence, or a disqualifying criminal conviction, and to remove noncitizens who have registered to vote unlawfully.” 
It gives Padilla 14 days to respond, and 90 days to correct alleged violations of the law.
Padilla has been one of the main voices in opposition to President Donald Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, refusing to share voter data with it on the argument that doing so would “legitimize false claims of massive election cheating last fall.”
President Trump has claimed that he would have won the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election if not for illegal voting, and his administration has singled outCalifornia as a possible contributor to that margin.

The Election Integrity Project is a California-based volunteer organization that monitors voting irregularities.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

August 5, 2017

So addicts must show photo IDs to get off drugs, but not to vote?

The homeless, downtrodden, and poor who show up at drug detox centers all must show photo identification to get treatment.  It's done to prevent them from going to more than one center for whatever maintenance fix they may be receiving at the first center.  It is obvious that the government knows everyone has the capability to get a photo ID, so why do so many Democrats block that requirement when it comes to voting?  They use the false arguments of voter intimidation while dismissing the real issue that maintaining a fair election is extremely important to maintaining our freedoms. 
These are the same Democrats (and their media allies) who are complaining that Russia supposedly interfered in our election process.  Yet they do everything they can to block commonsense photo ID requirements that the majority of the public supports to ensure fair elections.  They call people racists who support these laws.  The fact that they fight these photo ID requirements shows they really don't care about the integrity of the voting process.
A couple excerpts from the following ABC News report:
The ID requirements at drug treatment facilities are intended to prevent people from enrolling in multiple programs and selling opioid medication such as methadone on the black market, said a spokesman from the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, adding that programs would be liable for misuse of the medications.
Some detox centers will admit a person without ID first and make time later to sort out the person's identity, but doing so comes at risk of running afoul of federal and state regulations on dispensing medications, experts said.
The government requires the poor and elderly to have a photo ID to get food stamps, to open a bank account, to get welfare, to get Medicaid, and to get Social Security among many other things.  Yet..
Democrats will go to court to stop a state requiring people to get a photo ID to vote, using the argument that it is racist.  The fact that they require photo IDs for so many other things the poor and minorities have to do shows what a crock that argument is.
The only reason to block the photo ID laws for voting is to open up voting to fraud.

Judicial Watch Sues California and Los Angeles Over Dirty Voter Registration Rolls



DECEMBER 13, 2017
 ‘Eleven of California’s 58 counties have registration rates exceeding 100% of the age-eligible citizenry.’  
‘California has the highest rate of inactive registrations of any state in the country. Los Angeles County has the highest number of inactive registrations of any single county in the country’

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit against Los Angeles County and the State of California over their failure to clean their voter rolls and to produce election-related records as required by the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) (Judicial Watch, al. v. Dean C. Logan, et al. (No. 2:17-cv-08948)).  The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California’s Western Division on behalf of Judicial Watch, Election Integrity Project California, Inc., and Wolfgang Kupka, Rhue Guyant, Jerry Griffin, and Delores M. Mars, who are lawfully registered voters in Los Angeles County.
Judicial Watch argues that the State of California and a number of its counties, including the county of Los Angeles, have registration rates exceeding 100%:
Eleven of California’s 58 counties have registration rates exceeding 100% of the age-eligible citizenry.
Los Angeles County has more voter registrations on its voter rolls than it has citizens who are old enough to register. Specifically, according to data provided to and published by the EAC, Los Angeles County has a registration rate of 112% of its adult citizen population.
The entire State of California has a registration rate of about 101% of its age-eligible citizenry.
Judicial Watch points out that this is due in part to the high numbers of inactive registrations that are still carried on California’s voter rolls:
About 21% of all of California’s voter registrations, or more than one in five, are designated as inactive.
California has the highest rate of inactive registrations of any state in the country…. Los Angeles County has the highest number of inactive registrations of any single county in the country.
Although these inactive registrations should be removed after a statutory waiting period consisting of two general federal elections, California officials are simply refusing to do so.
Judicial Watch explains that, even though a registration is officially designated as “inactive,” it may still be voted on election day and is still on the official voter registration list. The inactive registrations of voters who have moved to a different state “are particularly vulnerable to fraudulent abuse by a third party” because the voter who has moved “is unlikely to monitor the use of or communications concerning an old registration.” Inactive registrations “are also inherently vulnerable to abuse by voters who plan to fraudulently double-vote in two different jurisdictions on the same election day.”
Judicial Watch sent a written request for public records on November 16, 2017, and another on November 29, 2017, seeking information about “the number of inactive registrations on the voter rolls in Los Angeles County,” but was told each time that there were no responsive records.
Last summer, Judicial Watch sent a broader request for voter roll records that Los Angeles County and the State of California are required by the NVRA to keep and to make publicly available. Nothing was produced in response to this request. Judicial Watch points out that it is impossible to believe that there were no responsive records:
Los Angeles County, with over five million active voters and massive list maintenance responsibilities, and the Secretary of State of California [must] have exchanged emails responsive to [Judicial Watch’s] request for “all email or other communications between the Secretary’s Office and all California County voter registration officials concerning . . . [i]nstructions to the counties concerning their general list maintenance practices and obligations” and “[n]otices to the counties concerning any failure to comply with their voter list maintenance obligations.”  Such emails should have been produced.
Section 8(a)(4) of the NVRA requires states to implement a program to remove ineligible registrants; and to turn over relevant records and information. Judicial Watch argues:
Los Angeles County is failing to properly conduct the list maintenance required by the NVRA by failing to properly train employees, failing to require and enter registrants’ birthdates, and failing to timely process reports that registrants have died, have committed disqualifying felonies, are mentally incompetent, or have registered twice.
Judicial Watch asks that the court enjoin Los Angeles County and the state of California from further violating the NRVA, and compel them to “develop and implement a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove from Los Angeles County’s rolls the registrations of ineligible registrants.” Judicial Watch asks to inspect and copy the requested voter roll records.
Judicial Watch sent a notice-of-violation letter in August 2017 to threatening to sue California and certain of its counties over their violations of the NVRA. California was one of 12 states to receive such letters from Judicial Watch.
“California may have the dirtiest election rolls in the country,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up their voting rolls. Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. This lawsuit aims to ensure that citizens of California can have more confidence that their elections are fair and honest.”
Judicial Watch Senior Attorney and Director of its Election Integrity Project Robert Popper recently provided testimony to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity concerning the NVRA. Popper was formerly Deputy Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.
Judicial Watch sent notice-of-violation letters threatening to sue 11 other states having counties in which the number of registered voters exceeds the number of voting-age citizens, as calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011-2015 American Community Survey: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and Tennessee. Judicial Watch informed the states that should they fail to take action to correct violations of Section 8 of the NVRA, it would file suit.
Judicial Watch previously filed successful lawsuits under the NVRA against Ohio and Indiana that resulted in those states taking several actions to clean up their voting rolls. Judicial Watch is currently suing Kentucky over its failure to remove ineligible voters as required by the NVRA, and is suing the State of Maryland and Montgomery County over their failure to release voting-related records.
Judicial Watch is being assisted by Charles H. Bell Jr., of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP; and H. Christopher Coates of Law Office of H. Christopher Coates.


Judicial activism crossed through the mirror in 2017. The flurry of Federal judges rushing to protect illegal Obama policies with bizarrely illegal rulings exceeds even the wildest abuses of the Warren court.
In San Francisco, Judge William Alsup, a Clinton judge, decided that President Trump has no right to set aside Obama's illegal DACA amnesty. Obama's DACA amnesty was a discretionary measure and an illegal one. But even if it were legal, the same discretion can be used to put it aside. 
Furthermore, the DACA amnesty was shut down in response to rulings against it by Federal courts. And Judge Alsup uses that to argue that the termination was a mistake because DACA wasn't actually illegal.
The Alsup decision has some of the same bizarre features of previous judicial activist assaults on Trump. There are the cities and colleges who claim to be adversely affected. And there's a judge arguing about the administration's motives. And then he skips to arguing with the Attorney General over whether DACA was legal to begin with.
The argument is irrelevant because if DACA was within the authority of the administration, then so is setting it aside. If it wasn't, then it was never legal. But Judge Alsup insists that it's within an administration's authority to implement amnesty, but not to revoke it.
That's really showing off the partisan agenda here.

No comments: