Twice failed candidate Hillary Clinton
received more votes than any unsuccessful presidential candidate in
U.S. history. In the 2016 election, she garnered 2.9
million more votes than then President-elect Donald Trump. Her
popular vote tally was 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%.),
or a 2.1% differential. Back on November 27, 2016, Trump tweeted,
“In addition to winning the Electoral College [304 to 227, needing
270] in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the
millions of people who voted illegally.” On balance, that's likely
true.
How many of Hillary's ballots were cast
illegitimately? Outrageously, that's still unknown. Yet today, the
jaw-dropping actuality can be reasonably inferred. To that end, Just
Facts, a New Jersey research organization and
conservative/libertarian think tank, suggests that millions of
illegals vote in U.S. elections. Specifically, their analysis of
2008 data from an extensive Harvard/You Gov survey indicates that 7.9
million noncitizens were illegally registered to vote—and
594,000 to 5.7
million did so. These figures support a previous Old Dominion
University study in which professors and co-authors Jesse Richman and
David Earnest stated that as many as 2.8
million interlopers voted. Why is this obvious problem—a
fundamental threat diluting the people's voice in
elections—“nonexistent” for Democrats?
There's a mutually beneficial
relationship between progressives and criminal squatters who vote.
Via shared governmental largesse—as examples, direct welfare and/or
indirect free public school education—the latter achieve a better
standard of living than their point of origin. Meanwhile,
statistically, Democrats have a built-in
voting bloc despite their odious, out of step policies. Why else
constantly encourage, and defend, this shadowy influx of 11
million illegal lawbreakers? Likewise, given the common
occurrence of terrorism around the globe, why similarly promote
unchecked migration, lax law enforcement and borderlessness?
The only logical reason is personal
payoffs for the elite ruling class. Politically, enough warm bodies
voting to keep limousine liberals perpetually in office. After all,
their ilk doesn't experience the general chaos of street
violence in Democrat-run sanctuary cities. Moreover, they don't
care about exploding deficit
spending; and they don't cover the cost of catnip benefits
drawing persons like a magnet from impoverished southern countries.
Why does any of that matter to
uber-rich progressives epitomized by “biggest loser” Hillary?
Besides votes, don't they also need low-wage
workers to do the menial jobs in their gated, safe palatial
estates?
Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976
http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002