Why Democrats Love Illegals

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

Spinning Trump Conspiracy Theories

“Let me be very clear: We do not have evidence of fraud. We do not have smoking guns.” – Green Party rainmaker Jill Stein, who received a whopping 7.33 million windfall after Election Day

For contrast, Jill Stein raised 3.5 million for her unsuccessful 2016 presidential campaign. That's less then half of what she received to challenge the voting totals in three states (pivotal to the election itself, but not to her prospects). She finished dead last of four, garnering zero electoral votes and only 1% of the popular vote or 1,316,040. Therefore, Ms. Stein can't win. As there's no apparent problem with the presidential election, why should a minor candidate with virtually no standing contest the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (where Trump's actually up 131 votes)? Likewise, why should Democratic mouthpieces in the press accuse Russian hackers of nebulous “interference”?

Both developments are narratives designed to promote the fiction that Donald Trump's election is somehow “illegitimate”. (Think of “Dubya” of Bush/Gore 2000.) Jill Stein—same as Bernie Sanders during the primary season—is a political straw man for Hillary Clinton. Like socialist Sanders, will newly flush shill Stein buy beachfront property with the leftover recount money?

Put nothing past progressives who call themselves “Democrats.” In truth, they are big government fascists. (Historically, the “switch” occurred when LBJ took over, using the country's grief over JFK's assassination to push his own anti-Kennedy agenda.) Further, attempts to undermine the Electoral College—members voting for Trump have reportedly received death threats—are just the latest example of their treasonous anti-Americanism. Leftists don't respect elections or democracy. They are elitist authoritarians who will do anything for their god: preserving political power.

There's nothing to fear from these divisive and diversionary tactics. They're just sour grapes. Liberals' litany of dirty tricks—via the MSM's trumped-up propaganda—will echo to a griping murmur after the inauguration. Moreover, their efforts to malign and marginalize will be self-defeating. After all, given their repeatedly false election forecasts, who are they but out of touch naysayers unworthy of attention or trust? Even The Washington Post admitted:

“Trump was right all along, and we, the political class, were flat-out wrong. Trump effectively channeled anger and anxiety into a movement.”

Innuendo spread by dishonest journalists (read: Democratic partisans) is the only problem here. Their influence—like their unsubstantiated claims—will fade like shadow: as immaterial as the outlandish stories they peddle.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

“The Simpsons” Predicts Trump Presidency!

As life imitates art, why shouldn't the indecent brawl that was the 2016 presidential contest mimic the comedic classic “The Simpsons?” As the longest ongoing sitcom in television history, this generation-long laugh factory has lampooned every element of the American “nuclear” family. As an example of thematic depth, the buffoonishly lovable Dad, Homer, works as an incompetent donut munching safety inspector for a decrepit nuclear power plant. Turns out, this just-wholesome-enough comedic institution has moved into the unusual arena of political prescience.

Although “Simpsons” creators intended many Springfields, as art is a shared experience, the viewing audience fortuitously assumes the show's setting to be the heart-shaped Ohio (politically: so goes this state so goes the nation). Therefore, one marvels at the synchronicity that an obscure reference to a “future”  Trump presidency—in a 2000 “Simpsons” episode—would reflect the most clownish and unconventional political landscape in modern times.

Has “The Simpsons” inadvertently forecast the course of America's political future? That answer is yes! Interestingly, in that same episode, daughter Lisa, now grown, is a female U.S. president. (Undoubtedly, Sen. Elizabeth “'1/32' American Indian” Warren (D-MA) is already gearing up for her own failed presidential run in four years. See ya then, Pocahontas!) Yet, that “Lisa” won't be bawling Hillary (despondent over perhaps her orange jumpsuit future).

Indeed, fate has turned—and “The Simpsons” has mirrored an unlikely reality! The hungover glitterati made the grave mistake of believing the deeply flawed electoral forecasts of their Starbucks drinking compatriots in the MSM. To all of them, the popular vote map resembling a beautiful Jackson Pollock painting is something abhorrent. From their bloodshot eyes, red radiates from coast to coast (with only little drips of blue in urban centers where they commiserate). From the “blue” elitist enclaves of Manhattan and Hollywood, the stentorian wail from these progressives is Homer's famous frustrated catchphrase: D'oh!

All humor aside: Thank you America for choosing president-elect Donald Trump as our 45^th commander-in-chief.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976