Could non-citizens decide the U.S. presidential election?

[Geee]

Watchdog.org:

MADISON, Wis. – Independents and so-called “anti-establishment” voters have had much to say about the presidential race so far.

 

But could illegal immigrants and other non-citizens ultimately decide the contest?

 

One elections expert said that is a distinct possibility.

 

“My biggest fear in the upcoming election is people who are not U.S. citizens registering and voting and potentially making a difference … if we have a close election,” said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

 

The former Federal Election Commission member pointed to cases across the country, particularly in high illegal immigrant entry point states, where non-citizens have been caught registering and voting in elections.

 

The numbers are alarming.

[SrWoodchuck]

:

MADISON, Wis. – Independents and so-called “anti-establishment” voters have had much to say about the presidential race so far.

 

But could illegal immigrants and other non-citizens ultimately decide the contest?

 

One elections expert said that is a distinct possibility.

 

“My biggest fear in the upcoming election is people who are not U.S. citizens registering and voting and potentially making a difference … if we have a close election,” said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

 

The former Federal Election Commission member pointed to cases across the country, particularly in high illegal immigrant entry point states, where non-citizens have been caught registering and voting in elections.

 

The numbers are alarming.

 

 

​I think we should be honest. The 2012 election saw similar conditions...and it came down to conservatives staying away, voting against Mitt and allowing Progs to concentrate areas of voting, where they could flood critical blocs with illegal immigrants, serial voting & same day registration from out of state. They will do what it takes to win. Why can't we? Here's another voice:

 

Newt Gingrich on ‘Anti-Trump’ Republicans: Should Form ‘Lost Republicans for Hillary’ http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/03/18/newt-gingrich-on-anti-trump-republicans-should-form-lost-republicans-for-hillary/

 

 

Former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich mocked and criticized desperate Republicans demanding a brokered convention to stop GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, saying they will throw the election to Hillary Clinton.

 

“I think it’s pretty simple. If you want to help elect Hillary Clinton, and you want to make sure that the unionized bureaucracies are totally in control, and you want to have a radical Supreme Court to finish eliminating our liberties, then play games like this. But that’s what they are: They’re games,”

“There are two choices in America,” Gingrich said. “There’s the choice that accepts the continued decay and continued radicalization of continued Americans. That’s the Hillary Clinton road. And there’s the choice that says no, we need an alternative, and that’s the Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) road.”

 

“But there’s not a third choice,” Gingrich warned:

 

"And these people who the self-important definers of America, who are telling us about this fancy third choice, they make no sense at all. They ought to at least be honest and say to people: “You know, I’d rather have Hillary Clinton than the Republican nominee.” Because that’s what they’re doing. They ought to just form “Lost Republicans for Hillary” and be honest about the effect of what they’re doing. Of course, if Clinton gets indicted, it could be worse. It could be Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) , it could get to be Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) . But they all have the same functional effect. They all empower the union bosses. They all empower the radical judges. So, the choice for America’s future is very straight forward, and I’ve just tried to be clear about that."

 

 

“They don’t have an ideological argument. They have a comfort zone argument. Look, Ted Cruz is clearly a constitutional conservative. He is clearly deeply embedded into intellectual conservatism, and that makes people who are more traditional conservatives more comfortable,” he said.

 

“Donald Trump isn’t,” he said. “Donald Trump is this unusual phenomenon of this extraordinarily successful businessman who has thoroughly mastered popular communication, who woke up and said to himself: ‘I’ve got children. I’ve got grandchildren. My country’s in deep trouble. I don’t need to go make anymore money. What if I tried to turn the country around?'”

 

“Does he have contradictions in his past? Of course he does,” Gingrich said. “Trump would be an absolute outlier in the trajectory of American politics.”

 

Via Breitbart

[Geee]

@SrWoodchuck Breitbart used to be one of the sites I went to daily. Stopped. They have gone off the rails. Four of their top reporters have quit because of it. Since then they have toned down a bit, but I don't know who is pulling the strings there anymore. Andy would NOT be proud.