Did Bill Clinton Call on Illegal Aliens to Commit Vote Fraud?

Bill Clinton's speech was a little discussed point at the DNC last week and he garnered more attention for falling asleep during Secretary Clinton's big moment than most anything he addressed.  What many missed is his call for illegal aliens to vote for Hillary in November.  Trump has been lambasted by the liberal media all week for stating that he believes this election will be rigged. Yet his opponent’s former President-husband asking all illegals to commit vote fraud, can you really blame him? (emphasis in the original)

Speaking directly to illegal aliens, Clinton stated to an applauding audience of delegates that “if you love this country, you’re working hard, you’re paying taxes and you’re obeying the law and you’d like to become a citizen, you should choose immigration reform over somebody that wants to send you back.” Unfortunately for Bill, illegal aliens (and non-citizens in general) aren’t supposed to be ‘choosing’ anyone. Like in every other country in the world, here in America only citizens are supposed to vote.

Despite its unprecedented foreign-born population (currently over 40 million), the US protects against illegal voter-registration by relying on an attestation system. Under federal law, provided one can show a driver’s license or social security number, all a non-citizen need to do if they really want to vote is check a box “confirming” they’re an eligible voter. In other words, it’s an honor system. This isn’t common in other arguably less important areas. Under legislation (oddly enough) signed by Bill Clinton, protective measures were put in place to ensure illegal aliens couldn’t apply for federal benefits. Rather than putting trust in the applicants themselves, the so-called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program was installed to help federal agencies confirm the immigration-status of all benefit-seeking applicants (illegal aliens, who by definition have no immigration records, cannot be identified on the system and are therefore blocked from receiving benefits). Despite the fact that an illegal vote casted is a citizen-vote cancelled, similar defensive measures are apparently not seen as warranted in the area of voting.

On both the state and federal levels, incentives for illegal alien-voting abound. State bills offering in-state tuition, driver’s and professional licenses, illegal alien-“sanctuary”, etc. are currently being debated in various parts of the country. For those illegal aliens who fall within President Obama’s blanket grants of deferred action (2 million for the renewable 2012 DACA program and 5 million for the currently frozen DAPA program), their incentives are obvious. With regards to DACA-recipients, they also have a newfound ability to register and vote due to their eligibility for federal identification documents, including driver’s licenses and SSNs. According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), as of FY2014, 541,000 DACA-recipients had been allotted SSNs. Immediately after the 2014 DAPA amnesty was announced, Sen. Rob Portman of the swing-state of Ohio sent a letter to the president chastising his action for “afford[ing] potentially thousands of non-citizens in Ohio the opportunity to willfully or negligently register to vote and to vote” and for making voter protection in his state “significantly more difficult.”

Common sense election reforms are being rolled back to ensure that fraud will thrive. The RNLA issued a press release yesterday discussing the attacks on Trump for questioning the process.  For anyone paying attention to the unethical and deceitful actions of the Clintons over their careers, it makes sense to pay really close attention. How can a former President encourage vote fraud? 

Legal and Illegal Aliens are Disenfranchising Voters

By now it should be recognized as fact that vote fraud is real and it needs to be fought.  Right before the elections last fall, no less than the liberal Washington Post published an article declaring that Obamacare, the signature accomplishment of the Obama Presidency, was passed by vote fraud from legal aliens voting illegally.  Now just a little over a year from the next Presidential election the similarly left leaning Politico declares:

Illegal immigrants—along with other noncitizens without the right to vote—may pick the 2016 presidential winner. Thanks to the unique math undergirding the Electoral College, the mere presence of 11-12 million illegal immigrants and other noncitizens here legally may enable them to swing the election from Republicans to Democrats

Unlike the case in Minnesota for Obamacare where vote fraud disenfranchised people by an affirmative and criminal act of illegal voting, the mere presence of illegal aliens is changing the electoral math to favor the Democrats.  It puts in perspective the possible real reason behind the vehement fight, by at least some of the Democrats, in support of illegal aliens. It is allowing them to effectively disenfranchise legal non-Democrat voters.  

Cathy McMorris Rodgers: Part of the new GOP Leadership

The RNLA is pleased to announce the fourth ranking member of U.S. House Leadership and highest-ranking Republican Woman in Congress, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, will address our May DC Luncheon.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers is Eastern Washington’s chief advocate in Congress and one of the rising stars in American politics. Since first being elected to the House in 2004, she has earned the trust of her constituents and praise on Capitol Hill for her hard work, conservative principles, bipartisan outreach, and leadership. She is currently serving as the Chair of the House Republican Conference, a position making her the fourth highest-ranking Republican, and the highest ranking female Republican in the House of Representatives. As someone who grew up on a family farm, worked at a small business, and later became a wife and mom, Cathy McMorris Rodgers has lived the American Dream, and she sees her chief goal in Congress as rebuilding that Dream for our children and grandchildren.

On some key issues.

Israel:

As Prime Minister Netanyahu has said, Israel is not what’s wrong in the Middle East — Israel is what is right in the Middle East. It now looks like the steady and familiar hand of the prime minister will continue to steer the Israeli ship of state after the resounding Likud victory. Israelis turned out to cast their votes in record numbers for dozens of political parties, ranging from the conservative religious groups to the far left and Israeli Arabs. The whole world saw that Israel is a land that cherishes free speech and open debate.

The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015: 

In recent years, their regulations have been created behind closed doors, with little concern for the financial burden they have on Eastern Washington families and small business owners. This bill requires the EPA's Science Advisory Board to consult the people who will be impacted the most, requiring peer review and constructive conversation. Through peer-reviewed science, the EPA can set standards that will not only regulate our environmental concerns, but also grant flexibility to American entrepreneurs.  I will continue my efforts to hold the EPA accountable and empower thousands of Americans in Eastern Washington and across the country who have been harmed by unnecessary regulations. 

National Security

I stand opposed to the President’s unilateral executive overreach on immigration – an action that blatantly disregards the will of Congress and the American people, and one that represents a step backward on real, long-term immigration solutions. That is why I will continue this fight. I will continue to represent the people of Eastern Washington, uphold the Constitution, and listen to the American people.

With questions or to RSVP for a pay at the door tickets (note prices increase at the door), email dc515@republicanlaywer.net.

More Politicizing DOJ? Strange DAPA Response.

Former RNLA law student leader and current South Texas College of Law Professor Josh Blackman has done a couple of fascinating blog posts regarding the “DAPA decision” halting President Obama’s Executive Order on Immigration.  In one post Blackman asks:  What is the Administration Thinking about its DAPA Appeal?! .  Blackman writes:

I am really, really confused. For the last month or so, based on my reading of the transcript, I was fairly convinced Judge Hanen would issue a preliminary injunction, putting DAPA on hold. I have to imagine the Justice Department reached a similar conclusion. Even more so, I have to imagine that DOJ recognized that a federal district court could put enjoin DAPA even before a suit was filed, based on procedural or substantive grounds. From my research on Obamacare, teams were assembled before the law was even passed to prepare litigation strategies. So what happened?!

. . .

A top administration official said Wednesday it was unclear whether the Department of Justice would seek an emergency order that would allow the president’s immigration programs to go into effect while an appeal proceeds. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said that no decision had been made on an emergency application to an appeals court, but she pledged to fight all challenges to the president’s actions.

If the administration files for an expedited appeal, followed by certiorari, it would effectively be impossible to resolve the issue before July. The case will be argued next term, with a decision as late as in June 2016. At that point, the administration is over. Why wouldn’t they go with the emergency stay?

More importantly, why was this decision not made weeks, if not months ago?

Blackman discusses theories including hubris but does not reach a conclusion. 

One theory that Blackman does not discuss is this is another example of the politicizing of the Department of Justice.  The Obama DOJ does not care about legal strategies, justice, or the rule of law; rather they care about public relations and using DOJ for political gain. 

They may view this as another political issue to gin up their base much as they do voting, where they run publicity campaigns claiming civil rights and other violations but do little actual legal work.  

Reactions and Further Details on Obama's Overreach on DAPA

The political landscape was shaken yesterday in a Court decision that was a major defeat for the Obama Administration. 

Last night, a district court in Texas ordered a halt to the Obama Administration’s program (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA) that offers licenses and work authorization to illegal immigrants who identify themselves to authorities. The state of Texas and numerous other states filed a federal lawsuit against the program last December under the Constitution’s Take Care Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Townhall has a listing of five major findings in the decision.  Here is one of the most interesting.

There Is A Big Difference Between Executive Discretion And Bestowing Benefits . . .

Judge Hanen found that Obama's DAPA program, however, cannot be characterized as "non-enforcement" since "it is actually affirmative action rather than inaction."

Specifically, Hanen notes that DAPA "awards legal presence to individuals Congress has deemed deportable or removable, as well as the ability to obtain Social Security numbers, work authorization permits, and the ability to travel."

"Absent DAPA, these individuals would not receive these benefits," Hanen continues, "Exercising prosecutorial discretion and/or refusing to enforce a statute does not also entail bestowing benefits."

Professor Josh Blackman has more background on the case here. 

Hans Von Spakovsky highlights an irony pointed out by Judge Hanen. 

Hanen points out further irony by citing a question from a Department of Homeland Security civics test for naturalization applicants. At the very same time the administration is asserting power over state driver’s licenses because of federal authority over immigration, the Department’s test tells applicants that one of the powers that “belong to the states” (not the federal government) is giving out driver’s licenses.

As Johnathan Keim writes:

The Obama Administration has repeatedly refused to recognize, much less obey, the Constitution’s separation of powers. But as every high school student learns, Congress creates the laws and the President executes them. This Administration has now elevated lawlessness to high art, whether by rewriting Obamacare, refusing to enforce the laws, or even, as the Court held in this case, creating laws from scratch.  

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas highlights the irresponsibility of Senate Democrats regarding this decision:

"The Texas court decision reached last night is a major turning point in the fight to stop Obama's lawless amnesty," said Sen. Cruz. "Gov. Abbott and Attorney General Paxton are leading a coalition of 26 states to block the illegal executive actions and to protect our states, cities, and communities. This is a major victory for the rule of law; the District Court's ruling states that President Obama must now stop implementing these policies in 'any and all aspects.' Last summer we saw a humanitarian crisis on our southern border that was a direct consequence of Obama's previous amnesty. Republicans are now standing together to try to ensure that it never happens again.

"The Senate Democrats who are filibustering Department of Homeland Security funding should look hard at this ruling. At a time when we face grave national security threats, at home and abroad, it is the height of irresponsibility for the Democrats to block this funding in an extreme attempt to save Obama's amnesty, which a federal judge has just declared illegal."

Reactions to Obama’s Unprecedented Power Grab on Immigration

Last night the President announced Executive Action on illegal immigration.  Below are reactions from a few leaders. 

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt

The President can tell the American people that he is taking this action because of his deep personal convictions about this immigration issue. But if that were true, he would have taken this action as soon as possible, rather than waiting until after the elections, so as to avoid the inevitable backlash from the voters. 

U.S House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte:

It’s both perplexing and alarming that President Obama has decided to move forward with executive actions that he once said he didn’t have the constitutional power to take. The President’s decision to recklessly forge ahead with a plan to unilaterally change our immigration laws ignores the will of the American people and flouts the Constitution.

Curt Levy of the Committee for Justice:

Obama's problem is not really with Congress; it is with the American people who elected this Congress.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise

As the House works to put a stop to the president’s constitutional overreach, we will make full use of the many tools we have available to us to do so. The president should abandon this unlawful approach and focus on securing the border, enforcing the laws on the books, and working with us in Congress to fix our broken immigration system.

John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley: 

So what we have here is a president who is refusing to carry out federal law simply because he disagrees with Congress’s policy choices. That is an exercise of executive power that even the most stalwart defenders of an energetic executive — not to mention the Framers — cannot support.

Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, Chapman University:

Tonight the President reached new heights of arrogance and disregard for the Rule of Law.  . . .Our framers wisely built into our Constitution significant powers for Congress to be able to check such abuses.