Dhs 18 2005: Fill & Download for Free

Copied in:The REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, enacted the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that the Federal Government “set standards for the issuance of sources of identification, such as driver's licenses.” The Act established minimum security standards for license issuance and production and prohibits Federal agencies from accepting for certain purposes driver’s licenses and identification cards from states not meeting the Act’s minimum standards.These purposes are:Accessing Federal facilitiesBoarding federally regulated commercial aircraftEntering nuclear power plantsFederal agencies, including DHS and TSA, may only accept state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards as identification for purposes of accessing federal facilities - including TSA airport security checkpoints - if the license or card was issued by a REAL ID compliant state in accordance with the REAL ID security standards (meaning the license or card must include the REAL ID compliant star marking). Enhanced Driver’s Licenses (EDL) issued by Washington, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Vermont are considered acceptable alternatives to REAL ID-compliant cards and will also be accepted for official REAL ID purposes. Most EDLs do not contain the star marking and this is acceptable.DHS is working closely with all states and territories to provide assistance and guidance to achieve full compliance by the October 1, 2021 deadline. As of March 26, 2020, 52 states and territories are fully compliant with the REAL ID requirements, and all states are on track to begin issuing compliant licenses and IDs by the October 1, 2021 deadline.TSA does not require children under 18 to provide identification when traveling with a companion within the United States. The companion will need acceptable identification.Travelers who do not present a REAL ID-compliant license or acceptable alternative beginning October 1, 2021 will not be permitted through the security checkpoint.REAL ID cards cannot be used for border crossings into Canada, Mexico or other international travel.REAL ID cards cannot be used for international sea cruise travel.If you are traveling internationally you will still need your passport. If you are traveling domestically, you will only need one valid form of identification – either your REAL ID or another acceptable alternative such as a passport, not both.Taken from - REAL ID Frequently Asked Questions

You want some evidence?(edit; In addition the original below there are the totally unrealistic numbers of votes posted in the recent election. Plus the huge number of votes received after hours of counting that almost exclusively went for Biden (in spite of the fact that the Congress did not move in the same direction). Reports that GOP poll watchers were actively prohibited from being able to actually observe the documents being handled in to the poll. reports that ballots required to be segregated were not segregated at all.At best this is the most questionable election yet!)Well, here;“In their Congressional Election Study, researchers Jesse Richman and David Earnest concluded in the journal Electoral Studies that votes cast by non-American citizens likely elected Senator Al Franken and swung North Carolina to Barack Obama in 2008.More than 14% of non-citizens were registered to vote in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, and Richman and Earnest surmise that 6.4% of them voted in 2008 and 2.2% voted in 2010, a midterm election year in which overall turnout is much lower.Naturally, in 2008 Obama won 80% of the non-citizen vote. His small margin of victory in North Carolina—just 14,177 votes—means that just a 5.1% turnout from non-citizens in North Carolina would have ma de up this margin.This would not have changed the outcome of the 2008 presidential election, but the 2008 Senate election in Minnesota was a wholly different story. Democratic challenger Al Franken defeated Republican incumbent Norm Coleman by a total margin of just 312 votes. Just 0.65% of non-citizens voting in Minnesota would have made up this difference.Moreover, the watchdog group Minnesota Majority found that:At least 341 convicted felons voted in Minneapolis's Hennepin County, the state's largest, and another 52 voted illegally in St. Paul's Ramsey County, the state's second largest....[O]nly conclusive matches were included in the group's totals. The number of felons voting in those two counties alone exceeds Mr. Franken's victory margin.Under Minnesota law, convicted felons are only permitted to vote once they have completed probation following their prison sentences, yet hundreds illegally did.And 90% of the estimated 1,099 who did voted for Franken.Either non-citizen votes or illegal felon votes could have easily accounted for Franken’s margin of victory, and his win gave the newly elected President Obama the crucial 60th Senate vote he needed to implement his legislative agenda without the fear of a filibuster.Non-citizen votes delivering Democratic victories is hardly a new phenomenon.In 1984, a federal grand jury found that as many as 80,000 illegal aliens registered to vote in Chicago in an effort to obtain “documents identifying them as U.S. citizens” and use “their voters’ cards to obtain a myriad of benefits, from social security to jobs with the Defense Department.”This led to a half-hearted cleanup of Chicago’s voter rolls, but just a year later, the Immigration Naturalization Service found that 25,000 illegal immigrants were still registered to vote, and so were an additional 40,000 non-citizen legal immigrants.In 1996, Loretta Sanchez, a Democratic Congressional candidate in California, won her race by just 984 votes, and the House Oversight Committee found that 624 ballots were illegally cast by non-citizens and 124 improper absentee ballots. In addition, the committee found circumstantial evidence that an additional 196 ballots were cast by non-citizens and that there was no real way to determine how many illegal immigrants had voted. One credible estimate put it at 4,023.Four years later, in the closest presidential election in American history, the Miami Herald found at least 1,241 votes illegally cast by Florida’s felons, 75% of whom were registered Democrats. In the very heavily Democratic Broward County, 400 people were allowed even though they weren’t registered, and in Democratic Velusia County, an additional 277 voters weren’t registered.Florida, and thus the 2000 presidential election, was decided by a total of 537 votes.More than 200 felons voted illegally in the overwhelmingly Democratic city of Milwaukee in the 2004 presidential election, and another 100 either voted twice or voted using a false name or address.More troublingly, a Milwaukee Police report on the election “found that between 4,600 and 5,300 more votes were counted in Milwaukee than the number of voters recorded as having cast ballots. Absentee ballots were cast by people living elsewhere; ineligible felons not only voted but worked at the polls; transient college students cast improper votes; and homeless voters possibly voted more than once.”According to the report, out-of-state members of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s campaign used Wisconsin’s same-day voter registration law to get people to the polls, register them, and then have them vote. Since photo identification was not required to cast a ballot—only corroboration of a voter’s identity by another voter—Milwaukee Police determined that Kerry campaign members who were also registered Wisconsin voters simply vouched for people who otherwise would have had no business voting in the state’s election.A total of 1,305 of the voters that Kerry campaign workers vouched for gave information such as names, addresses, or birth dates that election officials declared invalid.The Milwaukee Police Department’s report, considered one of the most comprehensive voter fraud investigations in recent American history, concluded that the Kerry campaign and two of its affiliated get-out-the-vote groups were engaged in an “illegal organized attempt to influence the outcome of an election in the state of Wisconsin.”This blockbuster report was released in early 2008 and provided compelling evidence that at least 16 Kerry campaign workers committed felonies in connection with this widespread fraud, but the Milwaukee County District Attorney, a Democrat, declined to prosecute any of them.Later that year, the Milwaukee Police Department—under the direction of a Democratic Police Chief—told the special election unit that drafted the report not to monitor polling places in the upcoming 2008 presidential election and, in fact, to not investigate the 2008 presidential election at all.In effect, the investigative unit that had uncovered massive, widespread voter fraud that may have impacted the results of a key swing state decided by just 11,000 votes in 2004 was being disbanded.The head of that unit, Michael Sandvick, retired in disgust.“We know what to look for,” he told the Wall Street Journal shortly before he resigned, "and that scares some people.”As widespread as organized voter fraud appeared to be in Milwaukee, non-citizen voting appears to be an even bigger problem.In 2005, the Government Accountability Office found that 3% of the 30,000 people called for federal jury duty in a two-year period were non-citizens.Jury duty lists are made up of voter rolls.Extrapolating that data to the 146.3 million registered voters in the United States, if 3% of those voters are in fact non-citizens, then it may be reasonably estimated that about 4.39 million non-citizens are currently registered to vote in the United States. Extrapolating the 6.4% voting rate of non-citizens from Richman and Earnest’s study of the 2008 presidential election, it may be reasonably estimated that 280,917 non-citizens could cast their ballots this November.Given that President Obama won 80% of the non-citizen vote in 2008, it can be reasonably estimated that Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will receive 224,733 votes from non-citizens.This, however, doesn’t take into account how many non-citizens have legally or illegally entered the country since the 2008 election.From 2009 until 2015, approximately 2.5 million illegal immigrants entered the United States. While President Obama has been quick to point out that he has deported more people than any other President, this is rather misleading since his administration has dramatically cut down on deportations during his second term in office; so much so that a whopping 800,000 illegals entered the country from 2013 to 2015.This includes a massive influx of Central American children who began migrating north after the Obama Administration all but told families that illegal immigrant children would not be deported.On August 12th, 2013, the Administration announced its plans for a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).Although it was limited to children who had been living in the United States illegally since 2007 or earlier, the message clearly got out that America was preparing for another round of amnesty.2012 saw a 124% increase in unaccompanied children crossing into the U.S. In 2013, such crossings increased 305%. In 2014, they increased 1,381%. In 2015, they increased a staggering 2,232% to an estimated 142,000 unaccompanied children.The rise in entire families illegally entering the U.S. likewise rose at a staggering rate—first by 27% from 2012 to 2013 and then by a whopping 142% from 2013 to 2014.Why did so many make such a perilous journey? As House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte said during a hearing in June of 2014:A May 28, 2014, Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Sector Intelligence Report tells a story that is strikingly different than the claimed humanitarian crisis the administration paints as responsible for the surge. The report summarized interviews conducted with hundreds of apprehended Central Americans minors and quite frankly paints a very different picture of the situation.According to the report, when these individuals were asked why they made the journey to the United States, approximately 95% indicated that the main reason was to take advantage of the “new” U.S. “law” that grants a “free pass” or permit (referred to as “permisos”) being issued by the U.S. government to women traveling with minors and unaccompanied alien minors. While no new law has been enacted, the truth is that this administration has dramatically altered immigration enforcement policies. The timing of the change in policies correlates closely with the steep uptick of individuals showing up at the border. Apparently, word has gotten out that once encountered by Border Patrol agents and processed, thanks to this Administration’s lax enforcement policies, one will likely never be removed.In addition to simply not pursuing removable aliens, DHS has been granting hundreds of thousands of these individuals administrative legalization and work authorization. DHS does this under many guises, invoking doctrines with esoteric names such as “deferred action” and “parole-in-place”. The net effect of these policies has been described by former ICE Acting Director John Sandweg — “If you are a run-of-the mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero . . . .”Apparently, those arriving at our borders now know this.Indeed, Father Heyman Vazquez, the director of a migrant shelter in Mexico, told news outlets that children and families are encouraged to cross into the U.S. illegally because they think they will be given amnesty. Vazquez said, “I remember a little boy of 9 years old and I asked if he was going to go meet someone and he told me ‘No, I’m just going to hand myself over because I hear they help kids.” In addition, like so many others across Central America, Robin Tulio, a 13-year-old, said his mother believed that the Obama Administration had quietly changed its policy regarding unaccompanied minors, and that if he made it across, he would have a better shot at staying. In the meantime, Central American media touts an open door to the U.S. for minors and families.The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, though, was just one part of the Obama Administration’s effort to keep millions of illegal immigrants in the United States.A companion program announced in November of 2014, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), was implemented to prevent the deportation of illegal immigrants whose children were born in the United States and therefore American citizens.This, combined with an expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, aimed to keep an estimated 5-6 million illegal immigrants in the country permanently.They would not be granted a pathway to citizenship, the Obama Administration contended, but they would be allowed to stay in the United States without the fear of deportation.The Migration Policy Institute determined that approximately 3.7 million illegal immigrants would be eligible for DAPA and thus over the legal voting age of 18.Extrapolating the data from the Richman/Earnest study, which determined that 14% of non-citizens registered to vote, it may be presumed that approximately 518,000 of these illegal immigrants protected by DAPA would register.Extrapolating the data from that same study that determined that 6.4% of non-citizens actually voted, it may be presumed that about 33,152 illegal immigrants protected by DAPA would actually vote.Since Richman and Earnest found that 80% of non-citizens voted for President Obama in 2008, it may be presumed that 26,521 illegal immigrants protected by DAPA would vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.In June of 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked on whether DAPA was constitutional, leaving in place an injunction halting the program while a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality makes its way through the federal court system.This, however, has no bearing on how many illegal immigrants will in fact vote in November’s presidential election.Moreover, the mere announcement that the Obama Administration was planning to allow millions of illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation naturally attracted millions more illegal immigrants.The Center for Immigration Studies measured a massive surge in immigration (both legal and illegal) to the U.S. from 2014 on:Our preliminary estimate is that, of the 3.1 million immigrants who arrived in that last two years, about one-third, 1.1 million (or 550,000 annually) were new illegal immigrants, a significant increase from the 700,000 illegal immigrants (350,000 annually) who entered in 2012 and 2013.In 2016, Border Patrol statistics show that the pace of illegal immigration dramatically increased even from the already-high numbers in 2014 and 2015.From January through April, more than 32,000 families have been caught trying to sneak in past the southern border, meaning that tens of thousands of other families (at least) have likely made it through.Undoubtedly, this 42% increase in illegal border crossings by entire families was prompted by the Obama Administration’s highly publicized promise of protection for illegal immigrant children and their families.And it’s equally clear the Obama Administration and its Democratic Party allies see this spike as a major electoral advantage and have seen the benefits of illegal immigration and non-citizen voting for many years.Shortly after President Obama was inaugurated in 2009, Eliseo Medina, an executive vice president with the SEIU International labor union, told the America’s Future Now! Conference in Washington, DC that illegal immigration was the way to create what he called a permanent progressive coalition.“When [Latinos] voted in November, they voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates,” he said. “Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up.“So I think there are two things that matter for the progressive community. Number one: If we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants, that we'll expand and solidify the progressive coalition for the future.“When you are in the middle of a fight for your life you will remember who was there with you. And immigrants count on progressives to be able to do that.“Number two: We reform the immigration laws; it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three? If we have eight million new voters who care about [issues] and will be voting, we will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.”In other words, Medina believed very strongly that if millions of illegal immigrants voted, they would vote for the liberal politicians who legalized them; namely, Democrats.Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez, one of the strongest supporters of naturalization for illegal immigrants, echoed this sentiment in urging his fellow Democrats to support President Obama’s executive actions, telling them that such actions could bring the Democratic Party upwards of five million new voters.“Let me just say in about an hour, I’m going over to the White House. I’ll be meeting with Jeh Johnson and the Chief Legal Counsel to the President of the United States,” he said on MSNBC. “We’re going to sit down and we’re going to negotiate additional terms and avenues the President can use and prosecutorial discretion, and I think we can get three or four or maybe even five million people.”President Obama’s margin of victory in the 2012 presidential election was five million votes.In 2016, Congressman Gutierrez has partnered with the SEIU—whose executive vice president also recognized the electoral value of so many illegal votes—to get as many immigrants as possible naturalized and able to vote by November’s presidential election.Gutierrez is calling it a “stand up to hate” campaign in opposition to Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump, so it may be surmised that nearly every one of the more than one million new voters that the group plans to register will vote for Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates.And the Obama Administration is apparently doing everything it can to help in this effort. In 2015, it launched what it called the White House Task Force on New Americans, doing so by diverting $10 million in federal funds away from its Electronic Immigration System—the computer system that the federal government uses for national security and background checks.According to the New York Times:With about 8.8 million legal residents in the country who are eligible to become citizens, White House officials said they were trying to make it easier to complete the final steps to citizenship. The US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the federal agency in charge of naturalizations, will offer practice tests on cellphones for the civics exam that immigrants must pass, but which many find daunting, and will hold preparatory workshops in rural areas. Applicants will also be able to pay the fee — still a hefty $680 — with a credit card.A key component of this effort has been to contact each and every one of those 8.8 million non-citizens and urge them to naturalize before the 2016 election, then expediting the naturalization process as much as possible, knowing full well that a whopping 80% of those new American citizens are likely to vote Democrat.And if the Obama Administration can’t get them all naturalized and turn them into legal Democratic voters by November, it is apparently trying its best to ensure that states can’t crack down on non-citizens voting illegally.On February 12th, the League of Women Voters, NAACP, and several other liberal-leaning groups filed a federal lawsuit challenging the ability of states such as Kansas, Arizona, and Georgia to enact voter registration measures that ensure that only United States citizens vote in elections.In a response to this suit, the State of Kansas contends that the highly partisan Voting Section of the U.S. Justice Department, not the bipartisan, independent Election Assistance Commission (EAC), actually drafted a letter supposedly from the EAC denying Kansas’ request for voter registration measures designed to ensure non-citizens don’t vote.In other words, the Justice Department is essentially trying to strip from states their ability to take safeguards that they deem necessary to protect the integrity of their ballots.Under the Constitution, it is the states, not the federal government, that have the authority to impose the “qualification requisite for electors”—that is, who can legally vote.Yet the Obama Administration’s Justice Department appears to have sided with liberal groups in trying to ensure that as many of the illegal immigrants and non-citizens vote after they flocked to America after the White House announced its plans to protect as many of them as possible.Iowa Republican Congressman Steve King recognized this for what it was in 2015, telling radio host John Fredericks that, “to put it simply, the President is importing millions of illegal aliens who when they arrive here he thinks, and he’s right, they are undocumented Democrats, and so the next phase of this is to document these Democrats so they can vote.”“This is the President of the United States trying to stack the electorate with millions of people, lawlessly bringing them into the United States of America and giving them a presence here, and thinking and realizing that the longer you can keep them here the less likely it is that they will go home,” King added.“And they will see Barack Obama and his party are the beneficiaries, that they are the beneficiaries of his lawlessness. They don’t understand the law, they come from lawless countries. So they’re not at all likely to defend our Constitution or the rule of law. They take an oath to it when they are, when they are naturalized, and I speak at those services as often as I can.”All across the country, elected Democratic leaders and liberal federal judges have been helping with this get-out-the-illegal vote effort.In California, Democratic Governor Jerry Brown first signed a law providing drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants, then signed legislation that will automatically register voters when they obtain or renew drivers’ licenses.Roughly 605,000 illegal immigrants obtained licenses in the first year after the law took effect on January 1, 2015 and, under the new Motor Voter law, those who do so in 2016 can be automatically registered to vote.Instead of requiring potential voters to affirmatively prove that they are eligible, this new law presumes that all those who have drivers’ licenses are eligible to vote and registers them regardless of whether they actually legally can cast a ballot.Under the law, California’s Secretary of State is tasked with determining if a license-holder is not actually eligible to vote, and Democrats claim that illegals won’t be able to vote using their new licenses.However, the only difference between a driver’s license for a legal U.S. citizen and an illegal immigrant is the phrase “Federal Limits Apply” on the front of an illegal’s license. On the back it says “Not acceptable for official federal purposes.”There is nothing on the license indicating that it does not authorize its bearer to vote; it merely says “Federal Limits Apply.” For this to keep an illegal immigrant from casting a ballot, a poll worker must a. notice this phrase and b. recognize what it means.Obviously, these two new laws make it much easier for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to register and to vote.In the key swing state of Virginia, Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe—a longtime ally to both Bill and Hillary Clinton who chaired Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign—violated his state’s Constitution by restoring the right to vote to all 206,000 of Virginia’s felons...just in time to help his old boss’ 2016 campaign.On April 22nd, he issued an executive order granting mass amnesty for every one of the state’s felons who had completed their prison sentences, thereby allowing them to vote in the upcoming election.The Virginia Supreme Court ruled, however, that this was in direct violation of the State Constitution, which grants the governor the power only to restore an individual’s rights on a case-by-case basis, not on a massive scale.So why would McAuliffe willfully violate the Constitution he swore to uphold to get hundreds of thousands of felons back on Virginia’s voter rolls? Perhaps because a 2014 study found that Democratic prison inmates outnumber Republican inmates by a roughly 6-to-1 margin.In New York, 61.5% are registered Democrats, while just 9% are Republican. In New Mexico, 51.9% are registered Democrats and just 10.2% are Republicans. And in the key swing state of North Carolina, 54.6% of inmates are Democrats, and 10.2% are Republicans.North Carolina, remember, was likely decided by illegal votes in the 2008 presidential election, and the vote fraud problem appears to have only gotten worse since then.In the 2012 presidential election, North Carolina’s Board of Elections determined that 35,570 people who voted in the state shared the same first and last name and birth date of people who also cast ballots in other states.While much of this can be attributed to people with the same name sharing a birth date (which is actually more common than one might think), an additional 765 voters in North Carolina shared the same first name, last name, birth date, and last four digits of a Social Security number with people who also voted in other states.Even more troublingly, 81 people cast their ballots in North Carolina after they died. Many died between the time they filled out an absentee ballot and the time that ballot was counted, but the executive director of the Board of Elections said “there are between 40 and 50 who had died at a time that that’s not possible.”In response to these massive irregularities, North Carolina passed a law requiring voters to show photo identification, but less than four months before the 2016 presidential election, a federal judge struck down this law as unconstitutional.That judge, naturally, was appointed by Hillary Clinton’s husband Bill.That same week, a federal judge appointed by President Obama blocked the implementation of a Voter ID law in the key swing state of Wisconsin—the state whose largest city’s police department found evidence of massive, widespread fraud orchestrated by a Democratic Presidential candidate’s campaign.This was far from a coincidence.Democrats have howled in opposition to Voter ID laws, claiming with scant evidence that they disenfranchise minority voters through the racist presupposition that minority voters aren’t capable of obtaining photo identification.In reality, it appears that requiring photo identification has put a severe damper on Democratic vote fraud efforts.While Republican voter turnout was up significantly over 2008—the last time that both major parties had contested primaries—Democratic turnout was down by roughly 29%.In states that have enacted Voter ID laws since the 2008 primary, Republican turnout was up, but Democratic turnout dropped by 37%. In states without Voter ID laws, turnout was down just 13%. Put another way, The Huffington Post reported, “Democratic voter turnout was 285% worse in states with new voter ID laws.”Naturally, Democrats have claimed that this stunning decline in voter participation limited to only Democratic voters is the result of disenfranchisement, but there have been no claims of widespread disenfranchisement (or any disenfranchisement whatsoever) during this year’s presidential primaries.In other words, either far fewer Democrats showed up in those primaries or fewer Democratic votes showed up in those primaries.There is a big difference, as conservative activist James O’Keefe has repeatedly shown. In undercover videos at polling places in Michigan, a state that allows voters to get around a Voter ID law by filling out an affadavit, O’Keefe was able to obtain the absentee ballots of two prominent local newspaper columnists, the mayor of Detroit, and Eminem.Yes, that Eminem; the famous rapper.Despite Democratic insistence that such impersonation fraud doesn’t exist, it has been going on for decades.As many as 10% of all ballots cast in Chicago in the 1982 Illinois gubernatorial election were fraudulent, and the resulting federal investigation led to charges against 65 people, 63 of whom were convicted.Many of them simply impersonated elderly and disabled people who would not be in a position to challenge the fact that their votes had been stolen, while other fraudsters voted in the name of dead people who remained on Chicago’s voter rolls.Of course, those fraudulent votes all seemed to be for Democrats.In Miami, the results of the 1997 mayoral election were actually voided after widespread fraud perpetrated on behalf of Democratic Mayor Xavier Suarez. A total of 36 people, most of them members of the Suarez campaign, were criminally charged in a scheme to falsify thousands of absentee ballots.In 2006, the Poughkeepsie Journal found that more than 77,000 dead people remained on the State of New York’s voter rolls and an estimated 2,600 actually cast ballots from beyond the grave.This sort of voter fraud could be easily prevented through Voter ID laws, but Democrats have repeatedly opposed them and, when they don’t have the legislative muscle to do so, the liberal judges that they appoint simply strike those laws down on the flimsiest of constitutional grounds.The sad truth is that through impersonation fraud, felon voting, and illegal non-citizen voting, Democrats have created for themselves a huge electoral advantage, and they will do whatever they can to protect it.For years, the Democratic Party has privately worried whether the so-called Obama Coalition of millennials and African-Americans would turn up without President Obama on the ballot. After all, Democrats have suffered stinging defeats in the last two midterm elections and have seen record losses in gubernatorial and state senate races all across the country.It seems, though, that Democrats have simply been working to augment this coalition with a new generation of Democratic voters by simply importing them from other countries.Seen through that prism, President Obama’s executive actions on immigration were really America’s largest ever get-out-the-vote effort. Heck, a Democratic governor even gave illegal immigrants drivers’ licenses.At the same time, another Democratic governor tried to unconstitutionally allow hundreds of thousands of felons to vote, while Democrats across the country have waged a war against Voter ID to ensure that stopping the impersonation fraud that they have been engaging in for decades is impossible.”Read more: http://newstalk1130.iheart.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/how-democrats-plan-to-steal-the-14995362/#ixzz4YVkwjnJs