A significant number of voters who were not citizens cast illegal ballots in U.S. elections and the possibility exists that those unlawful ballots helped President Barack Obama to win the election in 2008, according to two public-interest organizations, one of which is located on the campus of the left-leaning Harvard University campus. While the study was originally aimed at dispelling claims of significant voter fraud, it surprisingly confirms that elections are in some cases being stolen.

Of significance is the academic study appears to confirm the nonpartisan Judicial Watch’s allegations that while Democrats accuse their political opponents of stealing elections -- such as their accusation that George W. Bush "stole" the 2000 election from Al Gore -- it is the votes cast by foreign nationals that have helped Democrats steal elections.

The study, as analyzed by Judicial Watch was conducted by the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) group at Harvard , and was an academic project involving teams of researchers located throughout the United States. The CCES findings support the allegations that enough illegal votes were cast in 2008 to turn the tide in close races to favor Democratic candidates and provide them with victories. As far as Obama, CCES researchers claims that, based on their samples, he "won more than 80 percent of the non-citizen vote."
“This is a major story and confirms JW’s working theory that foreign nationals illegally vote in federal elections in large numbers and have allowed Democrats, including this president, to steal elections,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Fitton goes on to state, "This is why the Left does not want voter ID, loves same day registration, by mail voting, etc. and craves amnesty and open borders. It is not about the Hispanic vote – it is about the illegal alien vote (and the legal alien vote), it is about stealing elections. Makes all the talk about targeting, messaging, issues, candidates, and policy seem quaint.”

“Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.

“Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin."

there are so many issue they are trying to avoid and going right for Ebola an Isis to detour peoples votes ... not to say it is a large issues ... but the republicans also want you to forget the shut down too ... and how much that cost Americans... republican see no change if the minim wage is not upped for the poor working 2 to 3 jobs trying to make ends meet ... and no they probably are not sitting at there kitchen table discussing this ...becouse they are working all the time to keep up on their bills an way of feeding their families an housing ... the democrat's see a change it will make an put money back in to the economy ...we so desperately need... why wouldn't you want to vote Democratic just for that one reason alone ... + there are a lot more good reason also ... but if you believe the republicans good luck with that raise ...some are talking about it but most want avoid it and to vote it down ...

For the record, I am not an illegal alien. I have a Green Card. See?

Sorry, that card is only valid in the Northern Hebei Province of China.

Void in the US.

"Voter Fraud! We've got the proof it's easy!"

Liberals who oppose efforts to prevent voter fraud claim that there is no fraud — or at least not any that involves voting in person at the polls.

But New York City’s watchdog Department of Investigations has just provided the latest evidence of how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. DOI undercover agents showed up at 63 polling places last fall and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials; the agents assumed the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote. Those who did vote cast only a write-in vote for a “John Test” so as to not affect the outcome of any contest. DOI published its findings two weeks ago in a searing 70-page report accusing the city’s Board of Elections of incompetence, waste, nepotism, and lax procedures.

The Board of Elections, which has a $750 million annual budget and a work force of 350 people, reacted in classic bureaucratic fashion, which prompted one city paper to deride it as “a 21st-century survivor of Boss Tweed–style politics.” The Board approved a resolution referring the DOI’s investigators for prosecution. It also asked the state’s attorney general to determine whether DOI had violated the civil rights of voters who had moved or are felons, and it sent a letter of complaint to Mayor Bill de Blasio. Normally, I wouldn’t think de Blasio would give the BOE the time of day, but New York’s new mayor has long been a close ally of former leaders of ACORN, the now-disgraced “community organizing” group that saw its employees convicted of voter-registration fraud all over the country during and after the 2008 election.

Greg Soumas, president of New York’s BOE, offered a justification for calling in the prosecutors: “If something was done in an untoward fashion, it was only done by DOI. We [are] unaware of any color of authority on the part of [DOI] to vote in the identity of any person other than themselves — and our reading of the election law is that such an act constitutes a felony.” The Board is bipartisan, and all but two of its members voted with Soumas. The sole exceptions were Democrat Jose Araujo, who abstained because the DOI report implicated him in hiring his wife and sister-and-law for Board jobs, and Republican Simon Shamoun.

From the National Review

I don't vote.

Since I cannot think, I believe it is rather presumptuous to claim I can spot someone else who can.

what makes you think that you can not think?

You might want to do a little research. Yes, the Repulsicons voted NOT to up the debt ceiling (for obvious reasons) but it was this admin who chose what to shut down and chose things like parks, tourist attractions, memorials and the like all the time blaming it on the Repulsicons when they had little or NOTHING to do with those choices.

Actually, it was both, the old "smoke and mirrors" game. One team builds the fire and the other polishes the mirrors. They know that while the American people are relatively dumb, they are not yet totally stupid, but getting there.

So they play smoke and mirrors to get the divide game going and while the two sides of the public are at each other's throats, they do dastardly deeds right out in plain sight but with little notice.

As to the actual shutdown, what did it cost Americans? Now don't get me wrong, it did cost but not in ways that the masses will ever take notice. But if you were a non-essential government leech, then you got a free vacation with full pay.

And as for the Repulseacons, do you think for a moment they would actually deny the debt? The only way you could believe that was to not understand the "Mandrake Mechanism" and how that thing we call "MONEY" works.

The Mandrake Mechanism-(How the Fed Creates Money)