Today’s News

California’s draconian new gun laws will require residents of the Golden state to register their “assault weapons” with the state (which they will have to pay to do of course) by the end of the year.  But thanks to capitalism and the free market, gun makers have already figured out workarounds.

One of the new laws labels an “assault weapon” as any gun that doesn’t have a fixed magazine.  So Franklin Armory owner Jay Jacobson invented “Drop in Fixed Magazine” or DFM. Jacobson had demonstrated his patented new device which is designed to get around the state’s new “assault weapons” law. The new law clamps down on a previous device known as a bullet button to Californians. The bullet button was a workaround for an earlier ban on rifles with detachable and quickly reloadable ammunition magazines. The DFM invention is actually ingenious for those stuck in the Golden state. The magazine is fixed from the bottom as the law requires; but it can come out the top, technically legal because it involves partially disassembling the gun. It’s a workaround that still allows shooters to quickly reload with very little delay.

If curious as to how the magazine works, watch the below video.

“Basically if it’s not written that you can’t do it, it should be good to go. So it’s not a loophole, it’s just the legislature hasn’t covered that yet,” said Jacobson. And the good news is that that is not the only new product on the market for Californians.

CBS News San Francisco says they have found at least six new inventions that work around the new law.  One is the AR Maglock, which allows California AR-15 owners to comply with existing fixed magazine laws, thus avoiding Department of Justice registration. The AR MAGLOCK engages the magazine so it stays “fixed” in the firearm until the action is disassembled, complying with California SB 880 & AB 1135, and Department of Justice regulations.

Other inventions to get around the registration of your gun are the Patriot Mag Release, the MA Loader, and the Bear Flag Defense. They are all designed to allow bullet button gun owners to avoid registering, yet still, have fast reloading weapons. Many anti-gun hoplophobes reside in California, and they are not happy that the private market has found workarounds.  But Jacobson says it will always be this way, and the market is going to provide.

“Criminals don’t care. So the only people that are affected by this are law abiding Californians that are trying to do the right thing. The legislature has tried several times to basically find ways to prevent the AR-15 from entering California. And the reality is that whether it’s Franklin Armory or my peers in the industry, there’s always going to be a way to make the firearm legal in California, and they are just grasping at straws,” said Jacobson.

The Department of Justice won’t say whether any of these devices are legal until after it issues formal regulations on how to implement the new assault weapons ban, a process that is six months behind schedule because a government is inefficient at everything. They can’t seem to even roll out a ban on an item they hate with the mass majority of the state’s voters behind them. But the private market is well ahead of these new draconian laws.


From the AP:

When U.S. Senate Republicans unveil their plan to overhaul America’s healthcare system, they will face a skeptical public that already does not buy the justification for an earlier version that passed the House of Representatives, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday.

They’re right to be “skeptical”; Obamacare did exactly nothing to address cost, which is where the real issue resides, and the House bill, as I analyzed, would actually make it worse (which is hard to believe, but true.)

The Senate “attempt” will do the same.

The problem is not “insurance” or “coverage” — it’s cost.

Then there’s this sort of nonsense, which IMHO argues for locking up doctors en-masse as drug pushers:

Nearly one in four people on Medicaid, the U.S. health program for the poor, received powerful and addictive opioid pain medicines in 2015, according to research by a drug-benefits management firm.

One person in four?

Folks, these drugs are responsible for some 20,000 deaths due to overdoses a year which wildly outranks other means of accidental death, save one: car accidents (~35,000)

There is only one way to address health care cost: Attack the monopolist practices of the industry and you need no new laws to do it, since we have a 100+ year old body of said law which, I remind you again, drug and medical firms have tried to shoot down twice at the US Supreme Court (in the 1970s timeframe) and they lost both times.

It requires only an executive either at the state or federal level, which again I remind you has responsibility for enforcing the law, to stand up and do their  job, leveling indictments against everyone involved in this industry that attempts to promote monopolies or restrain trade.

That’s all it will take and the entirety of the health scam will collapse in an afternoon, crashing prices by 80% or more.

You can look right here for what this would mean, and what it would do.

You will note that there is not one hint of any of this in the House proposal, and there won’t be in the Senate version either.  Nor has my phone rang despite the fact that I’ve been to the Hill in the past and spoken with Senate staffers on exactly this point; they know damn well what’s coming, why, and how to stop it.

Via Market Ticker.

We may never know what brutal torture and malign neglect American student Otto Warmbier suffered at the hands of North Korea’s dictatorship before losing his life this week at the age of 22.

But it wasn’t the first time the free-spirited Ohio native died.

More than a year before succumbing to the unknown illness or injury that left him in a coma thousands of miles away from home, Otto Warmbier’s own countrymen murdered his reputation. His character. His humanity.

Click-hungry media ghouls knew nothing about Warmbier’s small-town upbringing, his family life, politics, personality, disappointments or dreams. But they gleefully savaged a young man who made a mistake on a doomed trip to a totalitarian hell.

Warmbier’s thoughtless taunters instantly transformed him into a bigger, badder villain than the barbaric DPRK goons who beat, starve, rape and kill enemies of the state for such offenses as listening to foreign radio broadcasts, possessing Bibles and disrespecting Dear Leader — in Warmbier’s case, by attempting to steal a propaganda sign that read “Let’s arm ourselves strongly with Kim Jong-il’s patriotism!” as a souvenir.

The Huffington Post published an acid rant by “Blogging While Black” writer La Sha titled “North Korea Proves Your White Male Privilege Is Not Universal.” She rejoiced at Warmbier’s sentence because, she gloated, it taught him that “the shield his cis white male identity provides here in America is not teflon abroad.”

Instead of faulting a repressive socialist regime, La Sha blamed Warmbier for “being socialized first as a white boy, and then as a white man in this country.” The HuffPo’s megalomaniac millennial had the gall to compare her daily plight of living and breathing freely in America to Warmbier’s captivity:

“The hopeless fear Warmbier is now experiencing is my daily reality living in a country where white men like him are willfully oblivious to my suffering even as they are complicit in maintaining the power structures which ensure their supremacy at my expense.”

But it wasn’t just babbling diversity bloggers who exploited Warmbier’s imprisonment.

For a few cheap yuks, liberal black comedian Larry Wilmore plowed ahead with smug disregard to how Warmbier’s parents, family and friends must have suffered as photos and videos of their son and loved one were plastered all over media. To canned laughter, Wilmore mocked Warmbier on his Comedy Central show with a graphic labeling him an “ASS,” which spelled out a fake frat name, “Alpha Sigma Sigma.”

“It’s just tough for me to have much sympathy for this guy and his crocodile tears,” Wilmore snarked as he roasted the “Frat Boy.”

Left-wing website Salon added another layer to the white male-bashing echo chamber:

“This might be America’s biggest idiot frat boy: Meet the UVa student who thought he could pull a prank in North Korea.”

Not to be outdone, Affinity Magazine (a “social justice” online magazine for teens) stomped on Warmbier’s grave after his death was announced:

“Watch whiteness work,” the publication tweeted. “He wasn’t a ‘kid’ or ‘innocent’ you can’t go to another country and try to steal from them. Respect their laws.”

This from a rag that had deified Black Lives Matter icons Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin as downtrodden youth whose extensive rap sheets must remain unmentioned at all costs.

Otto’s saboteurs engaged in the very same bigotry and stereotyping they recklessly accuse everyone else of at every turn. The far left learned nothing from leaping to conclusions about the Duke lacrosse players or the wrongfully accused members of Phi Kappa Psi at University of Virginia — where Warmbier was a junior double-majoring in commerce and economics.

By all accounts, Warmbier was a charismatic and caring human being whom one high-school classmate called “Everyone’s friend.” He was a lover of cultures and intellectually open-minded — “a warm, engaging, brilliant young man whose curiosity and enthusiasm for life knew no bounds,” according to his family.

Utterly consumed by malignant identity politics, the left-wing intelligentsia have become the intolerantsia. They are bent on dehumanizing individuals, fomenting racial, ethnic and class division in the name of “progressivism,” and never taking responsibility for the damage done.

Contrast the no-regrets policy of these “Frat Boy”-bashers, with a former North Korean prison guard, Lim Hye-jin, who escaped recently and recounted the horrors of life in the camps.

“We were manipulated not to feel any sympathy for prisoners,” she said. The guards of the totalitarian state “do not see them as human beings, just as animals.” After realizing she had been brainwashed by ideological monsters, she spoke out.

“Now I know they were normal people, so I feel very guilty.”

Will the short, slandered life and double death of Otto Warmbier prompt the American left’s cruel character assassins to admit the same?

Soul-searching, alas, requires a soul.

Michelle Malkin is host of “Michelle Malkin Investigates” on Her email address is To find out more about Michelle Malkin and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at

I was surprised last weekend when one of President Donald Trump’s lawyers told my colleague Chris Wallace twice on “Fox News Sunday” that the president is being investigated by the FBI and then told him twice that he is not. This same lawyer repeated the “not being investigated” argument on a half-dozen other Sunday shows but did not repeat the “is being investigated” remark.

This produced substantial consternation in the news media and at the White House, since the president himself had tweeted over the weekend that he is being investigated for firing FBI Director James Comey by the same person — Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — who recommended Comey’s firing and that the investigation is a “witch hunt.”

So, who is correct, the president or his lawyer? Is the president under criminal investigation by the FBI? If he is being investigated as he claims, is the investigation a witch hunt? Here is the back story.

When Donald Trump began running for the Republican nomination for president in June 2015 and made novel arguments indicating that his view was that Europe should essentially pay for its own military defense, this triggered concern in European capitals, and it resulted in the commencement of now well-documented British surveillance of Trump and his principal adviser on national security matters, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. The foreign surveillance was eventually passed on to American spies, who acceded to demands from the West Wing of the Obama White House and handed over transcripts of conversations and names of participants.

This went on throughout the presidential campaign and into the transition period after Trump had been elected. President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, recently confirmed that she ordered transcripts of surveilled conversations and names of participants — this is called “unmasking” in intelligence community lingo — and James Clapper, the Obama administration’s director of national intelligence, recently acknowledged under oath the existence of the foreign and domestic surveillance of Trump in 2015 and 2016, as well as the unmasking.

One of the unmasked conversations handed over to Rice was between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak. Portions of that conversation were leaked to The Washington Post, and that generated interest in the relationship, if any, of the Trump campaign and transition team to the Russian government. This provoked a preliminary FBI investigation into Flynn. Flynn apparently was interviewed by the FBI while ignorant of the FBI’s possession of transcripts of his conversations with Kislyak. If Flynn lied in that interview as has been reported and speculated in the press, he committed a felony. When Trump learned Flynn had lied to others, he fired Flynn.

Flynn’s firing ratcheted up the investigation of him, as well as the investigation of whether anyone from the Trump campaign had assisted Russian intelligence agents in hacking into computers in America in order to affect the outcome of the election. When Trump asked then-FBI Director Comey whether he, Donald J. Trump, was being investigated by the FBI, Comey thrice said no. That was, no doubt, true at the time. The Trump campaign and the Trump transition team were being investigated, but not Trump personally.

Then the president, according to Comey, asked Comey to drop the investigation into whether Flynn had lied to FBI agents and others. Then, according to Comey, the president suggested to him that he could keep his job as FBI director if he dropped the Flynn investigation. Then the president fired Comey.

After Comey released a portion of a memo containing his recollections of his conversations with Trump, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as independent prosecutor to investigate and charge, if appropriate, anyone criminally implicated in the Flynn investigation, the investigation of Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election, the investigation of whether any assistance was provided to the Russians by any Americans, and all related matters.
Because Comey presented a credible case for the possibility that the president interfered with a federal criminal investigation, Mueller no doubt is investigating that as one of the related matters. In that respect, President Trump is under investigation by the FBI, which seeks to determine whether he attempted to influence a federal criminal investigation for a corrupt purpose.

Yet as a sitting president, Trump cannot be indicted for any criminal behavior committed while in office. Hence he cannot be a “target” of an FBI investigation. I use the word “target” in quotation marks because it has a technical meaning — namely, that the Department of Justice plans to seek an indictment. So though it is true that the president is being investigated by the FBI, it is also true that he is not a target of that investigation.

Of what value is a criminal investigation of a person if that person cannot be charged criminally? Can’t the president fire an FBI director without fear of a criminal investigation of his purposes? Can’t he order the cessation of a criminal investigation without fearing that the FBI will investigate the reasons for his order?

Sometimes criminal investigations exonerate a person, and the FBI, without fanfare, will just drop it. In the case of the president, any evidence of guilt will go to the House Judiciary Committee, not a grand jury, as the constitutional remedy for presidential criminal behavior is impeachment, not indictment. Of course, the president can fire a director of the FBI for any non-corrupt reason, but if he does so after a rejected quid pro quo as Comey has publicly claimed that Trump did, that can trigger the woes Trump now endures.

We live in perilous times — times that demand fidelity to first principles. The core of those principles is the rule of law: No one is beneath laws’ protections, and no one is above their requirements. No one.

But I thought guns were the problem…

An Illinois man is facing charges of first-degree attempted murder and aggravated battery after allegedly attacking his estranged wife’s boyfriend with a chainsaw during violent confrontation in Arlington Heights.

According to reports, the suspect identified as 27-year-old Jose A. Jaimes-Jimenez became angry as he waited for his estranged wife outside of her place of employment and witnessed her walk out with another man.

Jaimes-Jimenez via Arlington Heights PD

As the Chicago Tribune reported, Jaimes-Jimenez then rammed his car into the victim’s vehicle before exiting his own and then chasing the man down the street with a chainsaw.

In what has been described as reminiscent of a scene from a horror movie, Jaimes-Jimenez then allegedly cut the victim’s arm with the chainsaw as he stumbled while attempting to flee for safety.

Via ChicagoTribune

Judge Joseph Cataldo ordered Jaimes-Jimenez to be held on a $2.5 million bond for a first-degree attempted murder charge, citing the “violent, horrifying nature of the crime.”

“This was almost a scene from a horror movie,” Cataldo said.

Assistant State’s Attorney Maria McCarthy called the crime “horrifying” and “premeditated.”

She said Jaimes-Jimenez, of Arlington Heights, first met the victim on Friday — three days prior to the attack — when Jaimes-Jimenez saw his wife with the victim in a store. Jaimes-Jimenez argued with the man and told him they would talk later, McCarthy said.

“The defendant thought about it all weekend,” the prosecutor said, adding Jaimes-Jimenez kept a chainsaw in his vehicle for his work for a tree service company.

According to the prosecutor, Jaimes-Jimenez waited in the parking lot of his wife’s workplace with his hood up and, when he saw his wife and her boyfriend get into the boyfriend’s car, Jaimes-Jimenez rammed that car with his. The boyfriend exited his car and ran toward the building as Jaimes-Jimenez chased him with the chainsaw, McCarthy said. When the boyfriend stumbled and fell, Jaimes-Jimenez sliced his left arm with the chainsaw, severing the bones in the forearm and leaving it hanging just by skin and a tendon, McCarthy said.

According to authorities, the victim additionally suffered injuries to his torso, right hand and elbow.

The victim is reportedly expected to survive, however, he required several blood transfusions and emergency surgical procedures to address the severe injuries he sustained during the attack.

Thoughts on this? Let us know in the comment section below.


A Milwaukee man is now facing the charge of making ‘terrorist threats’ after allegedly stating that he was going to bomb a downtown courthouse and kill everyone inside.

According to reports, the frightening incident took place on June 15th as the suspect now identified as 32-year-old Mohamad Hamdan became combative with a U.S. Marshal.

As detailed in the criminal complaint against Hamdan, he parked in front of the courthouse just before 11 a.m., once inside he began aggressively yelling in both English and Arabic. Shouting things such as “Mohammed,” “Allah,“jihad” and “Malakum,” Hamdan then began demanding to know where the U.S. Marshals were while insisting he was one.

When asked to identify himself, Hamdan then began shouting “Ji-ha” and “Malakum.”

At some point Hamdan then reached into his pocket and “caused security to fear for their immediate safety.” A courthouse security officer then ordered Hamdan to back up and exit the building. The U.S. Marshals were called out to assist security personnel.

As one of the Marshals attempted to determine whether or not Hamdan had business at the courthouse, or what he grievance was in general, Hamdan allegedly called the Marshal the ‘N-Word’ and began yelling ‘f- you guys!’ while trying to move closer into the building.

Just another upstanding member of society…

Via Fox6

The complaint says Hamdan was told to leave multiple times — told he would be arrested if he refused. He eventually went to his van, and with the driver’s side window down, he “continued to yell in another language with English words interspersed” — specifically yelling “(expletive) you. I’m gonna kill you all. Allah. Bomb.” When he said “bomb,” a decision was made to identify him. When asked for identification, the complaint says Hamdan said “no” and started his van.

When asked to stop, the complaint says Hamdan looked at officials and tried pulling away. A Marshal was able to pull him from the vehicle, and the complaint says he “resisted, began to fight and refused to be handcuffed.” He was directed to the ground on Wisconsin Avenue where he was handcuffed.

Due to the incident, traffic outside of the courthouse was blocked in both directions, including additional block on Jefferson Street. A bomb-sniffing dog and hazardous device unit responded to the scene to assist in the search of Hamdan’s vehicle.

Additionally, Fox6 reports that in 2016 and 2017 Hamdan was charged with “misdemeanor battery (domestic abuse), disorderly conduct (domestic abuse) and bail jumping (domestic abuse) — a condition of his bond that he commit no further crimes.”

Thoughts on this? Let us know in the comment section below.


Stephen Yarbrough, a man with no previous criminal history is currently being held on a $25,000 bond for stabbing a man he states he caught red-handed sexually abusing a 12-year-old girl.

Being lead to a Washington County, Pa. courthouse in cuffs, Yarbrough stated that while he this is ‘Definitely not a situation I’d like to be in. What’s done is done and I just have to walk in faith,’ adding that he does not regret his decision to protect the young girl.

According to reports, Yarbrough walked in on suspect Christopher Holiday abusing the young girl and quickly took action to stop it while notifying authorities, however, after a week went by and Holiday was still free he decided to take matters into his own hands.

As reported by WPXI, Yarbrough snapped on June 6th after confronting Holiday in regards to the alleged assault, stabbing him in the neck and shoulder. Holiday was transported to a hospital where he was subsequently arrested for the alleged sexual assault after being treated for his wounds.

Coming to Yarbrough’s defense, the alleged victim’s father appeared in court Wednesday and stated to media that he would like to Yarbrough set free.

“As far as I am concerned what he did was justified and what he did was for my daughter. It’s gonna be a long time and probably a life long time for me to be able to thank that man for what he did.” The victim’s father stated choking back tears.

Holiday adamantly denies the charges against him, which he states include two felonies and a misdemeanor.

Watch below:


“Definitely praying, hoping God provides the way for me,” Yarbrough said.

Holiday was stabbed in the neck and shoulder. He was flown to a hospital, treated, released and arrested on sexual assault charges. Yarbrough has no criminal history and despite being in jail for weeks, told us he has no regrets.

Holiday is also in jail on $25,000 bond. After he was released from the hospital he was arrested in connection with that alleged sexual assault. But in court Wednesday, he claimed he didn’t know why Yarbrough stabbed him.

According to police, Yarbrough claimed he walked in on Holiday with the young girl, her pants down and her shirt up, on his lap. Police say Yarbrough lunged at him, ripping him off of her. Police were called and began investigating.

Thoughts on this? Were Yarbrough’s actions justified? Let us know in the comment section below.

Wrong on so many levels…

Following convicted child molester Harold English’s release from prison, the victim’s family received heartbreaking news that their daughter’s abuser would be moving into the home next door.

While Oklahoma law currently prohibits convicted sex offenders from living in close proximity to near schools or public grounds such as parks, there is nothing that says an individual is prohibited from living near their victims. This is something that the victim’s family is now demanding lawmakers to change.

According to reports, following English’s release he notified authorities that he would be moving into his mother’s home which happens to be located approximately 100 yards away from the home of now 21-year-old Danyelle Dyer.

Speaking on the matter, Danyelle told media that “He’s like right there, practically in my backyard and that kind of makes me nervous and not want to go home ever.”

Fighting for the law to be changed, Danyelle explains that her family’s request is very simple “It’s adding one word in there where it talks, where they can and can’t live, just adding ‘victim’ right there along with schools and playgrounds.”


Danyelle and her family say her uncle, Harold English, recently got out of prison and moved in with his mother whose property is just over the fence.

“When you have to see it, I can only imagine what it does to my daughter when she’s there and she has to witness it,” said Laurina Dyer. “She shouldn’t have to. Very heartbreaking.”

Hard for mom to talk about and even harder for dad.

“Not only is my daughter feeling her past come back to haunt her, but a lot of years of rage and anger that I’ve kept under my collar is sitting right outside my door,” said Greg Dyer.

“She’s had to bring her deepest, darkest secrets out for the public to view just to try to rid this person of her life.”

And that’s exactly what Danyelle did. She posted about her new neighbor on Facebook, including the words “meet my abuser and my new neighbor.”

Watch below: – Tulsa, OK – News, Weather, Video and Sports – |

KFOR spoke with Representative Kyle Hilbert who states that he is currently working with the Dyer family and hopes to get a new law addressing this issue on the books shortly.

Thoughts on this? Let us know in the comment section below.

Pretty sure Obama’s ilk will call this racist or something…

Wednesday, during a visit to Iowa President Trump announced that he plans to address yet another highly controversial topic pertaining to immigration, self-reliance.

Stating that he plans to soon call for immigrants to be prohibited from receiving public assistance such as welfare for the first five years after entering the country, Trump explained that those seeking to start new lives in America need to prove they are able to support themselves financially before asking for government assistance.

As reported by Fox News, the plan would increase the scope of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which allows for the deportation of immigrants who become dependents of tax-dollars within the first five years of their entry to the country.

While many of the law’s provisions ‘were rolled back during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations,’ if Trump gets his way, he would call for more categories of federal benefits to be barred for immigrants upon arrival.

“The time has come for new immigration rules that say … those seeking immigration into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use welfare for a period of at least five years,” Trump stated during the rally.

Via FoxNews

Trump’s proposal would also prevent the admission of people who are likely to become so-called “public charges” within five years of their arrival. The concept of “public charge” has been part of U.S. immigration law for over a century. It allows the government to bar entry to individuals who are likely to seek public assistance. Trump is expected to propose toughening up the rules regarding “public charge” and ensuring that they are enforced.

The administration circulated a draft executive order to make Trump’s proposed changes earlier this year. However, Trump’s remarks Wednesday indicated that he wants Congress to codify his plan into law.

In requesting these changes, the White House will cite a 2015 report from the Center for Immigration Studies that found 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant are using some form of public assistance, compared to 30 percent among non-immigrant families. That report has been disputed by critics who say it does not take into account the nuances of many immigrant families.

Thoughts on this? Let us know in the comment section below.


When President Trump won the election last year, he did so without the benefit of the popular vote. He was quick to point out that had it not been for the millions of illegal aliens who probably voted, he would have handily won the popular vote as well. Meanwhile, the liberal media laughed at his “fake news” claims, because supposedly, there was no evidence that millions of noncitizens had voted in the election. They cited studies which suggested that not only were his claims overblown, but the number of illegal aliens that voted was practically nonexistent.

However, it turns out that those studies ignored some very vital details. According to a research group that has been poring over old election data, millions of noncitizens have voted in previous elections, which suggests that the same thing happened in the 2016 election.

Just Facts President James D. Agresti and his team looked at data from an extensive Harvard/YouGov study that every two years questions a sample size of tens of thousands of voters. Some acknowledge they are noncitizens and are thus ineligible to vote.

Just Facts’ conclusions confront both sides in the illegal voting debate: those who say it happens a lot and those who say the problem nonexistent.

In one camp, there are groundbreaking studies by professors at Old Dominion University in Virginia who attempted to compile scientifically derived illegal voting numbers using the Harvard data, called the Cooperative Congressional Election Study.

On the other side are the professors who conducted the study and contended that “zero” noncitizens of about 18 million adults in the U.S. voted. The liberal mainstream media adopted this position and proclaimed the Old Dominion work was “debunked.”

There’s only one problem with the Harvard study that was often cited by the media. It ignores factors which, when considered, paint a totally different picture of previous elections that placed Barack Obama in the White House.

“The details are technical, but the figure I calculated is based on a more conservative margin of sampling error and a methodology that I consider to be more accurate,” Mr. Agresti told The Washington Times.

He believes the Harvard/YouGov researchers based their “zero” claim on two flawed assumptions. First, they assumed that people who said they voted and identified a candidate did not vote unless their names showed up in a database.

“This is illogical, because such databases are unlikely to verify voters who use fraudulent identities, and millions of noncitizens use them,” Mr. Agresti said.

He cites government audits that show large numbers of noncitizens use false IDs and Social Security numbers in order to function in the U.S., which could include voting.

Second, Harvard assumed that respondent citizens sometimes misidentified themselves as noncitizens but also concluded that noncitizens never misidentified themselves as citizens, Mr. Agresti said.

“This is irrational, because illegal immigrants often claim they are citizens in order to conceal the fact that they are in the U.S. illegally,” he said.

So what are the results when you consider factors like that? Agresti believes that between 594,000 and 5.7 million noncitizens voted in the 2008 election. In 2012, between 1.2 million and 3.6 million noncitizens voted. Since people who aren’t citizens (especially if they are illegal aliens) have far more support for Democrats than Republicans, it’s obvious that the noncitizen vote tipped the scales for Barack Obama, and won the popular vote for Hillary Clinton (on paper of course).

I’d imagine that the numbers for the 2016 election are even higher than what we’ve seen in previous elections. After all, Trump was running on a campaign that promised to build a wall on the southern border, and roll back immigration in a big way. That would have motivated millions of illegal immigrants to break the law and vote. When you consider that, it becomes really hard to believe that Trump lost the popular vote.

And this is one of the biggest reasons why the Democrats and the Left are more alarmed by Trump than any previous Republican president. If he makes good on his promise to deport more illegal immigrants, and prevent millions more from reaching our nation, it’ll be a long time before they win any major elections.

Via SHTFPlan.

Email Newsletter