Never mind Wisconsin. California’s Presidential vote must be disqualified




In California illegal aliens are allowed to obtain driver’s licenses. Last year California passed a “motor voter” law. It stipulates that unless the applicant opts out, the applicant will automatically be added to the voter rolls. The potential for fraud
is yuuge.

Tens of thousands of dead people are on the voting roles, many still “receive” their permanent absentee ballot. Illegal aliens are on the roles—thanks to the Democrats all an illegal alien has to do is get a California drivers license and they can register to vote, almost automatically. Then it is up to the County Registrar of Voters and the Secretary of State to vet them to assure they can legally vote. The Election Integrity Project in Los Angeles gave the LA Registrar 49,000 names of dead people, those that have moved or illegal aliens—and seemingly nothing has been done with that information.

This is an affront to all real citizens and it violates Federal law:

The official number of illegal aliens in the state of California is nearly 3 million. We can estimate the number to be more than double this amount in reality.
Over half of all drivers license issued in California were given to individuals who are here illegally and the state automatically registers those with a driver’s license to vote.
In 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA) signed a bill giving full voting rights to illegal aliens. This gives them the right to vote in all elections from a local level to national elections, including that of choosing who will become President.
The biggest problem with this is it is against Federal law for non-citizens to vote in any national election.

At least one study concludes that the 2008 election outcome was altered by illegal aliens voting:

In spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave 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.

The terminally left biased twits at, God love ’em, say hey,  there’s nothing to worry about because the law didn’t really grant illegals a right to vote:

While it’s true that undocumented people in California can obtain a driver’s license, the state has not passed any laws which also gives them the right to vote. The New Motor Voter Act was passed in an effort to improve voter turnout, and while this law does automatically register citizens to vote when obtaining or renewing a driver’s license, this only applies to citizens who are already eligible to vote.

Want to see why? They turn to California SoS Alex Padilla:

“… Automated voter registration is actually a more secure way of doing things,” California Secretary of State Alex Padilla told HuffPost in September. Potential voters “have to demonstrate proof of age, the vast majority of time people are showing a birth certificate or a passport, which also reflects citizenship. That’s arguably more secure than someone checking a box under penalty of perjury,” Padilla said.

So let’s have a peek at what neither snopes nor Padilla are not telling you:

Will I need to bring identification?

In most cases, California voters are not required to show identification at their polling place.

That comes directly from the Office of the California Secretary of State– Alex Padilla!

There. Feel better?

How about a nice chart from the National Conference of State Legislatures?



As you can see, no ID is required to vote in California. One is left to wonder how any Federal vote could possibly be certified as legal.

There are at least 2.6 million illegals in California- say, isn’t that about exactly Clinton’s vote margin?

The vote from California cannot possibly be valid and it must undergo “extreme vetting” before the 55 electoral votes can be allocated. Better yet, if California would just hurry up and secede this situation could be resolved promptly.

I told you this was going to happen.



0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Liberals don’t give a damn about protecting citizens’ votes. “Citizenship’ is an outdated ruse meant to stop us from realizing we are all part of one world, etc. etc.

Democrats like laws like this because it makes it easier for them to cheat and win.

Is this even up for debate?

Liberals and demacrats never can there be no two vile bunch of lowlife reptiles and bottom dwelling muck suckers then this

California driver’s licenses that are issued to people who cannot document their citizenship or legally admitted status—also known as AB 60 licenses, for the California law that allowed them to be issued—display the words “FEDERAL LIMITS APPLY” in the upper right corner. That alerts anyone who examines the license that it cannot be used for identification for voters registration, for voting, or as ID to gain entry into restricted areas where citizenship or lawful admission must be established. The claim that such licenses enable illegal aliens in California to vote is a lie.

The election would obviously have been rigged if Trump had lost. But it couldn’t possibly have been rigged in any way now that he’s won—unless it was rigged in Clinton’s favor to keep Trump’s win from being even bigger, of course—despite several years of repeated politically-motivated investigations, an avalanche of totally false viral news, endless bogus accusations, targeted Russian hacking, hostile Wikileaks releases, and carefully timed leaks of false information by some rogue faction inside the FBI—assuming FOX’s unnamed sources inside the FBI actually existed.

I mean, really. The recount is only being done to rule out one unlikely possibility, because it would be stupid to ignore one that can so easily be ruled out. All of that other stuff? No intelligent, objective observer would imagine for a moment that it wasn’t done to put a person in the White House who otherwise never would have been elected.

We’ve seen the end of something this time around: elections that are decided based on clearly stated and firmly-held positions, factual information, and the public’s ability to distinguish between truth and baldfaced lies.

@Greg: And all that person has to do is turn the would-be voter away, right? Because it’s against the law for illegal immigrants to vote, right?

And what if the voting regulator doesn’t care, or thinks illegal immigrants SHOULD have the right to vote? I guess we are to assume, in direct contrast to what every bit of evidence shows us, that a liberal voting regulator will turn the illegal immigrant away.

Because, it’s against the law for illegal immigrants to vote. Right.

Well, it’s against the law for illegal immigrants to BE in California. It is also against the law to give them identification KNOWING they are illegal. It is also against the law to give them sanctuary KNOWING they are illegal.

They are REGISTERED TO VOTE the moment they are given the license. At that point, with no required identification, THEY CAN VOTE. The only thing that prevents this is the morality of the illegal immigrant and the morality of the liberals. FAT F**KING CHANCE of that happening.

Not only do liberals fight against any and all efforts to secure the vote, they simultaneously do everything they can to allow fraud to happen… and enabling illegal immigrants to vote is FRAUD.

@Greg: So Greggie are you in favor of a national Voter ID? Then all issues with voter fraud would be settled!!

@Common Sense, #5:

I have no problem with national ID cards displaying a photo and citizenship status. In fact I have such a secure-ID card in my wallet, issued by the State of Indiana. Such a driver’s license shows you presented proof of identity, your SSN, and your birth certificate. It’s screened by Homeland Security to make sure everything matches.

Republicans fought against mandating positive ID cards tooth and nail, as you may remember. They were determined that states should not be required by law to apply these uniform standards to state driver’s licenses and other IDs. Do you have any explanation why that was?

I think it had something to do with the supply of cheap undocumented labor the business sector was making so much money by exploiting back then.

@Bill… Deplorable Me, #4:

And what if the voting regulator doesn’t care, or thinks illegal immigrants SHOULD have the right to vote?

That would be part of the right’s propaganda fantasy. They’ve always got a story that can’t be substantiated, but is widely believed anyway. It’s believed if it can’t be disproved, and sometimes continues to be believed even if it has been.

@Greg: To state Drivers License?? I would be against that because illegals are issued Drivers License here in California. So you would NOT be opposed to a National Federal ID applicable to all states?

Throughout the rest of the USA the turnout of those who could cast votes was around 50%.
In California it was 75%.
That never happened before Motor Voter.
I was there.
It aligned with national levels, around 50%.
So, what changed?
Only Motor Voter.

@Greg: Oh, I see. Liberal governments hand out licenses like candy then, when they find out illegal immigrants are voting in droves, they shrug their shoulders and say, “How were we expected to know?”

Now, it is an established fact that the liberals your politicians speak to are ignorant and love to be lied to, but it probably comes as a surprise to know that everyone is not so easily duped.

Reading comprehension problems? California AB 60 licenses have an annotation that doesn’t appear on a standard California license. It identifies the bearer as an undocumented resident, because they’re the only people they’re issued to. If you present one at a polling place, you’re presenting evidence that you ARE NOT eligible to vote. That being the case, it DOES NOT serve as an aid to voter fraud.

@Greg: Do you really think they are going to stop them from voting?

California does not require any I.D. to vote. You just give your name and address and sign-in.

@Greg: Greggie, let me ask you again sense you have reading issues!! Would you support a NATIONAL Voter ID??


You are full shit!!!

@Tim guineyk: You insult shit but I agree!!

@Greg: .

If you present one at a polling place, you’re presenting evidence that you ARE NOT eligible to vote.

Tell us again why one would be presented at a polling place. California requires NO DOCUMENTATION to vote, so who would show documentation? You need to re-think your argument.


If you don’t already live there, please move to California and use your demonstrated proclivity to spew extreme leftist talking points in support of the California secession movement. I am sure you would be happy with Moonbeam and Pelosi heading the new politburo there, and the remaining 49 states can deal with reality. Hell, you can have Hillary as your popularly elected empress, compmete with First Harasser Willie and Chief of Pedophile Staff Podesta ro lead the way to leftist dystopia.


Tell us again why one would be presented at a polling place. California requires NO DOCUMENTATION to vote, so who would show documentation?

Where was it that I suggested they would be? That’s not why the matter of the California licenses came up. Read the first paragraph of the article at the top of the page. It’s being implied that undocumented residents being issued California AB 60 are automatically added to the voter registration rolls.

This is not so. Those licenses, which are not issued to citizens, are issued under a separate process. Applicants for them are not asked about their eligibility to vote, and they are not asked about opting out of automatic voter registration, because they’re not included in the automatic registration process to begin with.

California is only one of 19 states that require no identification at the polling place. You have to be on the voter registration roll, and you have to sign when you show up to vote. An additional 14 states request non-photo ID, but are not strict about the requirement. You can still vote if you don’t have it. So, a majority of states—32, plus the District of Columbia—allow voting without ID.


All you have to do is check the box “Are you a US Citizen” when getting the license in person and “swear” you are a US citizen.

California doesn’t check. I don’t say that; the Federal Border Patrol Anti-Fraud people say that including agents that have testified that they ROUTINELY detain illegals with valid voter registrations that have admitted to voting.

One other thing; per Homeland Security, it is routine and cheap (about 100 to 300 dollars depending on quality) to be able to get cheap and same day forgeries of an SSN Card, DL, and either Work Permit and/or Legal Residency (Green) Card…..and it’s easy and common.

You can enroll on the voter rolls in Cali with this AND THE STATE NEVER CHECKS

@Ian Chapman, #20:

I’d appreciate a link to the source of the border patrol comments, if you’ve got one. I’m unaware of CBP ever having made such a statement.

@Greg: “You have to be on the voter registration roll, and you have to sign when you show up to vote. ” And what keeps ACORN-types from registering illegal immigrants to vote and putting them on the rolls? Then, without the concern for identification, they can easily vote.

I don’t think there’s ever been two more unlikeable candidates,’ said Michael Che during the Weekend Update sketch on Saturday Night Live this week. “Not one time in this election have I heard anyone say: ‘You know what? I like them both.’”

The data from the Exit Polls conducted by Edison Research for the National Election Pool show Mr. Che to be correct – an extremely small portion of the voting public (only 2%) told our exit pollsters they had a favorable view of both. While most voters did have a favorable view of one of the two major candidates – an astonishing 18% of the electorate told us they had an unfavorable opinion of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. And this is the group that won the election for Trump.


The fact that nearly one-in-five voters who didn’t like either major candidate still came out to vote is pretty remarkable. This number is double what we saw four years ago (9% were unfavorable to both in 2012) and nearly four times what we saw in the Bush-Kerry match-up of 2004 (favorability ratings were not asked in the 2008 exit polls).

As you might expect, if you had a favorable impression of one candidate and not the other, in virtually every case you voted for that one candidate. So had those with a negative view of both candidates split evenly, Clinton would have won rather easily. However, as the graph below shows, this “Neithers” group broke strongly to Trump 49% to 29%.


The story gets even more pronounced when we look at the states that swung the election to Trump. In each of the cases in the table below, the votes gained by people who said: “I don’t like Trump but I’m going to vote for him anyhow” is greater than his total margin in these states. In other words – it was the “Neithers” who pushed Trump over the top in these states and ultimately won him the election.

The “Neithers” are more likely to be men (61%) and are more likely to be age 30-44 than in the younger or older age groups. They are 78% white, as compared to the total electorate which is 70%.

One of the most intriguing aspects of the “Neithers” is that a significant portion of those who were unfavorable to both Clinton and Trump were favorable to President Obama. Nearly half of those who didn’t like either of this year’s two major candidates do have a favorable impression of President Obama – and a significant portion of this group voted for Trump.

The 2016 election was unique in so many ways. One distinguishing characteristic is just how many people had an unfavorable impression of both of the major party candidates. To be sure, some of these people decided not to vote for either – Gary Johnson and Jill Stein combined for 18% of the vote among the “Neithers.” However in the end, far more people who liked neither candidate chose Donald Trump and that provided him with his margin of victory in the battleground states.

@Greg: being issued a CA drivers license automatically registers them to vote. ID is not required to vote in CA, so of course illegals can vote without. It doesn’t matter what is printed on the license. It’s the PROCESS that’s corrupted. Any idiot knows that.


You can find the testimony on the Bill O’Reilly Show on 30 Nov.

Start the link at 15:41

@Greg: in 19 you asked “Where was it that I suggested they would be?” in 11 above you said: ” If you present one at a polling place, you’re presenting evidence that you ARE NOT eligible to vote.”

So even tho no documentation is required at the polling place to vote in Ca, you are saying that “if you present one at a polling place” My point, it’s not required at the polling place, so no one would be presenting one at a polling place. Comprende’?

@RedTeam, #27:

I was pointing out that California AB 60 driver’s licenses are neither an aid to someone who might try to vote illegally, nor are they an encouragement or aid to undocumented aliens in filling out voter registrations.

Mentioning them in the first paragraph of the article at the top of the implies that they have some bearing on the claim that millions of illegal aliens vote. That claim has been made many times. AB 60 driver’s licenses have often been cited as if they were some sort of evidence of illegal voting.

There’s absolutely no evidence for Donald Trump’s claim that millions of illegal aliens voted for Hillary Clinton, and that he would have won the popular vote without them. It’s just typical Trump malarkey, which makes up a large part of any public statement he makes.

You’ve got a president elect who routinely tells you things that are not true. That is a demonstrable fact, not a propaganda meme. If follows that you will soon have a President who routinely tells you things that are not true.


We understand what you are saying. You are simply wrong, but we DO understand it. The entire point of Motor Voting is that anytime you get a DL or State ID, you are *automatically* added to the voter rolls. The only change in Cali is that you have to check a box (that is never checked) that you swear you are a US citizen to be added. I had given direct evidence that voter registrations with illegals AIDED no doubt by motor voter are rife.

You say ’60’ like it’s no big deal. No this is 60 that were so blatent that action had to be taken by a state that TRIED IT’S HARDEST to look the other way. The only way to be certain of how bad the problem is or isn’t would be to do a complete audit of California’s Voter rolls and compare them with valid citizens, and that is something California will NEVER do for obvious reasons,

@Greg: “You’ve got a president elect who routinely tells you things that are not true.” I doubt he will ever come close to the number of lies told by Obama. How do you feel about Hillary’s campaign signing on with the vote recount? Is that one of your measures of ‘honesty’?

@Ian Chapman, #29:

We understand what you are saying. You are simply wrong, but we DO understand it. The entire point of Motor Voting is that anytime you get a DL or State ID, you are *automatically* added to the voter rolls.

Then you should have no difficulty whatsoever finding abundant evidence that 2 or 3 million undocumented aliens are voting illegally. Which, as yet, people making the claim have never once been able to do, despite being highly motivated to do so. All they every come up with are a handful of examples, at best.

You simply believe what you want to believe, and much of what you want to believe is total bullshit.

@RedTeam, #30:

I doubt he will ever come close to the number of lies told by Obama.

That simply an assertion from an obvious Trump troll. All I have to do to know for a fact that Trump lies constantly is listen to him say things that I can easily determine to be false by discovering the facts. If you’re too dishonest with yourself to figure this out, that’s your own problem, not mine.

Aren’t you missing a torchlight rally or something?


You can’t find evidence for something if you aren’t allowed to look. THAT is what you willfully and persistently (like most libs) refuse to admit. California won’t LET anyone do the hard nosed AUDIT of the voting rolls that could disprove what Trump is saying. IMHO (and based on a lot of circumstantial evidence) that’s because California knows damn well that illegal voting is rife (and they encourage it by design).

@Greg: “Then you should have no difficulty whatsoever finding abundant evidence that 2 or 3 million undocumented aliens are voting illegally” How about some evidence of impropriety to justify a recount? You don’t seem to need that to believe it. Meanwhile, the left has been openly angling to lure in as many illegal immigrants as they can find while making every excuse and effort to allow them to vote. California is a great example of this, handing out driver’s licenses, plenty of dishonest liberals to register illegal immigrants and three blind rats managing every polling place. There is no reason for a person of intelligence to expect this is not happening on a large scale… which, of course, is why liberals fight against the safeguards so vehemently.

Tell me; when did Obama tell the truth; when he said Hillary would say anything to get elected and she and Bill were racists or when he said she was the most qualified person ever to run for President? Because, obviously, he was lying the OTHER time.


“Then you should have no difficulty whatsoever finding abundant evidence that 2 or 3 million undocumented aliens are voting illegally.

Not true at all. It is not in the interest of CA to prove that they are allowing illegal aliens to vote. they’ll never do an audit. They’re happy with status quo.

That’s typical. Anytime evidence for your claims cannot be found, it’s taken as proof that evidence is being suppressed.

California has a single statewide computerized voter registration database that includes all registered California voters in every county. Records are automatically crosschecked for duplicate registrations, and California death records and incarceration records are matched against voter registration records. To me, that suggests a level of commitment to maintaining accurate records that a number of other states cannot lay claim to.


The *only* way to find the sort of fraud we are talking about as an absolute proof is to fully AUDIT California’s Voter rolls. Various groups have been screaming for California to do that for years, but California has refused to do that.

Why? What does California have to hide? I think I know; I think in your heart of hearts you do too.

@Ian Chapman: Greg does know the answer, Greg doesn’t want US to know the answer. We do.

Where’s the evidence that California is hiding anything? Are you wanting to audit every state, or just those that tend to vote for Democratic Party candidates? Maybe we should do Texas. If you fail to present photo ID at the polling place, Texas will accept a current utility bill, or a photocopy of the same. Now there’s an example of a tight voter ID requirement.

@RedTeam, #38:

What I know is that you are full of it, right up the the gills, and I suspect that you might be smart enough to know it, though I’m not certain on that point. Your online behavior is like that of a troll.


HAH! This shows you don’t know a damned thing about Texas. Texas has TRIED REPEATEDLY to impose Indiana style strict ID, and I can tell you for a fact when it comes to Motor-Voter, that you *can* *not* get a DL or State ID without proof of citizenship (two pieces including BC or Passport) or PROOF of legal residency which will not be added to the voter rolls.

The problem in Texas is Liberal Groups like you whine about “voter suppression” and say “Jim Crow” to the courts and the courts force Texas to be a lot more lax than it wants to be. Even then, Texas publically and regularly through the State Comptroller AUDITS their Registered Voter Rolls (again this has been complained about in court).

Cali doesn’t care. You can claim to be a citizen in Cali, get on the rolls, and NO ONE CHECKS. I’ve lived in both states. I know,

@Nanny G: I can tell you that I worked a polling station in Silicon Valley, we had 250 people walk in to cast their ballots, at a station that normally has 90 voters. I can verify that virtually every one was a citizen. You can’t afford to live in this particular area without a heck of a good income. I knew several of the people. Most were surprised that ID WAS NOT REQUIRED and really weren’t happy about it. I can also tell you that one the audit of the ballots they were pretty evenly split between Trump and HilLIARe….BUT the precinct report showed the same split as the state. YMMV

@Greg: Not true. It has to be a bill from a government agency and it has to have the persons name as it appears on the voter registration rolls and the address has to be current as it appears on the voter registration rolls. No photocopy of same is permitted, only an original.
Why do you find it necessary to lie to try to prove a point. Do you think that anyone that votes in Federal elections should be a US citizen?

@Greg:” Your online behavior is like that of a troll.” You’re an expert on trolls are you? Get your paycheck lately?

@RedTeam, #43:

Well golly, you’d better call the Texas officials and let them know that their official VoteTexas website has incorrect information on it, because it says if you’re lacking the preferred photo ID, an original utility bill or copy, or an original bank statement or copy, or various other items listed will be just fine. You’ll have to give them an explanation for why you don’t have a photo ID.

Gregg, I just voted in Texas. you HAVE to show ID, and that ID HAS to be an original with your full name and address as listed in govt records including utility bills (as issued by the City of Austin in my case).

If you can not, you MAY submit a provisional ballot, but in Texas, provisional ballots are almost always rejected. In fact Texas would like to be even TOUGHER and accept only hard “real” photo ID (like Indiana) but Libs like you keep taking Texas to court crying “Jim Crow”.

@Greg: Greg, in California, they will protect a convicted felon illegal immigrant that has been deported and sneaked back into the country 5 times rather than keep its citizens safe. Even after these protected criminal illegal immigrants kill citizens, they still cling to their illegal concept of sanctuary cities. Please do not insult me by trying to convince me California, in its current liberal iteration, is going to enforce laws that do not promote the liberal agenda. The only thing keeping illegal immigrants from voting in California is not being at a polling place and there is no possible doubt that they vote in great numbers.

“Where’s the evidence that California is hiding anything? ” Here you are correct. California is hiding nothing. Their promotion of illegal immigrant voting and voting fraud is quite open and clear.

@Greg: Greggie, would you support a National Voter ID??