NOTICE TO REPUBLICANS: Don’t let the Clintons STEAL the 2016 Election — Don’t let the Clintons and the rest of the Democrats steal what’s left of OUR Democratic-Republic in 2015 and 2016

Amy Chozick’s most important article yet about Hillary Clinton and the Clintons’ campaign to get back into the White House appeared in the New York Times yesterday

A large part of the Democrat base vote is illegal voters of various descriptions   —   Nowadays, whenever a Democrat talks about voter registration or registration drives, they are probably talking about registering as many illegal voters as possible  —  Protecting those illegally registered voters is the aim of now attacking the GOP for   —   (Wait for it)  —   “VOTER SUPPRESSION”  

NOW'S THE TIME FOR A BIG GOP PUSH BACK  — ELECTIONS NEED TO BE BY-AND-FOR LEGAL VOTERS ONLY  —  COUNT NO VOTES BY "ILLEGALS" OF WHATEVER DESCRIPTION

It’s time for a maximum push-back by all Republicans  —  GOP “voter suppression” measures are a strategic necessity   —   They need to be universal in scope, universally applied and universally supported by rank-and-file Republicans and Republican supporters  —  They need to be defended in the courts, in the media and in the streets, because GOP  “voter suppression” means —   THE SUPPRESSION OF ILLEGAL VOTING BY ILLEGAL VOTERS

This post is the first of many that will be appearing on this blog during 2015 and 2016 on this subject.  My instant post focuses on one report appearing in one very important part of the mainstream media   —   The New York Times. The article by Amy Chozick and Maggie Haberman clearly lays out what the Hillary Clinton Campaign, various operators for the Clintons, and many in the Democrat Party are up-to, and why.

According to Chozick, Haberman and the NY Times, “Democrats allied with Hillary Rodham Clinton are mounting a nationwide legal battle 17 months before the 2016 presidential election, seeking to roll back Republican-enacted restrictions on voter access that Democrats say could, if unchallenged, prove decisive in a close campaign....”  (See “Democrats Wage a National Fight Over Voter Rules” by Maggie Haberman & Amy Chozick, 6/3/15 [the article appeared in the print editions on 6/4/15], New York Times/ Politics
[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/politics/democrats-voter-rights-lawsuit-hillary-clinton.html?ref=politics&_r=1]).  Their coverage of the issue continued with this: “The court fights began last month with lawsuits filed in Ohio and Wisconsin, presidential battleground states whose governors are likely to run for the Republican nomination. Now, Democrats are attacking a host of measures, including voter identification requirements that they consider onerous, time restrictions imposed on early voting that they say could make it difficult to cast ballots the weekend before Election Day, and rules that could nullify ballots cast in the wrong precinct....”

How many BAD VOTES are the Democrats preemptively trying to protect in Wisconsin and Ohio with those law suits —  hundreds -- thousands.– tens of thousands ?  To put it another way, how many potentially illegal votes are the Democrats trying to “legalize” by forbidding those states from properly policing their voter roles in 2015 and 2016, and closely monitoring the conduct of their elections in 2016.

Urban voter fraud has been a hallmark of the Democrat Party for over a century, defending the right to continue that fraud as a right in court is something relatively new.

Times’ Writers Tell What’s Going On  —   Meanwhile Republicans sit back -- big, fat, dumb, and happy

According to the Haberman and Chozick article, an attorney whose clients include the Hillary Clinton campaign, wants to get the litigation underway early enough so federal judges can be persuaded to intervene in those states where Republicans control legislatures and governor’s offices.

The GOP response is less than inspiring; Republican sources dismiss it as little more than a Democrat publicity gambit to energize minority voters in support of their candidates, of course including Hillary Clinton, who they expect to be at the top of the Democratic ticket in 2016.

Similar lawsuits were begun as early as last year.  One was in North Carolina; and Democrat sources say that other potential fronts in the pre-emptive legal offensive, could soon be opened in Georgia, Nevada, and the increasingly critical presidential battleground tight outside Washington D.C. – Virginia.

Look who’s behind these lawsuits

Based on  Haberman and Chozick’s reporting, the lawsuits filed in Ohio and Wisconsin, and the 2014 North Carolina case, were brought by lawyers including Marc Elias, a leading Democratic lawyer on voter protection issues.  Mr. Elias represents four of the party’s national campaign committees, and he is also the general counsel for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.

Also according to Haberman and Chozick, Hillary Clinton and her aides have spoken favorably of the lawsuits. Even though the Hillary Clinton campaign is not a party to these lawsuits, and her aides have said Clinton's team supports them, the people directly involved in the various legal actions have refused to say who is paying for them.

Starting with a speech later today, Hillary Rodham Clinton will be making “Voter Access” a focus across the country 

Candidate Clinton will address  the issue of GOP voter suppression in a speech at Texas Southern University.   Choosing the a historically black college in Houston, Clinton’s speech is expected to highlight voting rights as a key to a broader civil rights agenda.  It is expected that she will condemn the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling striking down an important provision of the Voting Rights Law, which she will point out opened the way for many states to pass increasingly restrictive laws requiring voters to present government-issued photo identification at the polls. She will also be calling upon Congress to re-enact those parts of the of the Civil Rights Law dealing with voting so as to negate that Supreme Court ruling. In addition, sources indicated that Hillary is also expected to single out the state laws in Texas and in North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin, which voting rights groups claim limit minority participation, the poor and younger voters. In other words, voters that would likely be voting for her and other Democrats.

According to the report by Ms. Haberman and Ms. Chozick, “... [Hillary Clinton] will also propose a nationwide early-voting standard of at least 20 days before an election, call for an increase in online voter registration and restate her position that former felons should have their voting rights restored....”

So far the tepid Republican response has looked something like this: 

“I think it has been a growing trend in the last 10 years for campaigns to use litigation like this as a campaign weapon.... The claims that they keep making, that this is going to depress turnout, just keep proving to be not true, and many of these issues have already been litigated....”  so said Hans von Spakovsky, a Republican election law expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, quoted in Haberman and Chozick’s piece.

Also mentioned by the Times’ team is this: "According to the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, there are 14 states with new voter laws in place for the first time in a national race."

Republicans need to push back on the Democrats attempts to legalize unlawful voting

The GOP needs to stand up for and emphasize that a majority of the lawful voters in the United State approve in principal the requirement that voters be properly registered to vote and that they be who they say they are. They also support laws requiring potential voters to present photo identification to vote. In most of the states with such laws, that means government-issued ID cards, passports, driver’s licenses, and some instances employee and student cards issued by recognized employers and universities.

The GOP needs to emphasize that similar requirements also must be applied as part of the registration process; and that any on-line, early or other absentee-type voters must be strictly scrutinized for compliance with both proper registration and compliance with the voter ID laws.