Firing the American Electorate: How Cross Border “Electoral Fusion” Will Steal the 2016 Elections from the American People

Is it possible that President Obama and the Democratic Party may attempt to “Fuse” two different national electorates into one for themselves?

Back in 2014 was it in indeed an executive action on immigration only? Or did that action finish laying the groundwork for the old Obama Chicago New Party “Fusion Strategy”, which amounted a frontal attack on ballot integrity?

It’s our contention that Obama fired all of us in 2014 and found replacements, imported them, and made sure they stay imported. Fired every U.S. voters that defied  him at the polls during those midterm elections. Even those within his own party who crossed the aisle or stayed at home.

By fusing millions of “amnestied” Mexican voters to the US elections, we think he banked  that these future voters that could  be shaped or “fused” together with American voters who into one virtual party or ticket.

Since we’re not the electorate he’s looking for, We believe  HE actually created his own. ONE THAT DOES WHAT HE WANTS.

One that replaces, or hedges, the millions of voters within his own party’s rank and file that have disowned him and are not likely to vote for a Democratic party Presidential, or otherwise, candidate.

These replacements  may not even have to show their ID’s to vote here, according to a National Council of La Raza (with the help of a graphic produced by the the Washington Post), in certain key electoral States, which means they may not even have to be citizens.

Just make sure they have at least a driver’s license which Obama is on record as defending as well as many in his party around the country have both demanded and obtained.

Obama and the Democratic party have quite literally taken “electoral fusion” to the international level. But with some innovations not usually seen in examples of “electoral fusion” that exist here in the UnitedNew party States.

The “New Party” in Chicago during the 1990’s used electoral fusion to field candidates across multiple party tickets and win on the total number of votes.

But where it really took root successfully was in New York according to

New York is where fusion politics, welcomed by the Democratic party was and is practiced even thought it was struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1998 because it, and we paraphrase, provided the margin of victory that challenges “ballot integrity” as the court put it.

That electoral model is what the Democratic Party very likely trying to create, or has already created, with a quiet nod or maybe not so quiet nod from President Nieto of the PRI party of Mexico who actually rallies Mexican nationals here in California with Governor Jerry Brown enthusiastically at his side looking on and rooting for him in approval.


Andy Hernandez, carrying a Mexican flag, and Allison Culver, carrying an American flag argue over SB1070 outside the State Capitol Building in Phoenix, Ariz., Monday, June 25, 2012. While finding much of the Arizona law unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that one part would stand ? the portion requiring police to check the status of someone they suspect is not in the United States legally. (AP Photo/Arizona Republic, Patrick Breen)
Andy Hernandez, carrying a Mexican flag, and Allison Culver, carrying an American flag argue over SB1070 outside the State Capitol Building in Phoenix, Ariz., Monday, June 25, 2012. While finding much of the Arizona law unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that one part would stand ? the portion requiring police to check the status of someone they suspect is not in the United States legally. (AP Photo/Arizona Republic, Patrick Breen)

This is the same Jerry Brown that ultimately made it legal for Californians (anyone living in California included the undocumented) to be automatically registered to vote when they go the DMV to obtain or renew a driver’s license.

The Democrats are TURNING the architecture of that fusion strategy TO an international strategy that pivots around lax voter ID laws for voters in the United States.

Voters that include Mexican nationals  who still have their Mexican voter ID card in their pockets, which is required by law in Mexico to vote.

Under the Obama strategy they can still either vote in Mexico for the PRI, the “Institutional Revolutionary Party”, or the “Party of the Democratic Revolution”, or for the “National Action Party” or for the “New Alliance Party” or can vote for the democratic party here.  With a state driver’s license or ID.  Or at a polling station where it isn’t checked.

The fusion that Obama wants includes crossover voters from the MEXICAN parties listed above in Mexico that can be folded, virtually, into the Democratic Party totals on election day in the United States after they show up to vote.

So in the end, what’s at play here is an international VERSION OF electoral fusion where the totals from two electorates, not two OR MORE partY TICKETS, WILL add up to victory.

So how does electoral fusion work?

You probably had never heard of it before, but like we mentioned, the US Supreme Court has.

And the fact that the US Supreme Court struck down electoral fusion should not be lost on challengers of Obama, or Hillary, or Sanders, or anyone else on his “executive action” on amnesty last year, which is a clear attempt at the same thing again -electoral fusion- except given the cover of the Oval Office.

Electoral fusion, or simply fusion, is described in some Human Events and Red State articles and other sources and some excerpts are provided here.

But note that even though the SCOTUS struck it down it is nevertheless found in seven States, with the most successful version of it being found in the State of New York.

Erik Ericson’s article in Human Events from Tuesday, June 10, 2008 explains the kind of fusion voting that already exists as in New York.

“[Electoral] Fusion is a pretty simple concept. A candidate could run as both a Democrat and a New Party member to signal the candidate was, in fact, a left-leaning candidate, or at least not a center-left DLC type candidate. If the candidate, let’s call him Barack Obama, received only 500 votes in the Democratic Party against another candidate who received 1000 votes, Obama would clearly not be the nominee. But, if Obama also received 600 votes from the New Party, Obama’s New Party votes and Democratic votes would be fused. He would be the Democratic nominee with 1100 votes.”

“The fusion idea set off a number of third parties, but the “New Party” was probably the most successful. A March 22, 1998 In These Times article by John Nichols showed just how successful. “[The Wall Street] Journal’s editorialists fretted last fall about how the New Party was responsible for a labor movement that was drifting leftward …. As [openly declared socialist] Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) puts it, ‘If the Wall Street Journal editorial page goes after you, you can pretty well bet you’re doing the right thing.’”

“Nichols’s article goes into detail about the “New Party’s” scope. “After six years, the party has built what is arguably the most sophisticated left-leaning political operation the country has seen since the decline of the Farmer-Labor, Progressive and Non-Partisan League groupings of the early part of the century …. In 1996, it helped Chicago’s Danny Davis, a New Party member, win a Democratic congressional primary, thereby assuring his election in the majority-black district

“The threat of losing New Party support, or of the New Party running its own candidates against conservative Democrats, would begin a process of forcing the political process to the left, [Joel] Rogers argued.”

“Fusion, fortunately for the country, died in 1998. William Rehnquist, writing for a 6-3 Supreme Court decision, [in TIMMONS v. TWIN CITIES AREA NEW PARTY] found the concept unconstitutional and, therefore was not a protected constitutional right. It was two years too late to stop Obama.”

And just to digress a minute, has Obama ever endorsed electoral fusion or been a member of the “New Party”   According to an article in National Review, Yes.

“Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows: Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party. Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.”

Working Families” founder and Executive Director Dan Cantor “explains, according to the Boston Review, that this early version electoral fusion that Obama signed up in the in 1996, but as practiced in New York, not Chicago. We believe Dan Cantor never dreamed of anyone scaling it nationally or moreover, having a sitting President scale it.

(Note Cantor is not talking about Obama’s new national attempt in his article, which we quote here,  but only in its original form at the local and State level in New York. Obama’s idea, not Cantor’s, we assert, takes the New York model and scales it nationally as we’ve discussed).

“The operative question for me is this: what are the organizational moves needed for the long-term approach he describes to become real?

“How do we structurally yank Democrats, Republicans, and the entire political discourse to the left?

“My suggestion: revive progressive fusion politics. I am talking here about third-party politics in the populist tradition, familiar today to New Yorkers but largely unknown to everyone else. I know of no more powerful tool for forcing Democrats (and even Republicans) in the direction Perlstein wants them to go than the approach of the Working Families Party (WFP) of New York State.

“How it works in theory. Fusion is simple. It refers to the electoral tactic of two parties “fusing” on one candidate, meaning the candidate appears twice on the ballot under two separate party labels.

“Vote Perlstein for State Assembly,” we might say in New York, “but vote for him on the WFP line and send him a message about . . . health care [or taxes, or living wages, or whatever else the WFP chapter in his district thinks important].” Election Day rolls around, and Rick gets 45 percent as a Democrat, his Republican opponent gets 47 percent, and the last 8 percent shows up on the WFP line. The votes are tallied separately but then added together, and Rick wins 53 percent to 47 percent. But he owes us 8 percent of his victory.”

“A home for activists. The WFP chapter meetings around New York are very different than Democratic Party meetings. They are not full of people who are angling for jobs. They are not full of political staffers. They are full of union members, ACORN members, schoolteachers, retirees, tenants, students, immigrants, and anyone else who shares our values. It is very valuable to have an organizational home for such people that is not the Democratic Party, because it just feels better to them. Our aim is not to end our relationship with the Democratic Party but to change it for the better. And to do that, well, it is good to have a party of one’s own.”

And what exactly did the SCOTUS have to say about electoral fusion, since we mentioned they struck it down?  Paraphrasing the article in

“The question before the SCOTUS court in TIMMONS v. TWIN CITIES AREA NEW PARTY was this:”Did Minnesota’s anti-fusion laws, banning a candidate from appearing on more than one party’s ballot, violate the association rights protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?”

“No. In its 6-to-3 opinion, the majority weighed the character and magnitude of the burden imposed by anti-fusion laws on association rights against Minnesota’s stated interest in the necessity of such laws. It upheld Minnesota’s interest in ballot integrity and political stability. According to the Court, prohibiting political parties from naming another party’s candidate as their own did not overly burden their association rights since they were still free to endorse the other party’s candidate. The only thing they could not do was “fuse” another party’s candidate to their own petitions.”

And who is it that voted to defend Obama’s “Fusion Strategy” that undermined ballot integrity? The dissenters for fusion  were Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Those against fusion were Rehnquist, O’Conner, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Breyer.

And speaking of ballot integrity, isn’t it ironic that Mexico has strict voter ID laws that were specifically designed and implemented to prevent electoral fraud and ensure ballot integrity in Mexico?

CredencialMexican voters here, who by Mexican law must have a Mexican Voter ID to vote in Mexican national elections, has the name “Credencial Para Votar” printed on it. With it they can still vote in Mexican elections, including Mexican Presidential elections.

A fact which isn’t lost on Mexican politicians. Seeing and hearing President Nieto “campaigning” and rallying Mexicans living here in US makes you wonder if he’s also playing a kind of “fusion strategy” across the U.S. border himself. With nod to our President? Who’s doing the same thing, for his party?

As we wrap up we had to wonder if the minimum threshold of a driver’s license was intentional or not.

Well. Yes. A noted:

“Obama defended his stance on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants on the same day that La Opinion, the nation’s largest Spanish language newspaper, cited his support for licenses — and Sen. Hillary Clinton’s, D-N.Y., opposition — in its endorsement of Obama.”We were disappointed with her calculated opposition to driver’s licenses for the undocumented, which contrasts markedly from the forceful argument in support made by Obama,” wrote La Opinion’s editorial board. “We understand that this is an extremely controversial issue but we believe there is only one right position and it is that of the senator from Illinois.”While Obama’s position on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants helped him win the endorsement of La Opinion, Republican Party officials believe that it could become a lightening rod in the general election.”

So what does all this mean? We surmise that what’s very likely to happen during the 2016 election is a fusion of power across two nations. (A prerequisite to regionalization perhaps?)

And so we ask: Will a “cross border electoral fusion” of two different electorates deploying at the polls in the United States, result in a rebirth of the “New Party’s” power? But under the control the Democratic Party? but without the old name? and on a national scale? happen unnoticed?

Unfortunately we think yes.

From a new form of international electoral fusion that we don’t even think the other party is willing to stand in the way of.

Either way we believe it will steal the election from the American People before their very eyes.