Thread: Election Recount to Begin next week

MW, here is a link to the American Immigration Council that you cited on the thread about "can schools defy immigration law"?

https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...ut/our-mission

And this is what they're about:

About the American Immigration Council
Honoring our Immigrant Past, Shaping our Immigrant Future

The American Immigration Council (“Council”), established in 1987, works to strengthen America by honoring our immigrant history and shaping how America thinks about and acts towards immigrants and immigration. The Council promotes the prosperity and cultural richness of our diverse nation by standing up for sensible and humane immigration policies that reflect fundamental American values; The Council insists that our immigration laws be enacted and implemented in a way that honors fundamental rights; The Council works to achieve justice and fairness for immigrants under the law; and The Council strives to educate policy makers and the general public about the enduring contributions of America’s immigrants. The Council employs a diverse set of strategies, including policy advocacy, litigation, research, communications, and education.

The Council has become a national leader in challenging the myths and misinformation that too often dominate the political and public debate around immigration. Through research and analysis, the Council promotes the development of immigration policies that reflect our proud history as a nation of immigrants that respects fundamental principles of fairness and due process. The Council has become a leading resource for policy and opinion makers at the state and local level who seek to understand the power and potential of immigration and to develop policies that are based on facts, not myths. At the same time, the Council is highly respected for its willingness and ability to bring cutting edge lawsuits that hold the government accountable for unlawful conduct, restrictive interpretations of the law, and failures to ensure that the immigration laws are implemented and executed in a manner that comports with due process. In all its work, the Council seeks out and lifts up the problem-solvers and the creative thinkers who can help shape a more humane and fair approach to immigration—not only as a matter of law and policy, but also as a tool for continuing to protect and nourish the values of tolerance and dignity on which the United States is based.

This organization is our foe, our enemy, in the cause to stop illegal immigration and reduce/pause legal immigration into the United States, yet you quote them as experts on the subject of Plyler vs Doe and enforcing immigration law at schools. Why would do that?!!!

To quote another great line from the movie Open Range:

"You need to get your mind right about what's got to be done, Charlie".

NEA Doesn't Represent All Teachers

July 2, 2008
About the Author
EDUCATION NOTEBOOK:
NEA Doesn't Represent All Teachers

By Lindsey Burke

Today, the National Education Association opens its annual convention in Washington, D.C. For teachers across the country, the gathering is sure to offer a lesson in how the NEA is out of step with the views of many of the members it claims to represent.

Teachers face intense pressure to join the union. I know from experience. As a former public school teacher, my graduate school's halls were covered with teacher union posters. My first day student teaching included a lecture from an overzealous teacher who told me what life would be like without an NEA membership.

Had I joined, I would have had to fork over $541 dollars a year to the Virginia Education Association, to include membership in both the state affiliate and the NEA. But I resisted, not wanting to support the union's leftist political agenda.

But I was an exception. In all, over 3.2 million teachers are currently dues-paying members of the NEA. With annual dues generally exceeding $500 (about 1 percent of the average teacher salary), teachers should know how their dollars are being spent. Many will probably be surprised by the causes they are unintentionally supporting.

At the convention this week, the NEA leadership will vote on dozens of resolutions declaring the agreed-upon view of the union. There will be standard resolutions condemning school vouchers, homeschooling, and competency testing for teachers-no surprise for anyone familiar with the union's positions in education policy.

They will also consider a number of social issues. Last year, the NEA passed resolutions supporting affirmative action in college admissions, new teacher training programs on racism, sexism, and sexual orientation, and expanding sex education instruction to include more information about birth control, gender identification, and homophobia.

In the past, other resolutions have had nothing to do with the classroom. Recent NEA resolutions have included calling for an "exit strategy" for the Iraq war, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and single-payer health plans.

Of course, that the National Education Association supports liberal policies and organizations shouldn't be news to anyone now. According to OpenSecrets.org, since 1990, the NEA has given 93 percent of its political contributions to Democrats.

Moreover, federal disclosure laws require that the NEA and other public sector unions publish annual reports detailing how they spend member's dues. In all, the NEA took in more than $352 million in 2007. (To see this report, visit this Department of Labor website and search for the NEA by "union abbreviation.")

The report shows that the NEA spent $32 million on political activities and lobbying and made $80 million in contributions and gifts to various organizations. Included in the list of groups receiving funding is a roster of left-wing organizations: People for the American Way, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, ACORN, Amnesty International, the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, Campaign for America's Future, Rainbow Push Coalition, the NAACP, and the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Beyond politics, the financial disclosure report also reveals that member's dues are used to fund lavish salaries for its national leadership. NEA President Reg Weaver earned more than $400,000-about 8 times more than the average American teacher's salary. In all, 346 NEA employees earned six-figure salaries. The group also spent well over a million dollars on hotels and resorts across the country. They even spent $34,000 on tropical plants and $30,000 on costumes.

Are American teachers' interests really being served paying dues to support this bloated organization and its leftist political agenda? In states like Utah and Washington that have paycheck protection laws, less than 10 percent of teachers continued to contribute their money to political causes when given the chance to opt-out.

Alternative professional associations exist and serve as a good option for those teachers looking for an organization that will provide liability insurance and legal fees, without the political agenda that the NEA pushes. Two associations - The Association of American Educators and Christian Educators Association International - serve many of the same functions for teachers as the NEA does, minus the partisanship.

As teachers across the country watch the coverage of the NEA convention this week, they should ponder why it is they joined the NEA in the first place. Most likely, it was because they believed they were becoming part of an organization that had children's best interests in mind. However, they should ask themselves who the NEA is really looking out for. The answer is most certainly not the children.

Lindsey Burke is a Domestic Policy Research Assistant at the Heritage Foundation and a former public school teacher in Virginia.

http://www.heritage.org/research/edu...t-all-teachers

________________________

The NEA is our foe, our enemy. They voted for the Dream Act and Amnesty for Illegal Aliens and use their dues to lobby in favor of these horrible positions. They collect hundreds of millions in dues, yet we at ALIPAC have to fight them. NEA is not a source of fact, it is a source of self-serving propaganda on the issues of illegal immigration and excess legal immigration.

Originally Posted by Judy

Why? What's wrong with it? He seems pretty excited about the recount in Wisconsin and hopes more mistakes are found when that isn't the position of ALIPAC. Did you all not get your notice from ALIPAC about our "countermeasures to Dems recount plan"?

Maybe you all need to learn how to play with a team and keep your eyes on the ball.

Just Sayin'.

I mean what next? You're defending Plyler vs Doe and using it an an excuse to support public schools being used as "sanctuaries" for illegal aliens, claiming this Supreme Court Ruling prevents the federal government from enforcing US immigration law in schools, and JD2 is all excited about Jill Stein's and Clinton' recount plan, so what's next, anchor babies are actual citizens of the United States and illegal aliens can't be arrested on highways if they have a driver's license or for soliciting work on street corners because it's public property or they can vote in US elections because of the 14th Amendment?

These are the screwball views of the Democratic Party, MW, that have gotten US into this mess we're in. Come on. It's time to get with our program and purpose here which is to fight the destructive views of the American Immigration Council, the National Education Association, and the Democratic Party, not post and defend their absurd propaganda.

There you go again!!! Nobody defended Plyler v. Doe, just attempted to explain the ruling to you. The truth is the truth, regardless of who is delivering it or how difficult it may be to accept and/or handle. Same thing on the recount. JohnDoe didn't seem excited about it as you say. He's was just trying to explain some things to you.

As difficult as it may be for you to believe, not everyone that doesn't agree with you 100% of the time or corrects untruthful, exaggerated, and hyperbole information is not your enemy or an enemy to our cause. Attempting to shame or humiliate long-term members of ALIPAC for disagreeing with you is not what I'd call being a good "team" member, nor is twisting their words to mean something different than was intended.

EVERYONE INVOLVED IN ANY VOTE FRAUD SHOULD GO TO JAIL.

Who or what they support or oppose is irrelevant.

Yes, MW, the American Immigration Council and the NEA are enemies of our cause to stop illegal immigration because they both support illegal immigration. If they should ever state something truthful on the subject, I'll be the first to give them credit for it, but so far that has not been the case with them, any more than MALDEF or the ACLU or National Council of La Raza.

You said you read the ruling, I posted the link for you, so just quote the actual ruling if you want to discuss what the ruling said not what pro-illegal alien orgies say it says. This is in part how our country has gotten so far off track on so many things and is why we're in the horrible mess we're in.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

EVERYONE INVOLVED IN ANY VOTE FRAUD SHOULD GO TO JAIL.

Who or what they support or oppose is irrelevant.

Then Jerry Brown and the majority of the California Legislature should go to jail. Start rounding them up. I'm all for it. But so far, there is no voter fraud identified in Wisconsin. I'm not saying there isn't any, Milwaukee probably has a ton of it, but none of it will be identified during a recount. A recount is a repeat of the same procedure that counted the votes to begin with. Yes, human errors, mistakes in tallies and so forth by the counters occur with each cycle. There were some found during the canvass which is the way they check for these in the first count, there will be others that occur during the second count and the same canvass procedure that found the first ones will find the second ones.

Wisconsin Presidential Recount to Begin Thursday


Officials say they have seen no problems, but say recount will boost confidence

By SHIBANI MAHTANI
Updated Nov. 28, 2016 12:21 p.m. ET 9 COMMENTS

A full recount of presidential election votes is expected to begin in Wisconsin on Thursday, following a petition by Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

Election officials, in a special meeting on Monday, said they had received petitions on Friday from Ms. Stein and Reform Party candidate Roque De La Fuente to hold a recount.

Though state election officials said they are confident in the results and how they were counted, the Wisconsin Elections Commission has no authority to deny or hold up the petition and a recount must be held as long as the candidates pay for it.

“As long as the petition is valid…the commission must issue a recount order,” said Michael Haas, the commission’s interim administrator.


THE TRUMP TRANSITION

Republican Donald Trump beat Democrat Hillary Clinton by more than 27,000 votes in Wisconsin, and Ms. Stein received 30,980 or 1.1% of votes. Because the margin between Mr. Trump and Ms. Stein, the candidate requesting the recount, is greater than 0.25% of total votes cast, Ms. Stein must pay for the recount.

Given the margins, election officials don’t believe the recount will change the results of the presidential election in Wisconsin.

“The outcome is not going to be different,” said Mark Thomsen, the commission’s chairman. “I don’t doubt that the president-elect is going to win that vote.”

Ms. Stein has also vowed to file recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, both of which have deadlines this week. She has raised $6.2 million towards the effort, which includes filing fees and attorney costs.

In Pennsylvania, Ms. Stein faces a significant logistical hurdle of organizing roughly 30,000 voters across the state to file challenges in more than 9,000 individual districts to force a statewide recount. Her campaign could also go to court to ask for a recount. In Michigan, the deadline is Wednesday and state law allows the winning candidate, in this case Mr. Trump, to object.

The payment for the Wisconsin recount must be received in full before election officials can start the recount. Wisconsin clerks will estimate the cost of a recount—expected to be in the millions—and inform both candidates later today.

“Absent of a complete payment tomorrow, there will be no recount,” Mr. Thomsen said.

Under federal law, a recount must be completed by Dec. 13, 35 days from Election Day. The recount will involve looking at all votes in the state, or nearly three million votes. Officials said this will require clerks to work around the clock and overnight. The last time a recount was ordered in Wisconsin, in the 2011 Supreme Court election, it took a month.

Ms. Stein’s effort for a recount has been backed by Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign said it would participate in the process to ensure that it proceeds “in a manner that is fair to all sides.”

“Regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself,” wrote Marc Elias, general counsel for Mrs.

Clinton’s presidential campaign, in a blog post Saturday.

But President-elect Mr. Trump has dismissed charges that his victory was illegitimate, and on Twitter alleged that millions of people voted illegally, without providing any evidence.

Mr. Thomsen said the accusation of illegal votes being counted was “really inappropriate” and “an insult to the people who run our elections.” A recount, he said, will boost confidence in the voting process. It will “give us a very good audit” and “reassure Wisconsin voters,” he added.

Wisconsin election officials said they have seen no evidence of the voting machines being hacked, one of Ms. Stein’s claims when she filed the petition. The machines weren’t connected to the internet, so they couldn’t have been tampered with over the internet; and they had tamper-evident seals, and were under lock and key with only a few authorized election officials able to access them, officials said.

—Byron Tau contributed to this article.
Write to Shibani Mahtani at shibani.mahtani@wsj.com
Corrections & Amplifications:

Because the margin between Donald Trump and Jill Stein, the candidate requesting the recount, is greater than 0.25% of total votes cast, Ms. Stein must pay for the recount. An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated she must pay for the recount because the margin was smaller than 0.25% of total votes cast. (Nov. 28)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/wisconsi...day-1480352509