Results 1 to 4 of 4
Like Tree6Likes
  • 3 Post By Jean
  • 2 Post By csarbww
  • 1 Post By johnwk

Thread: How illegal aliens destroy your vote

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,221

    How illegal aliens destroy your vote

    By Walter Williams
    Monday, Nov. 2, 2015, 9:00 p.m.
    Updated 1 hour ago


    Voter ID laws have been challenged because liberal Democrats deem them racist. I guess that's because they see blacks as being incapable of acquiring some kind of government-issued identification.

    Interesting enough is the fact that I've never heard of a challenge to other ID requirements as racist, such as those: to board a plane, open a charge account, have lab work done or cash a welfare check. Since liberal Democrats only challenge legal procedures to promote ballot-box integrity, the conclusion one reaches is that they are for vote fraud prevalent in many Democrat-controlled cities.

    There is another area where the attack on ballot-box integrity goes completely unappreciated. We can examine this attack by looking at the laws governing census taking. As required by law, the U.S. Census Bureau is supposed to count all people in the United States. Those to be counted include citizens, legal immigrants and non-citizen long-term visitors.

    The law also requires that illegal aliens be a part of the decennial census. The estimated number of illegals ranges widely from 12 million to 30 million. Official estimates put the actual number closer to 12 million.

    Both citizens and noncitizens are included in the census and thus affect apportionment counts. Counting illegals in the census undermines one of the fundamental principles of representative democracy — namely, that every citizen-voter has an equal voice.

    Through the decennial census-based process of apportionment, states with large numbers of illegals, such as California and Texas, unconstitutionally gain additional members in the U.S. House of Representatives, thereby robbing the citizen-voters in other states of their rightful representation.

    Pennsylvania and nine other states are each short one congressional seat that they would have had if apportionment were based on U.S. citizen population.

    There is a strong argument for counting noncitizens, whether they are here legally or illegally. An accurate population count is important for a number of public policy reasons as well as national security — we should know who is in our country. But as professor Mark Rozell, acting dean of the School of Policy, Government and International Affairs at George Mason University, and Paul Goldman, a weekly columnist for The Washington Post, offer in a Politico article, there is no “persuasive reason to allow the presence of illegal immigrants, unlawfully in the country, or noncitizens generally, to play such a crucial role in picking a president.”

    Reminds Heritage Foundation scholar Hans von Spakovsky:

    “It is a felony under federal law for a noncitizen to vote in our elections because voting is a right given only to American citizens. It is a precious right that must be earned by becoming a citizen.

    “Giving aliens, particularly those whose first act was to break our laws to illegally enter the country, political power in Congress and allowing them to help choose our president strike at the very heart of our republic and what it means to be an American.”

    Walter Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

    http://triblive.com/opinion/featured...#axzz3qOrEvlmi
    artist, csarbww and GeorgiaPeach like this.
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,201
    In his book America The Beautiful, Ben Carson seemed to imply that a pathway to citizenship is the "moral" thing to do.
    "Is it moral for us, for example, to take advantage of cheap labor from illegal immigrants while denying them citizenship? I'm sure you can tell from the way I phrased the question that I believe we have taken the moral low road on this issue," he wrote.

    If Mr. Carson were half the intellectual he pretends to be he would understand that when a foreigner illegally breaches our borders seeking a job, he is willingly participating in criminal activities in collusion with Americans who are also breaking the law. How does Mr. Carson deduce from this some "moral" obligation to give them citizenship?
    Last edited by csarbww; 11-04-2015 at 05:02 AM.
    hattiecat and GeorgiaPeach like this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,696

    Illegals increase California's vote but California does not pay its fair share in tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean View Post
    By Walter Williams
    Monday, Nov. 2, 2015, 9:00 p.m.
    Updated 1 hour ago


    "Through the decennial census-based process of apportionment, states with large numbers of illegals, such as California and Texas, unconstitutionally gain additional members in the U.S. House of Representatives, thereby robbing the citizen-voters in other states of their rightful representation."
    Thank you for posting this. Now, let me give you the rest of the story regarding "representation" and how some states are being cheated when it comes to taxation.


    Last year I wrote the following : Mark Levin omitted vital information when explaining the Electoral College


    In 2012 Mark Levin took the time to explain the Electoral College to his audience. But in doing so, he omitted a vital piece of information that ties the size of each State’s number of Electoral College votes to taxation, which is no longer enforced and actually encouraged California to elect a socialist/progressive president!

    CLICK HERE to listen to Mark explain the Electoral College, omitting how taxation is tied to the size of each State’s Electoral College vote, which in turn omits the importance of why our founders tied taxation and representation by the rule of apportionment.


    Just for the record and regarding the importance of the rule of apportionment, let’s get down to some upsetting facts regarding California‘s 55 electoral college votes. According to recent numbers, the total share of federal taxes paid by the people of 18 states [New York, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado, Arkansas , Nebraska, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Wyoming] works out to be a higher per capita amount then paid by the people of California. And yet, the State of California has an overwhelming 55 Electoral College votes compared to any of these states!


    For example, and according to 2007 figures, the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be a $9,036.74 tax per capita. And Wyoming, under the rule of apportionment is allotted 3 Electoral College votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 tax per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. But California gets 55 Electoral College votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming. And why should this upset the people of Wyoming and 17 other States? It violates that part of the Great Compromise adopted when our Constitution was ratified which guarantees that representation and direct taxation is to be apportioned by each State’s population size. The two formulas considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows:



    State`s Pop.
    ___________ X House (435) = State`s votes in House
    Pop. of U.S.



    State`s pop.
    _________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE
    U.S. Pop


    In regard to the first formula, both California and Wyoming are getting their full representation which is 55 and 3 Electoral College votes respectively. But, with regard to taxes paid, the people of Wyoming in 2007 contributed a higher per capita share of federal taxes than California in spite of the fair share formula for direct taxation mandated by our Constitution which requires an equal per capita tax.

    In 2007, if the rule of apportionment were applied to taxation and representation as intended by our Founders, and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of a total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Wyoming would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Wyoming. Although California’s total share of the tax under the rule of apportionment would be far greater than that of Wyoming because of California’s larger population, California was compensated by its larger Electoral College vote in the last election which is also part of the rule of apportionment and gives them a greater say when spending federal revenue!

    As things are California got to exercise 55 Electoral College votes in our last presidential election, but did not contributed a share into the federal treasury proportionately equal to its massive Electoral College vote as our Constitution requires. This is a direct assault upon the very purposes for which the rule of apportionment was adopted.


    In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”

    And during the ratification debated, the following comments are made with regard to the rule of apportionment:


    Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

    “With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

    And see:
    “The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

    Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

    And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

    “The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41



    Now, picture for a moment if California had to pay an apportioned share of Obama’s 2013 federal deficit based upon its 55 Electoral College votes. Do you really think California would remain a blue State and vote to re-elect another socialist/progressive like Obama? It seems only too obvious that the people of California would not be too happy to have to deplete their own pocket to fund Washington’s profligate spending and borrowing, and would quickly realize there is no such thing as a free cheese wagon which Obama would have us all believe there is.


    But the tragedy is, that part of our Constitution’s rule requiring “direct taxes” to be apportioned, which has never been repealed, is totally ignored! And it is ignored by not only our Republican Party Leadership, but also by Mark Levin along with every other “conservative” radio talk show host I know and includes Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Herman Cain, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley … etc. But they will discuss every form of tax reform [a national sales tax, value added tax, the “fairtax”, a flat tax, etc.,] all of which keep the iron fist of government around the necks of the American people, but never our founder’s original tax plan which was based upon principles which do not change with the passage of time, especially the brilliance of its rule of apportionment.


    _________


    The bottom line is, while illegal increase California's vote in Congress and its Electoral College vote, it is not paying an apportioned tax equal to its representation!

    JWK



    “Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“
    ___ from “ProsperityRestored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

    Last edited by johnwk; 11-04-2015 at 09:59 AM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,696
    In regard to the argument that the 16th Amendment changed the rule of apportionment as applied to "direct taxation" keep in mind that to this very day, “direct taxes” are still required to be apportioned as stated by the Court! In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation the tax was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. The Court stated:



    “[T]his amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”



    A few years latter in another case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”



    And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case:





    A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.)(emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several
    States.




    The truth is, the requirement that Representatives and direct taxes are required to be apportioned nas never by changed, nor has Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 been repealed and declares:

    No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

    JWK




    If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157U.S. 429 (1895)
    artclam likes this.

Similar Threads

  1. Illegal aliens allowed to vote
    By JohnDoe2 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-01-2013, 12:21 AM
  2. Should Illegal Aliens Be Allowed to Vote in U.S.?
    By stevetheroofer in forum Videos about Illegal Immigration, refugee programs, globalism, & socialism
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-23-2011, 03:41 AM
  3. Advocates for Illegal Aliens Rush to Destroy America
    By saveamerica in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-15-2011, 08:03 PM
  4. Obama Energy Policy: Destroy Industry, Destroy Jobs, Destroy
    By kathyet in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-04-2011, 02:56 PM
  5. ILLEGAL ALIENS DON'T CARE IF THEY DESTROY OUR ENVIRONMENT
    By TennesseeDaughter in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-20-2007, 12:12 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •