Rule of law in peril
In response to Cynthia Tucker’s commentary on “universal voting franchise”, published Saturday, August 6th: Ms Tucker fails to define the meaning of “universal voting franchise”, other than a “radical idea” and “the proposition that each man or women is given equal footing at the ballot box, whether rich or poor, brilliant or simple, black, white or brown. Broke with a sturdy convention in human affairs: that the rich and powerful should rule or, at the very least, choose the rulers”.
Our nation is governed by the “rule of law”, not men, but elected government officials sworn to uphold the “rule of law”. So can we assume that the “universal voting franchise” is a law that should be upheld by elected government officials?
If so, why does Ms. Tucker use the remainder of her opinion to demagogue the Republican elected officials for defending the existing voting laws? And she further accuses the GOP leadership in congress of “inventing ways to make it more difficult to vote”. One can only conclude that her politically charged and racial overtones are a smoke screen to mask the ugly truth about the recent abuses in our electoral procedures.
The ugly truth that Cynthia masks is that President Obama and his administration blatantly choose to follow the law when it is politically advantageous to do so. When following the law is not politically advantageous, whether it relates to enforcement of election laws, immigration laws or open record laws, the President and his administration think nothing of ignoring or breaking the law. A dangerous precedent for sure.
Justice Louis Brandeis (1856-1941) summarized it perfectly by saying that “crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy”.
The organized Left, including it’s mouthpieces in the media, leftist politicians, and radical pressure groups like the ACLU and LaRaza, have dug in to keeping our elections poorly regulated and open to voter fraud. They believe they can obtain and retain power through voter fraud. They are being aided by tax-payer funded lawyers at the Justice Department who oppose citizenship verification in registering to vote, or even basic voter photo ID requirements. We can only conclude that our electoral system is rigged and meant to produce the outcome of elections that are most favorable to the political ambitions of Democrats and their left-wing allies. They encourage non-citizen votes and other forms of voter fraud to turn elections.
Can this be the “radical idea” that Ms. Tucker applauds? Perhaps that’s for each of us to decide. So is there any proof you say? Well there is.
In October, 2014, political scientists at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, published their peer-reviewed and detailed study entitled “Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections? Based on data from 2008-2010 elections. Their research showed that all 50 states bar non-U.S. citizens from voting in our elections and this prohibition extends to legal as well as illegal non-citizen residents of the U.S.
Their research showed that about 25 percent of the U.S. non-citizen population was registered to vote in 2010, including both legal and illegal aliens. The same study showed that 6.4 percent of non-citizens had illegally voted in 2008, and 2.2 percent in 2010. So is voting by non-citizens actually impacting election results? The Old Dominion study answers with a clear “Yes”.
In the 2008 and 2010 elections, non-citizen voters favored democratic candidates. Non-citizens who reported voting were asked their candidate preferences. In 2008, 81.8 percent reported voting for Barack Obama compared to 17.5 percent voting for John McCain.
The constrains of this writing does not allow the volumes of facts in the old Dominion study. But since the study conceded that President Obama himself was elected with illegal votes and other staggering implications of their scholarly studies, some of your readers may want to research this distinguished and definitive literature.
Cynthia’s analysis of this universal franchise concept is “such a powerful weapon and so dangerous to those who don’t really believe in democracy”. Come now, are we to believe that circumventing the “rule of law” does not threaten our democracy? How can this be?
Author, Llewllyn Rockwell sums it up perfectly in Uniquely Evil; “moreover, each generation of liberals undermines and scoffs at what the previous one took for granted. The revolution marches on. Leftism is, in short, a recipe for permanent revolution. And yet all hatred these days is directed at the right”.
As I, and other patriots watch the constant spread of hatred, we can only hope that your readers find other sources of information to counter such egregious information spread by your left-leaning columnists. The end cannot possibly justify the means.
Ron Talbott, Witter Springs
Board of Supervisors unannounced topic
I turned on the TV on Tuesday and there was a board meeting like usual and I was very surprised to see that the board was having a pot hearing regarding taxes, fees and regulations. There was only one lady there that was a care giver and she was complaining that it was unfair to have the meeting without notification to anyone. She said they were just trying to sneak it through and she could see the greed in their eyes.
So I became interested in the conversation and instead of going back to what I was doing I watched the board meeting. I believe the County is getting too greedy they are talking like they could fund the whole County from the pot growers and I believe greed will get the best of them if they are not careful.. They were talking about money for the lake, money for the schools, etc. I was a pear farmer for many many years and owned a prune ranch in Corning and I would like to have the County consider growing hemp…we could always use rope in Lake County…if nothing else we could use it to tie the plants. We need to get common sense thinking as people will be moving out of Lake County to get a better tax deal and or maybe even out of the State.
I learned many years ago that greed will bite you in the butt in the long run. So let’s not let things get out of hand as we can’t run the County or the State of California on the pot growers only. If that is the case about so much per plant, then it will be so much for pear tree and so much for walnut trees and so much for each grape vine! Because by law if you make a rule that there is a tax for one pot plant then the tax should be the same for one peach tree, one pear tree and so on, because you cannot discriminate between one growers or another grower because of the kind of tree or plant they are growing. Cannot let things get totally out of hand because the first thing you know the County will be sued for discrimination for one farmer growing one thing and one growing another. Just think about all of this …
Ron Rose, Lakeport
