Paper ballots are just the latest front - in a war that the people of this country have been losing, for a long time.
I have one small quibble with Pasta on this. IDs aren't necessary. In California there are no ID requirements - and the Secretary of State and local Registrars still have adequate power to check the identity of any Elector, "Qualified", or even ones who are Electors by right.
There is NO LAW which requires people to accept, take, have or carry Government issued ID. Under the traditions of the laws of commerce, anything that you name or number, you are claiming as your PROPERTY. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, and State versions, anything Registered by the State, is owned by it.
For instance 'your' car - property of the STATE. You have a security interest, and a "CERTIFICATE OF TITLE", but not the actual ownership. If they want to seize it, and sell it at auction, for far less than you think it's worth - the statutes allow them to do that. If you REALLY owned it, they couldn't tax your ownership on an annual basis, or sell it without your permission, for less than YOU think its worth.
So the requirements for an "ID" necessarily work against free people, "American Nationals", "state Citizens", "citizen non-residents", etc. who choose to NOT BE property of the STATE or Federal Government.
Those people have rights, and should be considered Electors, without any "qualified" status. It should be an inherent right, of their nativity in any given state. Huston vs. Hill speaks to the lack of any ID requirement under our laws. The lack of requirements to produce papers, are what distinguished us from a "Police State", in the words of that decision.
The Counties and State keep records of Birth Certificates. People who wish to keep their offspring out of the STATE and Federal system of chattels, can use affidavits and witnesses, Baptism Certificates and other means to establish that they're here, and have inalienable rights.
It's a fair point to make, that ID requirements invariably burden the poor, the elderly and people of color. While it isn't a huge number, a certain percentage of them will be without. And as is the case with myself, as one of "the people of California" - we ALL have the right to REJECT any attempt to make us property of a fictional entity, or collateral on a fictional (fiat currency) debt.
Aside from that, I couldn't agree more. "Voter Registration" - is sufficient proof of identity. We all have fingerprints. If additional investigation is needed, that should be an adequate means of determining who casts any particular vote.
I mean, I thought I wasn't gonna like what you had to say there, Pasta. But I only didn't like some of what you had to say. Some I liked. So basically I was pleasantly surprised, somewhat, after finishing this. Is there more to come from you in this sub stack? Hope you're well, my friend.
https://blackboxvoting.org/proof-of-fraud/
Paper ballots are just the latest front - in a war that the people of this country have been losing, for a long time.
I have one small quibble with Pasta on this. IDs aren't necessary. In California there are no ID requirements - and the Secretary of State and local Registrars still have adequate power to check the identity of any Elector, "Qualified", or even ones who are Electors by right.
There is NO LAW which requires people to accept, take, have or carry Government issued ID. Under the traditions of the laws of commerce, anything that you name or number, you are claiming as your PROPERTY. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, and State versions, anything Registered by the State, is owned by it.
For instance 'your' car - property of the STATE. You have a security interest, and a "CERTIFICATE OF TITLE", but not the actual ownership. If they want to seize it, and sell it at auction, for far less than you think it's worth - the statutes allow them to do that. If you REALLY owned it, they couldn't tax your ownership on an annual basis, or sell it without your permission, for less than YOU think its worth.
So the requirements for an "ID" necessarily work against free people, "American Nationals", "state Citizens", "citizen non-residents", etc. who choose to NOT BE property of the STATE or Federal Government.
Those people have rights, and should be considered Electors, without any "qualified" status. It should be an inherent right, of their nativity in any given state. Huston vs. Hill speaks to the lack of any ID requirement under our laws. The lack of requirements to produce papers, are what distinguished us from a "Police State", in the words of that decision.
The Counties and State keep records of Birth Certificates. People who wish to keep their offspring out of the STATE and Federal system of chattels, can use affidavits and witnesses, Baptism Certificates and other means to establish that they're here, and have inalienable rights.
It's a fair point to make, that ID requirements invariably burden the poor, the elderly and people of color. While it isn't a huge number, a certain percentage of them will be without. And as is the case with myself, as one of "the people of California" - we ALL have the right to REJECT any attempt to make us property of a fictional entity, or collateral on a fictional (fiat currency) debt.
Aside from that, I couldn't agree more. "Voter Registration" - is sufficient proof of identity. We all have fingerprints. If additional investigation is needed, that should be an adequate means of determining who casts any particular vote.
I mean, I thought I wasn't gonna like what you had to say there, Pasta. But I only didn't like some of what you had to say. Some I liked. So basically I was pleasantly surprised, somewhat, after finishing this. Is there more to come from you in this sub stack? Hope you're well, my friend.