Comments for Stonecipher cuts to the chase: Census part of Dem plot at http://www.theind.com , comment 1 to 11 out of 11 comments http://www.theind.com Sat, 25 May 2013 08:58:58 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.theind.com/home/5128#comment-3839 THE "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", GOVERNMENT BODY IN CAHOOTS WITH THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT, HAS CONDONED, THE ILLEGAL INFLUX OF MEXICANS, COLUMBIANS, YEMENS, LIBYIANS, CUBANS $ SALVADORIANS BY TURNING A BLIND EYE ( TO WHAT YOU $ I KNOW AS A CRIME ) FOR THE BENEFIT OF AN ""ELECTED FEW"" !!! IN THIS CASE ""THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY"". BUT """IF """ THE REPUBLICANS WERE IN THE OVAL OFFICE , THEN THE REPUBLICANS WOULD SCORE BY THIS "SCRATCH"!!! WE ARE INTO PHASE I OF THE ENDOGENOUS COLLAPSE OF OUR COUNTRY. THE COUNTRY FOR WHICH OUR FOREFATHERS GAVE THEIR "BLOOD"--- TIME AND TIME AGAIN, TO HAND DOWN TO THEIR DESCENDANTS, A FREE NATION UNDER GOD, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL """"AMERICAN CITIZENS""""! "GOD BLESS AMERICA". - NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:17:27 +0100 http://www.theind.com/home/5128#comment-3834 Stonecipher is dead-on. The U.S. Census Bureau is preparing to gather population data for purposes of congressional reapportionment—without bothering to determine if the data represents actual citizens of the United States of America. Citizens, non-citizens―and bona fide illegals―will be thrown into the same pot when it comes to determining representation. For that matter, members of an Al Qaeda cell summering in Florida may help determine how many congressmen that state has. And as we speak, hundreds of thousands are slipping across our border to live off the American taxpayer, putting nothing back into the system. They will have more representation than the rest of us. And consider this: Louisiana will lose at least one congressional seat because we haven’t attracted enough “non-citizens” to keep it. Don’t be fooled by the 14th amendment argument. Since the inception of the Census, all persons have been counted, but for different purposes. It was never the intention of the framers to grant the same representation to those who have broken our laws to get here, or to those who are not yet fully naturalized, that we grant to legal citizens. Attorney General Buddy Caldwell should do his sworn duty as the chief legal officer of our state and sue the Census Bureau to protect the interests of Louisiana citizens. It is indefensible that whoever is whispering into his ear has more influence on him than do his constituents. If he does not act on principle, he will find himself under the harsh scrutiny of an election debate struggling to explain his abysmal failure. Memo to the Louisiana Republican Party: The “re-districting seminar” you plan to hold in November is not a fruitful course of action. We don’t need a seminar, a panel, or a press release. We need leadership, not symbolism. Governor Jindal, where are you? GOP officials at all levels must champion this cause until the problem is corrected. We need a fair, constitutional Census count. Make it happen. Your state and your country are calling. - Leslie Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:36:13 +0100 http://www.theind.com/home/5128#comment-3827 Rules as of the 2000 census: FOREIGN CITIZENS Citizens of foreign countries who have established a household or are part of an established household in the U.S. while working or studying, including family members with them - Counted at the household. Citizens of foreign countries who are living in the U.S. at embassies, ministries, legations, or consulates - Counted at the embassy, etc. Citizens of foreign countries temporarily traveling or visiting in the U.S. - Not included in the census. - M. Leblanc Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:41:35 +0100 http://www.theind.com/home/5128#comment-3826 The interpretation I always read was that representatives were elected by the voters of that district. If you apportion by something other than voters, you will skew representation. At the same time, you need to know how many total people are living in the area, to plan needs for services, utilities, roads, etc. Asking whether they are a citizen is a fair question, and solves the apportionment problem. - Phil Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:39:28 +0100 http://www.theind.com/home/5128#comment-3824 "slaves as 3/5 of a "real" person" All taxpayers qualify as slaves. - Stand Back 200 Feet Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:17:25 +0100 http://www.theind.com/home/5128#comment-3818 John St. Julien is a kook, his wife Layne too. The fact he tried to pin conservatives as pro-slave shows this. He's the left-wing version of Alex Jones. I would love to see a debate between St. Julien, he can bring his wing nut buddy Mike Stagg too, and Elliott Stonecipher. - Represent Taxpaying Americans Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:08:04 +0100 http://www.theind.com/home/5128#comment-3805 The point of the much-longer post I wrote is to (a) show how bizarre the reactions to this work have been, which I see from some of these comments is continuing, and (b) offer a rational explanation for the 100% absence of a meaningful debate. My theory - as I called it - about the Obama vote is a possible explanation. That theory may or may not be the case, but as of now, I'd bet that its fundamentals are, in fact, at work. To know that, one must be doing the work involved, and keeping up with the developments, day by day. As to references to previous Presidents, that's proof about who is - and is not keeping up - the doubling and tripling of non-citizens in the country didn't begin until sometime in the 1990s. The comment about Acorn, as I understand it, is accurate. Acorn has been around for decades, as it has been known for just that long for its registration and "voting" operations which have more recently brought fraud charges against it. No census asks for "proof of citizenship," nor should it. A citizenship question, just like the one the Bureau uses in the American Community Survey, basically asks the respondent to say if they are a citizen born here or naturalized, or neither. That is the question which should be asked in the 2010 Census, so we can back non-citizens out of calculations for representation in the U. S. House. As for me being identified as a Conservative at the beginning of this post, it might be more fair to identify me as Traditional, or Methodist, or For Common Sense, or Untrusting of All Political Parties. My so-called "conservatism" is the eye of the partisan beholder. My friends who are Republicans tell me I'm Liberal. 'Go figure, huh? - Elliott Stonecipher Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:31:43 +0100 http://www.theind.com/home/5128#comment-3798 Ok, this is gotten beyond silly—and has made undeniable the fact that Stonecipher has once again let his political affiliations outrun the facts. Here's what the IND reader (and apparently the IND itself) needs to clearly understand: The US _never_ counted "citizens" to determine representation. Not once. Why? Because the Constitution is clear about counting "residents." Why? Because, as the aforesaid conservatives like to point out when it is working to their political advantage, we have a representative form of government—not a strictly democratic one. Your representatives represent _all_ the people of the district whether you voted for them or not..and whether or not you _could_ vote for them. And this is not a mere technicality. The census counts children and they count toward representation. The census counted white men who didn't have enough property to vote. Women, when they were legally dependents. And...in the VERY clause where the census is described as counting "residents" — slaves as 3/5 of a "real" person for the purposes of letting conservative slave owners have a larger vote in our "representative" Congress. No reasonable person would argue that slaves were citizens. But they were explicitly represented. The irony of right-wingers like Stonecipher making a big deal of the _traditional_, _constitutionally mandated_ basis of the census is striking because it was put together this way PRECISELY to bolster conservative power. It is profoundly hypocritical for so-called conservatives to get in a lather about this. Frankly I think Stonecipher is plenty smart enough to know this and that makes his part in originating this sort of misinformation is politically irresponsible in the extreme. What this _ought_ to teach the IND, and the Advertiser, and the Advocate—who have repeatedly sought his opinion as if it were the disinterested judgment of an academic demographer—is that they are doing their public a disservice. He is, and has demonstrated repeatedly that he is, a partisan advocate. This is merely the most obvious case. As the saying goes: lies, damned lies, and statistics...Stonecipher is the master of misusing the latter and when he falls over into the second category, as he does now, it should raise questions with responsible journalists about how his opinions have colored his analysis in other places...let's talk to a real demographer in the future. Both ULL and LSU have them; use them. - John St. Julien Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:50:32 +0100 http://www.theind.com/home/5128#comment-3795 He said that this practice has been going on since 1980. How long has Acorn been around, and how many people (live, dead, illegal) have they registered to vote? - Clint Reno Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:03:25 +0100 http://www.theind.com/home/5128#comment-3794 Stonechiper said, in his WSJ column, that this practice has been going on since 1980. So it's ok under Carter 1980, George H.W. Bush 1990, and Clinton 2000, but now that Obama is elected, there's a conspiracy afoot? - David Prejean Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:06:03 +0100 http://www.theind.com/home/5128#comment-3789 Did we ask for proof of citizenship in the last census or in any census? - scott man Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:05:29 +0100