SHOULD CITIZENS WHO DON'T PAY TAXES BE ALLOWED TO VOTE?

[BADecker]

I would gladly not vote if I didn't have to pay taxes. But if they forced me to pay taxes, I would vote, and vote them out of office. Then, without having to pay taxes any longer, I wouldn't vote any more... at least until the cycle started again.

So, you always vote to try to get people out of office, so they will stop forcing you to pay taxes? Have you had an success with this yet? You must do a lot of voting, since I'm pretty sure there is not one country with absolutely zero taxes. How do you imagine this society with no taxes? Do you have some economy and political system in mind?

Well, to answer your first and second questions, I essentially don't vote, because nobody is forcing me to pay taxes.

A country without taxes? All people are taxed, some of them just by getting out of bed in the morning. But not all people are taxed monetarily.

Monetary taxation does one major thing. It enriches those who receive the tax money, in an unfair and unrighteous way. Rather than paying taxes, buy what you want. If you want to use the roads, buy the rights to use them. If you want military protection, buy the military protection. If you want a Mars program, donate to it. Do you want schooling for your kids?, pay for it; why should anybody be forced to pay for schooling for the children of somebody else? There is no reason to be forced to pay something you don't want or don't get. Taxation is theft.

Further, in America, if the IRS attacks you for not paying taxes, it doesn't, really. Rather, it is some IRS agent doing some paperwork. Ask the IRS agent to show you the agreement you have with IRS laws. If you agreed to pay, then pay, as your agreement states. If he won't or can't show you the agreement, sue him for the injury of the hassle he is putting you through.

If the IRS takes you to court, they don't, really. The indictment always reads THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs you. In the States, you have the right to face your accuser. Since THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is your accuser according to the indictment paperwork, require THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to take the oath, get on the stand, and testify to the harm or damage you have done to it, with evidence of the harm or damage, and proof that it was you that did the harm or damage. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is paperwork. Paperwork can't get on the stand and testify to anything. Case dismissed for lack of your accuser testifying in court.

Suppose at the beginning of your trial the judge asks the prosecuting attorney what the trial is all about. The prosecuting attorney starts telling the judge what the accusations are. If you don't object to the prosecuting attorney testifying without having first-hand knowledge, and without being placed under oath and on the stand, and without clarifying if he is a witness or an attorney (he can't be both), and if he is a witness, why he wasn't called by the prosecutor on the indictment (THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA), you just let "them" run all over you.

But you made your first mistake by hiring an attorney. An attorney is an officer of the court. When you hired him, you agreed to whatever the court wants to do with you. It looks like a case of conflict of interest, but it is not, because by voluntarily hiring the attorney, you voluntarily turned the matter over to the total discretion of the court system.

The point is, since none of us are required to pay taxes in America, but since most of us pay them voluntarily, voting or not voting is not a tax question.

[1715045977]

1715045977

[1715045977]

1715045977

[1715045977]

1715045977

[1715045977]

1715045977

[CaptainEvansun]

I would gladly not vote if I didn't have to pay taxes. But if they forced me to pay taxes, I would vote, and vote them out of office. Then, without having to pay taxes any longer, I wouldn't vote any more... at least until the cycle started again.

So, you always vote to try to get people out of office, so they will stop forcing you to pay taxes? Have you had an success with this yet? You must do a lot of voting, since I'm pretty sure there is not one country with absolutely zero taxes. How do you imagine this society with no taxes? Do you have some economy and political system in mind?

Well, to answer your first and second questions, I essentially don't vote, because nobody is forcing me to pay taxes.

A country without taxes? All people are taxed, some of them just by getting out of bed in the morning. But not all people are taxed monetarily.

Monetary taxation does one major thing. It enriches those who receive the tax money, in an unfair and unrighteous way. Rather than paying taxes, buy what you want. If you want to use the roads, buy the rights to use them. If you want military protection, buy the military protection. If you want a Mars program, donate to it. Do you want schooling for your kids?, pay for it; why should anybody be forced to pay for schooling for the children of somebody else? There is no reason to be forced to pay something you don't want or don't get. Taxation is theft.

Further, in America, if the IRS attacks you for not paying taxes, it doesn't, really. Rather, it is some IRS agent doing some paperwork. Ask the IRS agent to show you the agreement you have with IRS laws. If you agreed to pay, then pay, as your agreement states. If he won't or can't show you the agreement, sue him for the injury of the hassle he is putting you through.

If the IRS takes you to court, they don't, really. The indictment always reads THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs you. In the States, you have the right to face your accuser. Since THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is your accuser according to the indictment paperwork, require THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to take the oath, get on the stand, and testify to the harm or damage you have done to it, with evidence of the harm or damage, and proof that it was you that did the harm or damage. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is paperwork. Paperwork can't get on the stand and testify to anything. Case dismissed for lack of your accuser testifying in court.

Suppose at the beginning of your trial the judge asks the prosecuting attorney what the trial is all about. The prosecuting attorney starts telling the judge what the accusations are. If you don't object to the prosecuting attorney testifying without having first-hand knowledge, and without being placed under oath and on the stand, and without clarifying if he is a witness or an attorney (he can't be both), and if he is a witness, why he wasn't called by the prosecutor on the indictment (THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA), you just let "them" run all over you.

But you made your first mistake by hiring an attorney. An attorney is an officer of the court. When you hired him, you agreed to whatever the court wants to do with you. It looks like a case of conflict of interest, but it is not, because by voluntarily hiring the attorney, you voluntarily turned the matter over to the total discretion of the court system.

The point is, since none of us are required to pay taxes in America, but since most of us pay them voluntarily, voting or not voting is not a tax question.

I see, so you are American. This is a very interesting topic. I have watched a few documentaries about taxes in the US an the IRS. You literally don't pay any taxes? Don't you have sales tax in your state? What about land tax? I'm sure there's some that you can't avoid. If that's the case, then you are being taxes. Or do you just think of income tax? Have you ever been taken to court or been hassled by the IRS? The whole court situation is quite interesting.

I like the idea of people just paying for what they want, but I still have some concerns though.

[xirtaeboddik]

No! I don't think they have the right to vote. The fact that they are not paying their taxes, they are abolishing their obligations to their country, then why should they be given the right to vote? Afterall, they don't care about their country at all, so they shouldn't participate in political affairs as well. If they given up on their obligations to contribute to the upliftment of the country through their financial obligations, then they should give up all their rights.

[Mometaskers]

That is not an easy question to answer. If you just allow anyone of legal age to vote, then it's clear that people would vote for politicians that would pander to them. Then you'll have people on welfare voting for politicians who promise free this and that.

If you limit it to those who pay taxes though then you end up in some sort of medieval setting where possibly many people don't have any say on how they would be governed. (Except that in the medieval times people do pay without representation.)

If I'd put one more restriction on voting, it would be political education. Make several courses that people can take for free and they have to pass all those to be allowed to vote. Every few years or so they have to take another refresher course and exam (like how driver's licenses are renewed).

[BADecker]

Well, to answer your first and second questions, I essentially don't vote, because nobody is forcing me to pay taxes.

A country without taxes? All people are taxed, some of them just by getting out of bed in the morning. But not all people are taxed monetarily.

Monetary taxation does one major thing. It enriches those who receive the tax money, in an unfair and unrighteous way. Rather than paying taxes, buy what you want. If you want to use the roads, buy the rights to use them. If you want military protection, buy the military protection. If you want a Mars program, donate to it. Do you want schooling for your kids?, pay for it; why should anybody be forced to pay for schooling for the children of somebody else? There is no reason to be forced to pay something you don't want or don't get. Taxation is theft.

Further, in America, if the IRS attacks you for not paying taxes, it doesn't, really. Rather, it is some IRS agent doing some paperwork. Ask the IRS agent to show you the agreement you have with IRS laws. If you agreed to pay, then pay, as your agreement states. If he won't or can't show you the agreement, sue him for the injury of the hassle he is putting you through.

If the IRS takes you to court, they don't, really. The indictment always reads THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs you. In the States, you have the right to face your accuser. Since THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is your accuser according to the indictment paperwork, require THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to take the oath, get on the stand, and testify to the harm or damage you have done to it, with evidence of the harm or damage, and proof that it was you that did the harm or damage. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is paperwork. Paperwork can't get on the stand and testify to anything. Case dismissed for lack of your accuser testifying in court.

Suppose at the beginning of your trial the judge asks the prosecuting attorney what the trial is all about. The prosecuting attorney starts telling the judge what the accusations are. If you don't object to the prosecuting attorney testifying without having first-hand knowledge, and without being placed under oath and on the stand, and without clarifying if he is a witness or an attorney (he can't be both), and if he is a witness, why he wasn't called by the prosecutor on the indictment (THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA), you just let "them" run all over you.

But you made your first mistake by hiring an attorney. An attorney is an officer of the court. When you hired him, you agreed to whatever the court wants to do with you. It looks like a case of conflict of interest, but it is not, because by voluntarily hiring the attorney, you voluntarily turned the matter over to the total discretion of the court system.

The point is, since none of us are required to pay taxes in America, but since most of us pay them voluntarily, voting or not voting is not a tax question.

I see, so you are American. This is a very interesting topic. I have watched a few documentaries about taxes in the US an the IRS. You literally don't pay any taxes? Don't you have sales tax in your state? What about land tax? I'm sure there's some that you can't avoid. If that's the case, then you are being taxes. Or do you just think of income tax? Have you ever been taken to court or been hassled by the IRS? The whole court situation is quite interesting.

I like the idea of people just paying for what they want, but I still have some concerns though.

But I don't pay sales tax in my state.

For example. I don't use marijuana. I don't pay for other people using marijuana. Now, if I somebody down the street is selling his car, and I buy it, and he makes a handsome profit off me, I have purchased a car. What he does with the money is his business. If he uses some of the money to buy marijuana, did I buy the marijuana? Same with sales tax. Just because a store gives me an itemized list of what they have done with the money I use to pay for my purchases, doesn't mean that I pay sales tax. If they pay sales tax, they are the ones who pay it. Not me.

Property tax? I rent. I pay the landlord. If he uses some of his money to pay property tax, he is the one paying the tax, not me. But even if I owned the property, it would be MY property. Someone in government who tries to steal my property from me will get sued, just like he would if he were attempting to rob me, directly.

When I fill out an application form for a job, and I get hired, the employer needs me to fill out an IRS Form W-4. I fill out my name, and address and social same as always, for identification purposes. I fill out every other line on the W-4 with n-a (non-assumpsit)... except line 7 where it asks for my exempt status. There I write "EXEMPT." I sign the form "non-assumpsit" and my signature. My employer doesn't withhold. The IRS doesn't require tax payments. Of course, I give my employer a letter of explanation in such a way that he understands that you have to have an agreement with the IRS to pay income taxes, and that I don't have this agreement, because of the way I filled out the W-4.

Start by going here - https://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos - and finding every audio/video that has "IRS" in the title, to see what is going on.

Further, if court is involved, take a look at this audio/video:
003 - Karl Lentz - Establish your common law court

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=karl+lenz+your+own+court+003
Then, look at the other audio/videos around that one.

It will take a little time to get it into your head what is going on. But you need to start somewhere. Listen to at least the first 5 minutes of the audio/video, "Learn how to reclaim your sovereignty and fight government tyranny through jury nullification" at https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-08-03-learn-how-reclaim-sovereignty-fight-government-tyranny-jury-nullification.html, to understand some of the bottom line for the above A/V.

[CaptainEvansun]

But I don't pay sales tax in my state.

For example. I don't use marijuana. I don't pay for other people using marijuana. Now, if I somebody down the street is selling his car, and I buy it, and he makes a handsome profit off me, I have purchased a car. What he does with the money is his business. If he uses some of the money to buy marijuana, did I buy the marijuana? Same with sales tax. Just because a store gives me an itemized list of what they have done with the money I use to pay for my purchases, doesn't mean that I pay sales tax. If they pay sales tax, they are the ones who pay it. Not me.

Property tax? I rent. I pay the landlord. If he uses some of his money to pay property tax, he is the one paying the tax, not me. But even if I owned the property, it would be MY property. Someone in government who tries to steal my property from me will get sued, just like he would if he were attempting to rob me, directly.

When I fill out an application form for a job, and I get hired, the employer needs me to fill out an IRS Form W-4. I fill out my name, and address and social same as always, for identification purposes. I fill out every other line on the W-4 with n-a (non-assumpsit)... except line 7 where it asks for my exempt status. There I write "EXEMPT." I sign the form "non-assumpsit" and my signature. My employer doesn't withhold. The IRS doesn't require tax payments. Of course, I give my employer a letter of explanation in such a way that he understands that you have to have an agreement with the IRS to pay income taxes, and that I don't have this agreement, because of the way I filled out the W-4.

Start by going here - https://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos - and finding every audio/video that has "IRS" in the title, to see what is going on.

Further, if court is involved, take a look at this audio/video:
003 - Karl Lentz - Establish your common law court
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lQf9NFh3wN8/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEXCPYBEIoBSFryq4qpAwkIARUAAIhCGAE=&rs=AOn4CLBbAShDaM4Ye-LU6sUjkw5_8R732w
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=karl+lenz+your+own+court+003
Then, look at the other audio/videos around that one.

It will take a little time to get it into your head what is going on. But you need to start somewhere. Listen to at least the first 5 minutes of the audio/video, "Learn how to reclaim your sovereignty and fight government tyranny through jury nullification" at https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-08-03-learn-how-reclaim-sovereignty-fight-government-tyranny-jury-nullification.html, to understand some of the bottom line for the above A/V.

I do understand what you're talking about. I figured that there were probably some exceptions. I imagined you're probably paying taxes somewhere that you don't realize or can't avoid. It seems like you've got most of your based covered though. Thank you for the detailed response. I've read quite a bit about income tax before. It all seems so ridiculous that typically you have to pay the government to make money, then you have to pay the government virtually every time you spend money. It's nice to see an example of a person who is being quite successful and avoiding paying taxes in the US.

[Nathan_Weymouth]

es, non-taxpayers should be allowed to vote. Voting is for everyone and if we start limiting the voting process because someone did not pay taxes that year, then we are really devaluing the voting process in America. It is your right to vote or not so lets not start putting restrictions on that.

[moneymancrypt]

the reason why we have income tax system is to prevent citizen from boycotting taxes, so as a result such taxes is deducted from salaries before salaries are paid, in my opinion, i think every employed citizens indirectly pays his/her taxes, citizens who dont pay taxes are unemployed. as such should be allowed to excersize their franchise.

[BADecker]

Voting doesn't have anything to do with taxes. In the States, and a few other countries, taxes are collected only by ignorance and deception of the people.

If the people knew the simple ways to simply bypass taxes, many of them would do it. In fact, ALL OF THEM WOULD DO IT. Why would they ALL do it? Because those that wanted to bypass taxes would (if they knew how), and those who didn't want to, wouldn't be paying taxes at all. Rather, they would be donating, simply because of their stance on their money transfer to government. This would totally eliminate taxes.

In the States, voting doesn't have anything to do with taxes. Why not? Because voting is in the Constitution and Amendments, and even the common law. But income taxes are NOT in the constitution. In fact, income taxes are against the Constitution.

Then how does the IRS get away with it? They get away with it by making complex court cases that the people don't understand, and can't win easily.

On top of it, the attorney's first obligation is to the court. Obligation to themselves is above obligation to their client (actually, the client is 4th).

On top of this, attorneys are officers of the court, so there is a conflict of interest. Attorneys get around this conflict of interest by law. Law says that when a person becomes the client of an attorney, he is considered a minor in the courts, not able to speak... except if the court lets him momentarily. This means that the decision is turned completely over to the courts by agreement, whenever a person signs on the line to become the client of an attorney.

How do you get around it? Stand as a man or woman, in common law. Corpus Juris Secuncum is a law encyclopedia:

CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM vol 25 section 344, Federal District Courts are courts of record. A court of record has the power to fine or imprison for contempt. It proceeds under the common law, not a statute or a code. The tribunal is independent of the magistrate.

No statutes, cops, lawyers, or judge that is anything more than a spectator, a referee

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Did you catch that yet? In suits at common law...according to the rules of the common law.
All federal courts are Article III courts under the Constitution.
All federal courts are courts of record.
All state courts are common law courts.

The tribunal is the accuser, the accused and the jury.

003 - Karl Lentz - Establish your common law court

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQf9NFh3wN8

Voting and taxes don't have anything to do with each other.

[BADecker]

Message to the Voting Cattle / Larken Rose

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RmeaBxZ03M


Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion (feat. Larken Rose)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uVV2Dcqt0

[Minerall]

I don't think they should be allowed to vote. Tax cheats shouldn't have any place in our society. I believe that tax cheating is one of the biggest crimes to humanity. We need to create a system that instantly tells us who does't pay their taxes. What do you think guys? Am i too harsh?

[ibrar.noman]

I know will refer to the constitution and human rights on this matter but If a citizen does not contribute to society, how can that citizen have an opinion on it? Ultimately if you do not pay tax, you have no need to affect the political process, and your impact will be negative to others because you will be uninformed on how to vote to improve things.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

yes , they should allowed because they represent the population if the citizens has trust on govt they will pay tax its upto govt to create trust and credibility .

[BADecker]

The real question is (and someone should start a thread):

SHOULD NON-CITIZENS WHO PAY TAXES BE ALLOWED TO VOTE?

[Samarkand]

...
I think it makes sense.  Citizens who do not pay taxes or those who are non-residents do not have a stake in the game of how the taxes are spent.

Actually, the votes should be weighted based on how much taxes you pay.  The more taxes you pay the more valuable your vote should be.
If you pay no taxes your "vote weight" will be zero and your vote will not be counted.

The current system is unfair to the productive members of the society.

I somewhat agree with your idea, but I would modify it slightly.
In your system retirees wouldn´t be able to vote, because they don´t pay
any taxes. However, it is obviously counterproductive to exclude the
most experienced and wise members of society from elections. Besides,
most retirees by definition have paid taxes for several decades and therefore
have made huge contributions to the community.

Therefore I´d argue that it is fine to exclude people, who not pay taxes and people,
who are non-residents from voting, but you should still allow retirees to vote.

[countryfree]

I don't pay tax and I'm very happy about it.
I've burned my social security card and I'm very happy about it.
I don't vote and I'm very happy about it.
I'm not on facebook and I'm very happy about it.
Etc...

If everyone was like me, there would be no war.

[SkyFlakes]

Here in the context of our country, everyone has the right to vote, as long as you reach the right age. There is no qualifications like in whether a person is already paying tax. I think this is just okay as we all are taking turns in our society. There comes a time that we only just study and don't pay tax while other older person were paying. But it will also come a time that we will find a job and that's our turn to pay tax. I think it is just a matter of turn and giving back to your society.

[yoseph]

I don't pay tax and I'm very happy about it.
I've burned my social security card and I'm very happy about it.
I don't vote and I'm very happy about it.
I'm not on facebook and I'm very happy about it.
Etc...

If everyone was like me, there would be no war.

I really wish that the government would have given me that option of either paying my taxes or not voting because I will without a moment of though pick the latter because regardless of who comes to power, they are all the same people.

[countryfree]

I don't pay tax and I'm very happy about it.
I've burned my social security card and I'm very happy about it.
I don't vote and I'm very happy about it.
I'm not on facebook and I'm very happy about it.
Etc...

If everyone was like me, there would be no war.

I really wish that the government would have given me that option of either paying my taxes or not voting because I will without a moment of though pick the latter because regardless of who comes to power, they are all the same people.

No government will ever give you that choice. I made that choice all by myself. Don't wait!

[BADecker]

Voting is a Choke Chain on Your Liberty

This article is an expanded version of a comment I left for someone on another platform.  It was spurred on by their suggestion that by not voting one has given up all their rights.  I inquired if they wanted to know why they were exactly wrong, and that the opposite is true.  Interest was expressed, and so I threw together the following, with some additional explanation.

This is very complex subject matter.  I've tried to explain it in a way that makes sense while leaving out an incredible amount of detail.  I've provided citations and links where relevant so you know I'm not just pulling this out of my ass.  I've tried to present this in a way that requires the least amount of interpretation but as with any esoteric work it cannot be properly understood without the requisite initiation.

Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables. -  Mark 4:11 (KJV)

I will address the many questions this material may well evoke in the comments, and will attempt to clarify any points I did not adequately explain.

This mini-treatise may leave you unsatisfied, but that would be because I'm showing you only the mouth of the cavern.

Let's start with the California Constitution, Article II, Section 2:

A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.

And then in the California Elections Code:

2101. (a) A person entitled to register to vote shall be a United States citizen, a resident of California, not imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony, and at least 18 years of age at the time of the next election.

Note the citizenship requirement.  You'll find similar language in your state constitution and elections code (or equivalent).  You might be wondering by now, huh?  But, look at the terms used: you must be a "United States citizen", and "resident" in California.  Does it mention anything about a California citizen?  Why not?  Aren't the laws and codes of California decided by Californians in a California election?  Of course California only wants Californian's voting in its elections, but the constitution and codes are not saying that.  They says you just need to be a United States citizen and resident in California.

"As 'domicile' and 'residence' are usually in the same place, they are frequently used as if they had the same meaning, but they are not identical terms, for a person may have two places of residence, as in the city and  country,  but only one domicile.  Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with intent  to make it a fixed and permanent home.  Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile." - Black's Law Dictionary (Revised Fourth Edition), from case citation under RESIDENCE, p. 1473.

Is someone domiciled in Alabama eligible to vote in California if they can give an address in California where they are resident (assuming they meet all the other requirements, e.g. not being registered to vote elsewhere, of the age of majority, not a felon, etc.)?  Sure, because they are also a United States citizen.

Read more at https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-30/voting-choke-chain-your-liberty.

[bluefirecorp_]

Voting is a Choke Chain on Your Liberty


x

This article is an expanded version of a comment I left for someone on another platform.  It was spurred on by their suggestion that by not voting one has given up all their rights.  I inquired if they wanted to know why they were exactly wrong, and that the opposite is true.  Interest was expressed, and so I threw together the following, with some additional explanation.

This is very complex subject matter.  I've tried to explain it in a way that makes sense while leaving out an incredible amount of detail.  I've provided citations and links where relevant so you know I'm not just pulling this out of my ass.  I've tried to present this in a way that requires the least amount of interpretation but as with any esoteric work it cannot be properly understood without the requisite initiation.

Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables. -  Mark 4:11 (KJV)

I will address the many questions this material may well evoke in the comments, and will attempt to clarify any points I did not adequately explain.

This mini-treatise may leave you unsatisfied, but that would be because I'm showing you only the mouth of the cavern.

Let's start with the California Constitution, Article II, Section 2:

A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.

And then in the California Elections Code:

2101. (a) A person entitled to register to vote shall be a United States citizen, a resident of California, not imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony, and at least 18 years of age at the time of the next election.

Note the citizenship requirement.  You'll find similar language in your state constitution and elections code (or equivalent).  You might be wondering by now, huh?  But, look at the terms used: you must be a "United States citizen", and "resident" in California.  Does it mention anything about a California citizen?  Why not?  Aren't the laws and codes of California decided by Californians in a California election?  Of course California only wants Californian's voting in its elections, but the constitution and codes are not saying that.  They says you just need to be a United States citizen and resident in California.

"As 'domicile' and 'residence' are usually in the same place, they are frequently used as if they had the same meaning, but they are not identical terms, for a person may have two places of residence, as in the city and  country,  but only one domicile.  Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with intent  to make it a fixed and permanent home.  Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile." - Black's Law Dictionary (Revised Fourth Edition), from case citation under RESIDENCE, p. 1473.

Is someone domiciled in Alabama eligible to vote in California if they can give an address in California where they are resident (assuming they meet all the other requirements, e.g. not being registered to vote elsewhere, of the age of majority, not a felon, etc.)?  Sure, because they are also a United States citizen.

Read more at https://www.x.com/news/2018-09-30/voting-choke-chain-your-liberty.

Adam vs. The Man was licensed by Russia Today's US affiliate in April 2011. The move was criticized by Accuracy in Media's columnist Cliff Kincaid who referenced his own column entry from 2008 discussing RT's coverage of the Russia–Georgian War in which he condemned RT for "preferring to use foreigners, especially Americans, to make Russian propaganda points"[53][54] before stating that "the American Marine Veteran, Adam Kokesh, seems to fit the bill, having emerged as an anti-war activist who ran as a Republican for Congress and supported Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) for president".[55] Slate writer David Weigel quoted Kokesh describing RT's model, saying: "Truth is the best propaganda. I love it! I really love the concept of that. It's funny: People say we're hiding shit as a network. No, no—we put the fact that this is propaganda right out front. We're putting out the truth that no one else wants to say. I mean, if you want to put it in the worst possible abstract, it's the Russian government, which is a competing protection racket against the other governments of the world, going against the United States and calling them on their bullshit."[56]

After only a few months on RT, Adam vs. The Man was canceled in August by that network to avoid potential legal problems stemming from an FEC complaint filed against RT by the group America’s Survival, Inc. over the matter of Kokesh endorsing Ron Paul for President (thereby allegedly running afoul of the Foreign Agents Registration Act).

Seems like the author of that website is an absolute crackpot nutjob. It's amazing that you keep linking to sites like that. You really should check into the sources, considering they're all Krelim base.