Skip to comments.SORRY ... BUT IT'S HARD TO DEAL WITH THE UNEDUCATED SOMETIMES.
Posted on 02/21/2008 8:26:51 AM PST by Turret Gunner A20
Now I know that with our system of government schools there is every excuse for people to be badly misinformed on critical issues. Let's face it ... these government schools have been more interested in feeding you dogma than the truth. Let's take the idea that our country is a democracy, for instance. I would guess that virtually every government school in this nation teaches its hostages (students) that the United States is a democracy.
Now don't you find this just a bid odd, considering the fact that neither the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution or the constitutions of any of the 50 state even contain the word "democracy?" Isn't it odder still that the Constitution specifically says that our form of government is "Republican?"
Yes .. there's a reason for this. Around the time of Woodrow Wilson the idea of government welfare programs that were outside of the grant of authority in our Constitution began to take hold. Politicians knew that if they continued to tout the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, they would have a rather difficult time getting their government welfare programs enacted. So, the idea started to spread that we were a democracy .. a country ruled by men and not the law. Whatever the majority of the people (voters) wanted .. they got. After all, isn't that what democracy (majority rule) means?
You might find it interesting to know what our founding fathers thought of the idea of a democracy. There's an incredible book out there titled "Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. Here's your link if you might like to get a copy.
The author, historian Joseph Ellis, tells us at the very beginning of this book just what our founding fathers thought of the idea of democracy. Here's what they thought of democrats:
"... the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'"
I know ... it truly is amazing how that phrase pretty much describes the Democrats of the day. For the most part the oratory of both Obama and Hillary have been little more than examples of pandering "to the crude and mindless whims of the masses."
So .. why have our government schools been so anxious to spread the "democracy" lie? Because the more people believe that crap the stronger government becomes. If the dumb masses can be convinced that, since we are a democracy, the government should be able to do whatever the political class convinces the majority of Americans it should do ... then we have stronger politicians and weaker protections for our rights.
OK .. enough about the democracy thing.
Let's move to another area of widespread ignorance among the American people. Again ... you came by it honestly. Government schools. I speaking here of the almost universal belief that you have a constitutional right to vote in a federal election. Hint .. .you do not.
I talked about this right to vote thing on the show a few days ago, and Web Guy (the poor SOB) tells me that we have been receiving a string of rather unfriendly emails from people calling me a moron, an idiot and other similar names for my statement on the right to vote. Some of these emailers cite various Constitutional provisions in an attempt to prove their brilliance and my abject ignorance.
Look .. I don't really mind the fact that many of you have been indoctrinated into this "right to vote" bit by our government schools. You were had. You were intentionally misinformed. You should not feel ashamed that you were fooled this way. After all, every where you go you hear about this right to vote BS ... so it's no wonder you've bought it. The shame is in sticking to your erroneous beliefs when the facts are presented to you.
Facts, you say? Yeah ... here are a couple of points for you to consider:
Let's make our first stop at Wikipedia. We'll make two stops. First, the entry for "Voting rights in the United States." There you will find the following sentence: There is no "right to vote" explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, but only that they cannot be denied based solely on the aforementioned qualifications, however, the "right to vote" may be denied for any other reason (i.e. being convicted of a felony).
Next stop .. .the Wikipedia entry for "Sufferage." A subsection of this entry covers the history of suffrage (the vote) in the United States. Here you go: In the United States, suffrage is determined by the separate states, not federally. There is no national "right to vote". The states and the people have changed the U.S. Constitution five times to disallow states from limiting suffrage, thereby expanding it.
15th Amendment (1870): no law may restrict any race from voting
19th Amendment (1920): no law may restrict any sex from voting
23rd Amendment (1961): residents of the District of Columbia can vote for the President and Vice-President
24th Amendment (1964): neither Congress nor the states may condition the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other type of tax
26th Amendment (1971): no law may restrict those 18 years of age or older from voting because of their age
Moving right along now, here's an article written by Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. entitled "The Right to Vote." Jackson writes: "And yet the right to vote is not a fundamental right in our Constitution." I guess that you folks who have been sending in those emails are right, and the Congressman is wrong ... right? Jackson has introduced a voting rights amendment in the congress. Now just why would he need to do that if the right already existed?
I'm not through with you yet. Let's go to Michael C. Dorf. Dorf is the Vice Dean and professor of law at Columbia University. Dorf wrote this article entitled "We Need A Constitutional Right to Vote in Presidential Elections." Tell me, would a law professor write a column calling for a constitutional right to vote if we already had one?
Final stop ... the complete text of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of George W. Bush, et al., Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al. Take a look at Section II, Paragraph B. The very first sentence there reads: "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art.II, §1." Enough? I would certainly hope so.
So you clowns out there keep sending all of those emails telling me what an idiot I am for saying that there is no constitutional right to vote in a federal election. Read the sources I've presented to you above ... and send me another email.
Some would say that intelligence can be measured by your ability to recognize that you're wrong on an issue. Many times in my 38-year talk radio career I've had to admit that I got something wrong. I hope I never grow too old to learn. Some of you are already there.
By the way ... why is this issue so important to me? Well .... Look what these damned voters are doing to the greatest experiment in governance in the history of the world!
Once we have accepted the truth that they don't have a constitution right to vote then we can set about the task of getting some of these dumb masses out of our voting booths.
Think about it ... we offer parasites the opportunity to register to vote when they sign up for welfare! What the hell kind of sense does that make?
The hell with the idea of pandering to the poor, poor pitiful poor. We didn't put them there. They did it to themselves .. .and I damned sure don't want them making decisions that can affect the way I live my life .. and how much of the money that I earn I can keep.
If we must, we'll take care of them and make sure they don't starve, get basic medical care, and have a place to go when it rains or gets cold. Fine. That's nothing we wouldn't do for stray animals .. .but they sure don't need to be voting.
If you say that pair of words aloud, rapidly, it makes more sense.
Great post, thank you.
And then there’s their “understanding” of Article 1 Section 8,,,,,,,
Please don’t get me started,,,,
An early example of democracy:
"Give us Barabbas".
Hmmmmm. When will the flaming begin?
Yeah if I could go back in time, I would tell the founding fathers to add an amendment that states “With the exception of military service if you receive any money from the government for any reason you are not allowed to vote in any election for 2 years.”
Oh and except for except DAs & such all Lawyers are barred from running for political office
I was a Neal Bootz fan until today. His pushing of Obama went way way way too far. He’s off my radio for good.
Copy, paste, edit is your friend.
For years I’ve had this nagging thought that voting in elections should be restricted. If certain qualifications are not met, you simply don’t quality. Didn’t stay in school? Can you read English? Have a criminal record? Do you get a check from the Gov’t while you don’t work? Are you legally in this country? Basics. Frankly, I wouldn’t mind some type of property ownership qualification as well, but that might get me in trouble.
btw: if you’ve been honorably discharged, you’re automatically in. If you’re currently in the service, you’re vote should count twice.
For the Founders, there would have been no other reason why you would have received money from the government (well, very very few other reasons).
The FT still sux.
He he, maybe we could get a discount if we buy our flame suits at the same time... :)
No thanks. I don't really want some of the guys who are currently in having an enhanced ability to make decisions for the rest of us.
That it would, my friend...
Our government was designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority. The Federalist Papers describe that goal very nicely.
Neal nails it, again.
Democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding on what’s for lunch.
Another good example.
True “domocracies” enable countries like Venezuela to “elect” people like Hugo Chavez. And much worse.
Any time now — as soon as certain -———s see that I posted it.
This question of whether or not we're a democracy comes up frequently in FR. There can be no question that we are a democracy, in the sense that we are truly a democratic Republic. I love Lincoln's quote on democracy:
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy."
Other Presidents of yesteryear and antiquity have called the U.S. a democracy as well. But let's face it, our democracy or republic, call it what you will, is defined in modern times according to the whims of our elected leaders. Government is so utterly corrupt today, so shamefully self-serving, that people are even willing to listen to a vacuous man like B. Hussein Obama because he talks about things like "change" and "hope". Well change really is needed and we all know it, and hope was ushered out of America when government began ushering out God. If Obama, a man born and educated into Islam, a man who proudly belongs to racist, bigoted "church", gets elected President of the United States, we have only ourselves to blame. The corruption and vice that we have allowed to fester in our government is screaming out for change, and Obama hears those screams. Though he's surely as corrupt as any other politician in D.C., and maybe more so, he alone seems to have the brains to know what it takes to get people to listen to him.
Our rights as men as God given.
WHERE YA BIN SO LONG?? I'm so glad you find the subject of the article so riveting; and that you were able to come up with such a brilliantly relevent contribution to the discussion.
You may now crawl back under your rock, and let the adults (with all their horrendous faults, including uncorrected typos), discuss the subject in an intelligent fashion.
“For years Ive had this nagging thought that voting in elections should be restricted. If certain qualifications are not met, you simply dont quality. Didnt stay in school? Can you read English? Have a criminal record? Do you get a check from the Govt while you dont work? Are you legally in this country? Basics. Frankly, I wouldnt mind some type of property ownership qualification as well, but that might get me in trouble.”
So exactly how do we determine who makes the decisions about who does and doesn’t vote? What, for instance, if the people making that decision think that folks who are “too” religious — you know, go to certain types of Christian churches — can’t be trusted?
If you say that pair of words aloud, rapidly, it makes more sense."
Especially if you say it half fast.
Makes a lot of sense.
Don't you think that remark was just slightly out of place on this thread?
“I wouldnt mind taking it back to land owners and also adding a test...”
Gosh, I think we should back to barring women from voting.
You realize that under your plan there are plenty of Freepers who wouldn’t qualify? I wouldn’t have until I was about 30.
“Our forefathers at one time, established that ONLY landowners could vote.
Makes a lot of sense.”
They also didn’t let women or blacks vote. Make sense?
Honest answer: I don’t know. It is probably an unworkable idea. I wouldn’t suggest there be a required qualification based on gender, race or religion.
However, the idea that my vote has the same weight as some criminal who can’t read, has no job, owns nothing and votes purely based on who will give him the most money is a concern.
Why, how can you have ignored two very important ... no wait ...three very important groups that make our great democracy what it is today.
(1) The dead. Far from NOT having the right to vote in Federal Elections, which you seem to have dug up in your overly vigorous parsing of the Constitution and other documents written by dead white guys of European extraction, the dead have put many an aptly named "Democratic" candidate into office. Even presidents! Instead of wasting your time with musty museum documents, check out the record of the Ford Funeral Homes in Tennessee. The Ford boys will show you how the dead vote thing is supposed to work in a true democracy like ours.
(2) Illegal aliens: No right to vote? Come on Gunner! You have a matricula consular, a library card, perhaps a WIC Card, or even one of those Drivers Licence things ... anything with a picture of someone on it, you are given the right to vote. In fact, your quaint theories based on old documents aside, you can vote 1, 3, maybe 6 times in major and not so major cities. Apparently it has escaped you while you were squinting away in a dusty library, that about half of the California State Legislature are warming seats provided by the god-given right to vote of the two groups I have mentioned above.
(3) Where you most display your puritanical lack of imagination and compassion is in regard to entirely fictitious voters ... living in their multitiudes at entirely fictitious residences. Technically known as "Sanchez-o-crats" they vote, or rather are voted, in Federal elections with great gusto, and other Spanish phrases. Whole families of'em. In fact, they are often granted absentee ballots (after all, Mr. Straight-Arrow, they are absent, ne c'est pas?)so they can vote in many precincts.
So good work on your term paper, "The Right to Vote." We'll give you an "A" even though you obviously got something bass ackwards here.
No right to vote? LOL.
What I find interesting in those discussions is that no one seems to understand exactly what "republic" means. The real definition is a county that doesn't have a hereditary monarch. That's it. Nazi Germany was a republic. The Soviet Union was a republic.
It says so -- right there in our somewhat tattered Constitution -- somewhere, I think.
Nose-counting is a damned stupid way to run a country.
But this was in the beginning. Over time the word "democracy" did indeed mutate to where it meant pure unadulterated majority rule.
You have made two false statements in one sentence. Good job. We are not a democracy or a democratic republic. We are a Constitutional Republic.
Well, that was a different time. Owning land as a requirement made sense.
Also, you said blacks and women but I believe black freemen DID vote and were in State militias. I don’t think it’s true blacks couldn’t vote at all, though slaves obviously could not (and any free blacks in the South may have been prevented from doing so, not sure.)
But I think a good way to do it would be to only allow the vote in federal elections based on net tax paid. If you paid no income tax or were recipient of enough federal aid, you cannot vote in that year’s election. As soon as you are able to prove otherwise, you can vote again.
However, no plan is perfect. Why? Well, as I discussed with my mother, could you imagine if a Presidential candidate promised to forgive half of people’s student loan debts and promised to do it without raising taxes but by cutting out one of our useless bureaucracies (or two?) He’d be Prez in a landslide. The fact is, you can bribe people pretty easily if they have something to gain, especially if you frame it in such a way as it’s not just ‘welfare’ by another name.
It’s clear that if we continue with our same system, we will end up an authoritarian socialist state.
Oh well. There is no right to vote. Frankly, there are a lot of people who shouldn’t be able to vote. That is why I wouldn’t mind a test. Too many women voted for Bill Clinton because he was cute. In WV, my neighbor the felon can vote. We have a friend who knows nothing about anything about the world we live in, but he pulls that “D” every election. He could use a test...
Ah, that would be a good compromise and I second that!
I will fight to your death for your right to be wrong. However, that isn't my main objection to Boortz' piece which you so thoughtfully posted.
Rigorously applying the archaic rules of our founding documents to an election today could wreak politically incorrect havoc. Imagine the results of a straight election in Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, or Milwaukee. Why the magnificent political organization that gave us Ted Kennedy, and the Golden-Tongued Annointed One, Barack Hussein Obama (May Peace Be Upon Him) could possible suffer tragic losses! Perhaps even (GASP!) a Republican could find himself in the awkward position of represnting "urban" constituents.
Members of Federally Protected Minority Species could be restricted to just one vote ... and that vote would have to be cast in the precinct within which they are legally registered!
What will you think of next? Senators chosen by state legislatures?
Sometimes I think I would give up my vote if it meant no other women could vote either.
BTW, I think the property idea is great.
Posted on 02/12/2008 5:22:24 PM CST by Old Professer
Into the village of Perfect one day came limping this bedraggled and scruffy dog upon three legs. So sad the dog did seem to be that the hamlets sole Holy man was taken hold as though by a flash from above in his pity and shame for the creatures suffering and loss of pride which imaged that of the people who milled about the square as the poor dog hobbled his way amid them.
The people, thought the Holy one, they see not the dog, as they see not their own slowed and stilted gait as the villages name had come to mean less each day. This dog, the hapless cripple could not even evoke a single act of kindness from one.
The Holy one began to see the true meaning of the flash that cast before his eyes; here was redemption he exclaimed - for the village and this dog sent to teach us true and restore our faith.
O People of Perfect, he shouted, Behold before you the dog with but three legs, can you not see him there? It is but for the loss of one leg that he is not proudly trotting among you, attend me now as we bestow on him his regained pride and strong, sure stride.
And with those words the priest declared that from that moment on the dog would thrust his bent but still strong tail toward the ground and use it thus to take the place of the lost but not forgotten leg.
One by one, the villagers walked by and grabbed their eyes in disbelief as the tail turned down toward the ground and pushed so hard a shudder coursed through the stringy, bedraggled creature before them.
Walk, the Holy one commanded!
Stiffening at first, the left front leg showed sinews so long abused that they quivered for a bit, the right leg flexed and toes outstretched and now the left hind leg began to push; a sigh escaped among the awestruck crowd now grown so large to fill the square - Walk, they cried. Walk like a king, they implored.
The milling horde moved closer now in exaggerated mime, every fiber of their being directed at the miracle before them as though their own strong step would pass unto the dog still standing there on stiffened, unstarted strut; the tail now made into a leg curled somewhat and appeared to move toward the earth that bound it still.
The mass about the dog had grown quiet now, all attention upon the new leg, hundreds of wills working as one to loose those bonds and the dogs ears lifted, I swear it smiled.
Then with but the least bit of yelp and scratch of nails, the hindmost leg bent forward first, slid back and begun to lift, the dog was standing on his tail.
Alas, the dog plopped to the ground, the crowd clamored and quarrled and shoved each other about, the priest was brushed aside in a grumbled Fraud... as the crowd became as before, a sullen group of untouched grumps walking only to keep from going home.
And no one looked behind to see the silly mutt lying gleefully on his back as he licked the hand of the Holy man who but shook his head sadly as the dog waved gloriously at the backs of the disappearing crowd with his tail flapping like a gale-blown flag.
For even this sorry, scruffy excuse for a dog knew that if calling a tail a leg makes not it so, why cannot the wisest know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.