Sun, 04/11/2010 - 15:07 ET by ScottyDogIt is ironic that Jon Voight, an American Patriot, read this very poignant and timely statement on the Hucksters program.
Mike Huckabee is a CFR globalist that in truth probably agrees with everything that Obama is doing.He supports a nationwide smoking ban anyplace where people work, constitutional protection for sodomy, big government, higher taxes and government benefits for illegal aliens.
So, it is Ironic that this RINO even allowed Jon Voight on his program.Barry Soetoro wants America to become a socialist dictatorship over night while Mike Huckabee would just take a little longer to do the same thing.
Hucklebee couldn’t hardly wait for Voight to finish before he issued his disclaimer that HE really didn’t think Obama was out to destroy the country.
...............So, it is Ironic that this RINO even allowed Jon Voight ............
Actually the Huckabee Show has been a great forum for Jon Voight. Jon has been on the show several times
Jon Voight wants Huckabee to run again.
Look at Cuba, Venezuela, the Soviet Union, even Honduras, where a communist would have installed himself as dictator for life through the electoral process and would have succeeded if not for the armed forces intervention.
The Founders specifically warned against enfranchising women, imbeciles, those under 21, and non freeholders, and for the first 150 years of this Republic these groups did not vote.
After 4 Constitutional Amendments and Motor Voter, these are the groups that vote for democrats and will continue to do so.
The final nail will be immigration reform, and then its over.
John Adams to James Sullivan on women, the poor, and voting rights
May 26, 1776
[Adams explains why women, children, and the poor are excluded from the vote. — TGW]
It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people. But to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly, to every act of legislation? No, you will say. This is impossible. How then does the right arise in the majority to govern the minority, against their will? Whence arises the right of the men to govern women, without their consent? Whence the right of the old to bind the young, without theirs?
But let us first suppose, that the whole community of every age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote. This community, is assembled—a motion is made and carried by a majority of one voice. The minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey? from necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule.
But why exclude women? You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience, in the great business of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state.
Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own. True. But will not these reasons apply to others?
Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? If this is a fact, if you give to every man, who has no property, a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law?
Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest…
I should think that wisdom and policy would dictate in these times, to be very cautious of making alterations. Our people have never been very rigid in scrutinizing into the qualifications of voters, and I presume they will not now begin to be so. But I would not advise them to make any alteration in the laws, at present, respecting the qualifications of voters.
Your idea, that those laws, which affect the lives and personal liberty of all, or which inflict corporal punishment, affect those, who are not qualified to vote, as well as those who are, is just. But, so they do women, as well as men, children as well as adults.
What reason should there be, for excluding a man of twenty years, Eleven months and twenty-seven days old, from a vote when you admit one, who is twenty one? The reason is, you must fix upon some period in life, when the understanding and will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public. Will not the same reason justify the state in fixing upon some certain quantity of property, as a qualification.
The same reasoning, which will induce you to admit all men, who have no property, to vote, with those who have, for those laws, which affect the person will prove that you ought to admit women and children: for generally speaking, women and children, have as good judgment, and as independent minds as those men who are wholly destitute of property: these last being to all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents…
Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case, as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general, comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule, will accommodate most cases and most persons.
Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state.
It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks, to one common level.
Mike Huckabee? What a PHONY. Wouldnt trust him as far as I could throw him.