Posted on 08/25/2008 2:11:01 PM PDT by mainestategop
A week ago I was at McDonald's ordering lunch. It was very busy and there was a large crowd present. I ordered the food and waited around for a few minutes. While I was doing so, a manager and another crewmemeber were getting ready to put the flags up on the pole. The manager showed him how to fold the flags up and they folded up old glory into a nice triangle with loving and patriotic care. While they were folding the McDonald's flag, a funny looking woman in her thirties with two tots in a carriage walked up to the counter where the US flag was and exclaimed in a squeaky and stupid voice, "Oh! That lookth jutht like the flag they give to famlieth of veteranth after Bush sendth them to die in Iraq and take away their benefits!"
Everyone nearby looked at her for awhile and then paid no attention to her. I began to ask myself, just where is the father of her kids and what does she do for a living anyway? From what I gather this dingbat is another one of Maine's many welfare recipients who can't amount to anything and are either too poor or too stupid to leave to get a better job and instead cancel out my vote and suck on the tit of Maine's enormous government. This woman was completely ignorant that the reason we are scaling back veterans benefits is to make way for massive social programs for lazy bums and housing projects filth like her who are idiots. I started to imagine just how the kids are going to grow up and cancel out the votes of my own children as well.
With that in mind I began to lay out the plans for this essay and thought, its time we go back to making voting a responsibility and a privilege rather than a right. One of my writers pointed out an 18th century quote from an English gentleman he overheard on a PBS TV show that also sums it up:
Give stinking morons like him the vote and we'll all be back to worshiping druids, death by stoning and eating dung for dinner.
Stinking moron: I'm eating dung for dinner tonight actually.
Jokes aside there is some meaning in this. If we continue to allow people who are uneducated, immoral lazy byproducts of government schooling, secular humanism and pop culture to vote, we will be going bankrupt and have less freedom than we have now. Its already happening. The politicians and judges we elect share the same sentiments as the people before mentioned.
Long ago in America the founding fathers, men from different backgrounds were political and philosophical geniuses who recognized the necessities of religion, morality and responsibility and freedom against tyranny and dependence on government. They did little to debate on who should be eligible to choose their leaders. There were certain regulations such as the poll tax and literacy tests but it was found that they were biased towards certain groups and they didn't last. One of my friends pointed out debates on other blogs that only those who pay taxes who are not mentally incompetent or of certain privilege be allowed to vote but also pointed out that Pelosi and Obama could use that to make conservatives ineligible to vote and take over the courts, the congress, the senate and oval office and drive this country to the ground. Just keep raising taxes and have the American psychiatric Association define conservatism, defenders of the constitution and opponents of large government and taxes to be a mental disorder and that's that.
There is naturally a better way to sort it out. Sensible solid criteria that can be given out to filter out those who are moral, educated and responsible from those who are corrupt, immoral and ignorant regardless whether they are rich and poor.
First of all, recipients of welfare, and government subsidies as well as certain people who work for the government should be excluded. If you are a single mother with 12 bastards living in public housing, you should not get to vote. Get a job, a husband, get your act together, and put some of your brats up for adoption then you can vote. If you are a business executive, CEO, manager, or employee of a company that receives subsidies, no vote. Get your act together, plow more of your profits into your companies and hire more workers, create more innovations and then you can vote again. If you are a case manager, bureaucrat, agent or politician, no votes for you. You can keep your job and work for the taxpayers, or you can get a new job and vote again.
This should also apply to others on the government payroll. Police officers, Firemen, doctors, teachers, public defenders, judges, District attorneys ETC. You are receiving taxpayer money to do a job for we the people. You are receiving funds from our hard work. We don't trust you to vote for politicians who will give you a raise while our cities and communities are in the pits. We the people will decide if you deserve a raise.
The only exception I believe to this rule is the military. These men and women are doing more than receiving money they are putting their lives on the line to stay free. We don't want uneducated lazy parasites taking from defense to fund their laziness.
Second of all people who are ignorant of facts should not be allowed to vote. I recall Sean Hannity interviewing college kids in Marxist universities who don't know a damn thing about how the world works. They know nothing about history, they don't even know what happened on December 7th or what the constitution says. They do believe that socialism is best, that 80% of the wealthiest Americans (Or for that matter anyone who works) Should be taxed redistributed to those who won't work, they believe that no one should be allowed to protest or publish without government approval, they believe religion is a mental disorder and that anyone who does not agree with them in even the tiniest way is a racist sexist fascist Nazi who should be put to death.
People from other countries such as Mexico, Brazil, China, the Ukraine, Poland, Germany, Japan, Algeria, Yemen, Portugal, Britain and Togo land and who become citizens are required to know, and many of these people go on to becoming outstanding citizens in the community. Meanwhile our own children grow up stupid, lazy and the most they can land is cleaning up puke, flipping burgers and mopping aisles. These kids who work retail use cash registers that tally up numbers for them since they are too stupid to count add and subtract, paid for by us thanks to Public school. Yet they get to vote for idiots who ruin our nation.
There should be a test given before anyone can register to vote. The test will be a sensible one, multiple choice. You need to know about how the government works, how our constitution works, why we have the freedom we have ETC. People who support gun control, speech codes, protest zoning, socialism, compulsory public schooling won't be eligible. When they get educated, when they learn to be wiser, then they can vote.
Third, Individuals part of organizations that are openly hostile to our way of life such as the Communist party, the Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, Islamic Jihad, Christian reconstructionists, La Raza, Mecha and other trash should also not get to vote. Instead they should be considered dangerous individuals and a threat to freedom. There is a way to differentiate between which group is not of that criteria. Keep in mind I'm talking people who are openly hostile to us and our way of doing things. I'm not talking people who show some leftist views that some people disagree with like Food not bombs or the council of conservative citizens or some other nutcase groups. Were talking people who openly hate us and preach for our destruction. In the olden days communists and other people couldn't vote or work in government. We should go back to that.
Fourth people who commit certain crimes should not be permited to vote. People who are dishonest, who are unscrupulous and who harm innocent people should be barred for a long period or for the rest of their lives. A lot of felons don't want law abiding citizens to be armed or to be protected by the law. The reason criminals have more rights is because we let them vote for evil people who want to "understand them" or "have sympathy for them."
I read some other suggestions that people diagnosed with certain mental disorders or who come from certain backgrounds also should not be eligible. We at MainestateGop are against Psychiatry since it is a leftist junk science that supports eugenics and contributes to holocausts and great acts of injustice. The left can use it to declare libertarians, conservatives and others of being mentally incompetent and take over. We should not be concerned if someone appears to be unusual or comes from a certain background. If he or she is responsible and knows how the system works, they can vote.
Please keep in mind this is not totally full proof. We planned this out to be fair and decent in allowing those who are qualified to vote without allowing for loopholes for evil to use to take away someones freedom. But if we did use this, we would have better people in office, less taxes, more freedom and more jobs while people like the stupid woman I mentioned would be staying in their public housing or at Starbucks on election day fuming about Ronnie McBushitler, complaining that America is the worst place in the world, and how people of different races and backgrounds are of Satan.
Since when do corporations vote? We’re talking about individuals who to the best of my knowledge all get the same automatic exemptions. If I am wrong let me know....I will get to my accountant and tear him a new one!!
There should be a test given before anyone can register to vote. The test will be a sensible one, multiple choice. You need to know about how the government works, how our constitution works, why we have the freedom we have ETC. People who support gun control, speech codes, protest zoning, socialism, compulsory public schooling won't be eligible. When they get educated, when they learn to be wiser, then they can vote.
So here, you're looking to disqualify people from voting based on their views on certain issues.
Owning land is a legitimate requirement I think, but race (and gender for that matter) is obviously not.
That's why we are a republic not a democracy(Mob rule) We don't want a situation where two wolves and one sheep decide what they want for lunch.
In the past, for example in the early years of the Republic, property qualifications were often required to exercise the frachise to ensure voters had a stake in the country and were qualified to take part in civil society. This was at a time when America’s economy was primarily based on agriculture.
Today, that is no longer true. I am using annual income as a way to roughly test that soemone has a stake in the economy and well being of the country. The amount someone earns is used as a kind of proxy for the person’s involvement in the community.
Several months ago I presented a more detailed discussion of this idea, eg, giving more votes to the military based on years of service, etc.
But like I said, it’s utopiab.
Voting criteria was establshed by the States, and the criteria varied. New Jersey gave women the right to vote in 1790 (but took it away in 1807).
The Constitution, as originally drafted, did not establish voting criteria, AFAIK.
Also keep in mind it's not quite designed to be full proof. Thats one other thing I want to emphasize.
If you haven't that much acumen under your belt, your vote does more harm than good.
I don’t know. From what I understand, land is pricey and one would have to be fairly well off to own much. In this day and age, that would only add more fuel to the “Rich are evil” class war.
Of course these people didn't get subsidies and special favors either. Also it was limited to certain states that did this since yes the economy was based on agricultural property.
What it comes down to, really, is your definition of what constitutes an anti-constititional view.
Which is a totally slippery standard open to endless abuse, depending on who is in power.
On the federal level, many of the things mainestategop mentions (gun control, speech codes, protest zoning, public school, welfare, etc.) are unconstitutional unless by amendment. A paradox in this is that someone has the right to vote for a politician that proposes completely illegal measures simply because he wants them (unless he expressedly states that he would bring these things by amendment). It would be interesting if politicians that supported unconstituional measures without passing an amendment would be ineligible to run for office. Just throwing stuff out there.
Ah yes, the good old days when States had rights and Big Brother wasn’t controlling everything.
It isn’t that slippery... the Constitution is just ignored by and large so people don’t actually know what’s in it. Most people think separation of church and state is a phrase in the Constitution.
In other countries voting is mandatory and subject to fines.
Vote, its the LAW!
As I said, it isn't perfect and there still will be evil people who will abuse the system but hopefully what I suggested is a step in the right direction.
Talk about a slippery slope. In order to limit governmental power, you're proposing we allow the government to bar people from voting based on their personal views. Kinda ironic...
I’m not totally against the idea of giving more votes based on this or that, but I think they should be capped relatively early. The problem is it’s hard to assign a value to service or “stake in the economy”. Does this act deserve 1 vote or 1.7? Does military service for 4 years equal 2 votes?
And yes, like you said, it’s utopian so ultimately we’re debating something that in all likelihood will never happen. Kind of interesting if you think about it.
One of the great benefits of having states is that they not only know their citizens better than the feds, but states provide competition if you will to other states. If you don’t approve of your state’s policies, there are always other places to go. The competition (ideally) roots out the worst ideas and brings forth the best (or at least a range of good ones).
In this day and age, taking voting rights away from ANYONE would be rejected by the vast majority of people, regardless of its merits.
I agree though, owning land probably isn’t the best requirement because of tenants and renting apartments and such. It would exclude too many people now that I think about it.
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.