Posted on 04/11/2010 1:39:45 AM PDT by Suvroc10
In what have got to be the most morally clear statements to ever come out of an actor working in the entertainment business, Jon Voight mercilessly told off Barack Obama in a way that was long overdue and extremely consummate. Appearing on Huckabee on Saturday, Jon Voight read a letter to the American people that he had specially prepared for his appearance. Looking intrepidly at the camera and reading confidently, Voight rebuked Obama for feeding poison to America's ill-educated and the poor for the purposes of wealth redistribution. Voight also took Obama to task for being a disciple of the Saul Alinsky method, asserting that Obama is raping America with it. He urged Obama to use the aggression he's using against the American people against America's enemies instead. The actor then closed by giving words of encouragement to the patriots in the Tea Party movement, telling them to persevere and be vigilant. What a tour de force, contained in just three minutes!
(Excerpt) Read more at associatedcontent.com ...
Hey, for a minute there I thought you were talking about O'Reilly, not Knucklebee. The Bloviator could be waterboarded and he still couldn't and wouldn't spit out the words "socialist" or "marxist" in regards to his buddy, Obama.
See my tag line.
Leni
And...if I remember correctly, he offered to fly from California to be our main speaker for zero, zilch, nada....but his shooting schedule interfered with the best laid plans.
His offer was a far cry from the 10 thousand bucks and up demanded by a couple of notable conservative "stars" who were very distant or egotistical when trying to sign them up for speaker....... and who shall go unnamed because I'm Ming the Merciful.
Leni
What a great story. Thanks for sharing. I truly expect and admire Jon Voight.
Sooner or later the "minorities" will be the majority and empower politicians that will take every last cent from their political enemies before collapsing the economy and throwing the nation into chaos.
We are pretty much there right now.
This kind of mess NEVER gets fixed through the electoral process.
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.
The Founders never intended that the vote of a tax paying law abiding citizen and productive member of society be canceled out by a degenerate drug addict in the inner city or some SEIU member custodial worker.
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.
I will triple DITTO that as I certainly know it to be true!
Looking forward to seeing you back here in the Sunshine State, Leni! Wish you could be here for our fun Freep of BO and Orlando Tax Day Tea Party event!
Thank you for your post, and your tag line says it all!
I suspect I know the name, but I will just give the initials: Sarah Palin! :-P
That's a GOOD way to put it! God bless Jon Voight.
LOL. I'll bet you're right. I didn't watch Huckabee, so I don't know how he reacted....lol.
Jon Voight’s video is at the link, but I am going to watch Huck tonight so I can see his reaction...lol.
Good for Voight! Maybe this guy needs to be in politics. He’s well known...which seems to be all the GOPers need.
At least he’s willing to take on Obama, unlike McCain.
Huck is too busy yucking it up to ever get serious.
Jon Voight is a patriot. God bless him!
Thanks for pinging your list, dear STAR. I hope everyone will see Jon Voight’s video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=253PiA7zIl4&feature=player_embedded
Thank you, seekthetruth! Your comments say it all.
Link to Jon Voight on Huckabee:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2882026/jon_voight_to_barack_obama_you_feed.html?cat=62
Vioght 2012. Kick Barry’s Sorry Socialist A$$.
Thanks!!
Link to video also.. just finished watching it! WOW!
“Vioght 2012. Kick Barry’s Sorry Socialist A$$.”
Not a bad idea! Here’s another entertainer that would be interesting in politics....and he’s a fantastic poker player!
James Woods Quotes:
“Scratch a liberal and you’ll find a fascist ... I’m not joking. You look at what’s happening in this country now. Catharine MacKinnon thinks that we should now limit free speech, anything that offends a woman should now no longer be allowed - no reasonable man or woman in this country would subscribe to that, it’s just insanity.” (1994)
“But, you know, feminists have just destroyed the world as we, know it. I haven’t met a woman lately, and I’m talking about women who work and have a high position, who doesn’t agree with that. It has just destroyed relationships between men and women. Men and women are very wary of each other now. I listen to these feminists rave about, ‘How dare they attack ‘Bill Clinton’ for having a little consensual sex act’, but went nuts because Clarence Thomas allegedly made a joke about a Coke can. And the other guy is humiliating his wife and getting oral sex while he’s talking about Bosnia to a congressman. Hello? Barbara Boxer is, you know, the most worthless, hypocritical ‘feminist’ loser on the face of the earth .... I just loathe with every fiber of my being, liars. My second ex-wife was a liar. And Nixon was a liar. And this Clinton is a liar. I have no respect for him no matter what in the world he ever does.”
“”My nightmare in life, my absolute fundamental, overwhelming, egregious nightmare, is Bill Gates’ vision of the future, where there will be a video camera on every corner and every conversation will be recorded. Man, I’d rather put a pitchfork in my eyes than live in a world like that.”
http://www.platinum-celebs.com/actors/james-woods/quotes.php
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.