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.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/103-0485106-2719025?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=The+Revolutionary+Generation.+&x=15&y=13
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.
Great story OP, but I’m not sure which post of mine on this thread you’re responding to. Anyway, I see Obama as the “Holy One”, the villiage people as the silly Democrats, and the three legged dog as Obama’s clarion call to ‘hope’.
Which also provides us with the earliest recorded example of 'ballot box stuffing'.
The liberals will always be in power as long as they control the education of our youths..
Hey, a simple majority is quite often moral and just enough to satisfy us. However, one would be a fool to absolutely count on that. A really good king is the best government. The next king? Could be a crapshoot. Some of the laws that we here hate the most were passed by a majority. Think about it.
Today's just and moral majority is tomorrow's mob.
ping
Well, I don't. I am a renter of an apartment and do not own any property. That would screw me royally. I think it is a bad idea.
ROTFLOL!!!!!
I still think only net tax payers and/or property owners should be allowed to vote. No one else has any “stake” in the outcome of the election,
except for those that seek to use the government to take from others what they haven’t earned for themselves.
This was my thinking too. Gotta pay to have a say!!
In the case of taxpayer voting requirement, I don’t agree with an IQ test. If you pay into the system, you get ONE VOTE for the leaders of the system.
Do you pay taxes, or are you a net “receiver” of gov’t largesse?
If you pay, you should vote,
if not, then you should have no say in how the wealth of the nation is spent.
Not to mention the fact that, while government schools are dumbing down and propagating ignorance, they are busily building “self-esteem”. So, the ignorant can be quite prideful in their stupidity.
Now THIS I can agree with...
So if “Democrat” was an epithet...
what about today’s “Dhimmicrats”?
LMAO!!! No, I just chuck s**t for the landlord...of COURSE I pay taxes for God's sake! I am a conservative, man!!!
So very true, LJ. I fear for our country that is fast becoming full of prideful idiots.
That's the deal, if only net tax payers voted, the vote totals would be about 80% conservative.
This leads me to ask a question. I know that the Constitution is a limit on government not the people. It tells govt. what it may, must and may not do. It is not a full ennumeration of the people’s rights as mentioned in the 9th amendment. There are, though, some spelled out in the Bill of Rights.
So why is it that some people then point to the Constitution and say “well, the right to X is not in the Constitution so that right doesn’t exist.”
For instance, I was reading Levin’s Men In Black and he had just finished discussing what I put in my first paragraph and then a few pages later began saying that the people do not have a right to privacy because it’s not in the Constitution. I could not read any further because of what seemed to be a great contradiction. Mind you, I’m not here claiming a side in that argument, just confused by the contradiction. Any enlightenment would be helpful.
I do not think it is inaccurate to say that the United States is a constitutional representative democracy, but a democracy, nonetheless.
We do not have “direct democracy”, the constitution and representative government were meant to attenuate the undesirable effects of mob rule, but keep the government ultimately accountable to the people.
IMHO, the problems all started with the 19th amendment. See my tagline.
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.