Skip to comments.The Meaning of the Right to Vote
Posted on 10/30/2002 2:57:20 AM PST by The Raven
click here to read article
Unfortunately, with each passing Election Day, too many Americans view elections less as a means to protect freedom, and more as a means to win some government favor or handout at the expense of the liberty and property of other Americans.
The founding fathers got it right by limiting the franchise to those with a positive stake in the system. I have to wonder if our republic can long survive when the power of one of our two major political parties relies upon the people's basest nature, the desire for that which they did not earn.
That's why we have the REPUBLICans and the DEMOCRA[cy]TS
What is destroying America today is tyranny of speech, [where no one is allowed to say anything that might offend the governments pets as it will be called hate speech], tyranny of religion, [where the government kidnaps the children for several hours each day, prevents them from practicing their religion and teaches them what their parents and religions forbid, while making it a hate crime to speak out against a religion that intends to destroy all freedom], and tyranny of property [where the government is in the process of buying up all US land, restricting the use of property of all its citizens, and forcing individuals to pay for the use of their own property].
None dare call tyranny! Instead they vote, thinking that having a say in the selection of those who enslave them is freedom. While they are stealing our freedoms and property, it matters little what the name of the theives are.
A right to vote is also a right to NOT vote. This country will die with the sanction of the victims. Your vote sanctions the destruction of America.
Says it all righ there. Clear and concise - to the point.
This is indeed " a keeper"!!
The tyranny of speech descends from the Federal Communications Commission, and from journalism.
The FCC establishes a "right to listen" to your betters and a corresponding duty to shut up and not compete with the government licensees. That turns the First Amendment's right to speak (and derivitive right to listen to whoever you practically can, and choose to attend to) on its head.
The only reason people ever accepted that is the baleful influence of P.R. Journalism uses PR to convince us that we have "a right to know." Well if I have a right to my own opinion, and my right to speak and print it is the same as everyone else's, how is your "right to know" whether I am right or wrong to be enforced?
You have, not the "right to know", but the right to make up your own mind. Belief in the "right to know" is the defining characteristic of sheeple. Suckers for the P.R. claim that journalism is objective (i.e., god-like), backed up not by acuteness but by cowardice. Cowardice makes the avoidance of flame wars among journalists the first rule of P.R., giving the illusion of truth by the simple expedient of herding together and taking care not to contradict each other.
The other tyrannies basically descend from the tyranny over speech.
This is very true, and it's a d*mn shame.
The Founders themselves worried about exactly this. They knew that "bread and circuses" could be used to lull the ignorant "voter" into voting for whatever the demagogues wanted.
Their solution: An educated public. This was a novel idea, even for the Enlightened age, which was actual pretty elitist. The notion of universal, mandatory public education sprang from this concept. Although some might say that the idea of MANDATORY education seems counter to the idea of liberty, in fact the Founders knew that without an educated voting plebescite, you'd get tyranny of the majority that even the Constitution couldn't allay.
In more modern times, the Left knew that, too. THEIR counter-solution: Take over the education establishment, make sure that the masses are taught what the LEFT wants them to know. Or better still, "dumb down" the education of the masses until an education isn't worth the sheepskin it's printed on.
Did they succeed? Look around, and judge for yourself. I'd say they succeeded beyond their wildest calculations.
The idea that you can establish moral imperatives by counting the noses of the lowest among us is perhaps the ultimate absurdity in an absurd age of multiple delusions.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
He's a Communist....he has the rhetoric of Joseph Stalin down pat.....
...Doesn't like the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution for that matter,..and insists that everyone do whatever he tells them is for their own good.
...Oh..yea..almost forgot...he only wants people to vote for ONE POLITICAL PARTY!!!
Sure sounds like a Communist to me.
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.