The president of the Tea Party Nation says it makes a lot of sense to limit voting rights to those who own property. On the groups radio show two weeks ago, Judson Phillips noted that the Founding Fathers stuck certain restrictions on voting rights; while some you would not think about today, the property rulewhich, ThinkProgress notes, stems from the 18th centurymight deserve some thought, he suggested.
If youre a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community, Phillips said. If youre not a property owner, you know, Im sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community. Listen to the clip at left.
Last month, several Tea Party activists formed a right-wing coalition to oust Rep. Joe Straus (R) as Texas House Speaker. They began circulating emails with anti-Semitic messages against Straus, who is Jewish. The groups ran robo-calls and sent out e-mails demanding a true Christian leader, and calling Straus opponent, Rep. Ken Paxton (R), a Christian Conservative who decided not to be pushed around by the Joe Straus thugs.
Last week, the Texas Observers Abby Rapoport reported that she had obtained an email exchange between two members of the Texas State Republican Executive Committee (SREC) Rebecca Williamson and John Cook. We elected a house with Christian, conservative values. We now want a true Christian, conservative running it, Cook said in one of the emails. Since the SREC governs state Republican Party affairs, Rapoport wrote, this marked the first time an elected party leader had semi-openly called for a Christian conservative Speaker. Cook then explained his views to Rapoport in a subsequent telephone interview:
When I got involved in politics, I told people I wanted to put Christian conservatives in leadership positions, he told me, explaining that he only supports Christian conservative candidates in Republican primary races.
I want to make sure that a person Im supporting is going to have my values. Its not anything about Jews and whether I think their religion is right or Muslims and whether I think their religion is right. I got into politics to put Christian conservatives into office. Theyre the people that do the best jobs over all.
Cook insisted he is not prejudiced against Jews:
Theyre some of my best friends, he said of Jews, naming two friends of his. Im not bigoted at all; Im not racist. [...]
My favorite person thats ever been on this earth is a Jew, he said. How can they possibly think that if Jesus Christ is a Jew, and hes my favorite person thats ever been on this earth?
Ah, I see, the Washington Monthlys Steve Benen observed, Its not about Jews, its just that Cook doesnt think Jews can do the job well because theyre Jews. Benen addded, Someday, folks will have to understand that some of my best friends are [fill in the blank with a minority group] is a cliche repeated by bigots. I would have hoped that was obvious by now.
Today a man owns a jackass worth fifty dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election, the jackass dies. The man in the meantime has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers-but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or the jackass?
But the Tea Party isn't bigoted at all! I keep hearing that said after every rally with Tea Partiers holding up signs with racial slurs on them so it must be true! Fox News keeps defending the Tea Part so they must be good! Think of the Christian children, won't someone please think only of the Christian, white children!
I think your vote should be reduced based on government money you receive. Allowing people to vote in stealing others to give to them just isn't right at all. Eventually it will lead to a majority relying on sustenance from the small amount of working people left, and we're getting close.
That's a good start, but why restrict to property? How much you have vested in the community includes not only property, but also other investments. Ergo, how much your vote is worth should be directly proportional to your wealth. Not only is this fair vis-a-vis, those with more have more vested interest and will therefore care more, but the well off are also smarter and make better decisions (why else would they be well off?), so they will elect better politicians.
That's a good start, but why restrict to property? How much you have vested in the community includes not only property, but also other investments. Ergo, how much your vote is worth should be directly proportional to your wealth. Not only is this fair vis-a-vis, those with more have more vested interest and will therefore care more, but the well off are also smarter and make better decisions (why else would they be well off?), so they will elect better politicians.
I think your vote should be reduced based on government money you receive. Allowing people to vote in stealing others to give to them just isn't right at all. Eventually it will lead to a majority relying on sustenance from the small amount of working people left, and we're getting close.
I say we go to a 100% lottery every 2 years to select members of congress.
It should be a duty, like jury duty, not a career.
Nice quote. As tempted as I am to support some sort of voting qualification, there is no way that can ever exist without eventually becoming distorted and damaging, if not downright evil. Every legal citizen of age must be franchised unless and until they prove unequal to that responsibility by felony conviction. That's the only way to ensure we get not the government we need, but the government we deserve.Ben Franklin had something good to say about that:
He must have been one of those America hating commies though.
I actually like that idea. It would empower the staffers though, since they'd be the only ones who knew how to make the system work.I say we go to a 100% lottery every 2 years to select members of congress.
It should be a duty, like jury duty, not a career.
I say term limits, eight years in the House and six or twelve in the Senate.
I think your vote should be reduced based on government money you receive. Allowing people to vote in stealing others to give to them just isn't right at all. Eventually it will lead to a majority relying on sustenance from the small amount of working people left, and we're getting close.
How about for every acre of land you get an extra vote.
It is rich people buying up land that causes property values to go up because the supply of useable land is decreasing. Land is quite expensive in a lot of areas of this country (USA). Even in wilderness areas, a lot of the land has been purchased by people who have money.
So Property should be defined because in some places, an apartment is property. Maybe you should have to own an actual building. People that just buy up land as an investment should not get any privlidges.
This whole concept seems a bit odd. I do think however if you own a lot of land and you do not develop it, that you should be forced to sell it off.
You wanna keep your government?
Kick out the illegals, otherwise they will be the majority in a generation.
And Islam isn't violent at all either! I keep hearing that said after every attempted/successful plot to murder innocent people all around the world, so it must be true!
Glad you agree.
But the Tea Party isn't bigoted at all! I keep hearing that said after every rally with Tea Partiers holding up signs with racial slurs on them so it must be true! Fox News keeps defending the Tea Part so they must be good! Think of the Christian children, won't someone please think only of the Christian, white children!
How about for every acre of land you get an extra vote.
It is rich people buying up land that causes property values to go up because the supply of useable land is decreasing. Land is quite expensive in a lot of areas of this country (USA). Even in wilderness areas, a lot of the land has been purchased by people who have money.
So Property should be defined because in some places, an apartment is property. Maybe you should have to own an actual building. People that just buy up land as an investment should not get any privlidges.
This whole concept seems a bit odd. I do think however if you own a lot of land and you do not develop it, that you should be forced to sell it off.