Advocates Try to Restore Voting Rights to 5.85 Million Ex-Offenders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~With voter suppression a hot-button issue of Election 2012, a coalition of civil rights advocates and prison reformers is stepping up its campaign to restore voting rights to almost 6 million ex-offenders, says The Crime Report. Despite reforms over the past decades, advocates say the number of Americans disenfranchised by state laws barring ex-prisoners from voting has grown-with a disproportionate impact on people of color. "When you talk about the right to vote, you're not just talking about enfranchising an individual," says ex-offender Desmond Meade, president of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition. "Every day, in minority communities, you have people getting arrested [ ] As that individual loses [his or her] right to vote, that community loses another voice, to the point that that community becomes insignificant."
Meade's coalition is fighting to overturn a Florida law passed last year that denies automatic restoration of voting rights to those who've served their time. The law forces ex-offenders into "second-class citizenship," says Meade, a third-year law student at Florida International University School of Law, and a leading voice in the national effort for ex-offender re-enfranchisement. The Washington, D.C.-based Sentencing Project estimates that the number of non-voting, formerly incarcerated individuals is now 5.85 million, a roughly 9 per cent surge since 2004. Although some 23 states over the last decade have restored some or all voting rights-in some cases, even helping ex-prisoners register to vote-"the numbers are still awful," says Marc Mauer of the Sentencing Project.The Crime Report
Excuse me, Gest and Meade. You two don't have a clue about suffrage principles, so please let me enlighten you.
250 years ago America was a huge swath of uncivilized territory sparsely populated by America Aborigines bordered to the East by a collection of British Colonies on their way to becoming a great nation. Have you stopped to ponder WHY ONLY free white adult male property owners could vote in those colohnies?
The simple answer: such people were demonstrably intelligent, informed, loyal, and RESPONSIBLE. Society could count upon them to make prudent choices by electing only able, righteous statesmen. Even then they made mistakes, but nothing like the mistakes made today in political choices. We have a non-natural-born citizen as President, flouting the Constitution in numerous ways ADDITIONAL to that, encouraging government welfare to giant corporations and monumental debt the nation will never repay.
How did such a reprobate get into office? How could he possibly run for another term?
You guessed correctly - the dumbed-down, sufficiently irresponsible electorate, ably assisted by ballot-box stuffing, have had their say. Laws deny federal voting rights only to formerly convicted felons, non-US Citizens, the insane, and children under 18 (yes, people under 25 are still children for practical purposes).
And now Meade, Gest, and the FRRC, want to give voting rights to a huge, proven-irresponsible group: convicted felons, most of whom belong to an indigo or non-white Hispanic racial group that we can predict with virtual 100% accuracy will vote Democrat. That's just another form of stuffing the ballot box. And it constitutes insane civilizational suicide.
Voters should have the following minimum qualifications as indications of responsibility:
- The Mentally Competent - IQ above 85 and No judgment of mental incompetence.
- The Lawful - No felony history.
- The Informed - High School diploma or GED; Knowledge of American and world history, the ideals of good government, Citizen responsibilities, the background and political intentions of candidates, the initiatives on the ballot, and the rights and restrictions in the state and US constitutions.
- The Adult - Attained the age of 25.
- The Productive - Unfettered ownership of real estate, or gainful employment, or self-subsistence from earned income or inheritance, or retirement/disability pension; 100% independence from unearned special government entitlement (welfare)
- The Loyal - sworn oaths to support the Constitutions and US or State Citizenship (native born or naturalized).
Whether the above ideals appear to discriminate against racial groups has no relevance to the fundamental point that knowledgeable, intelligent, product, law-abiding, responsible Citizens should have a right to vote, but others should not. The reason? Irresponsible people and those with mixed loyalties will reliably make imprudent decisions in personal life and imprudent political choices. They will vote for demagogues who promise to rob the productive people of the nation in order to bestow gratuities upon themselves. In other words, they will turn Government into a Criminal Enterprise.
What? You want to know how that differs from our present United States Government? I guess you see my point. IT DOES NOT DIFFER. The present US Government has become a Criminal Enterprise that robs from the responsible and productive and gives to the irresponsible and unproductive, and in many cases bestows largess upon the wealthy who own or control the political process.
Meade and his FCCR should lobby to strip voting rights from everybody not in the above 6 categories. Those sensibly prohibited from voting would include anyone in any of the following categories:
- The Mentally Incompetent - IQ of 85 and below, and other mental incompetents
- The Ignorant - those without a high school diploma, GED, or higher, or without knowledge of Constitutional limits and rights.
- The Child - people under 25 years of age
- The Unproductive - Welfare (public and private) recipients and the indigent
- The Unlawful - Felons (current and former)
- The Unloyal - those not born or naturalized Citizens of a US state or the federal zone, or who have not sworn to support the Constitution.
In fact, insurance actuaries have demonstrated the likelihood of automobile accidents dramatically increases for people under the age of 25. For that reason, automobile insurance companies charge them double to quadruple the rates of people over 25. This happens because emotions and hormones, more than common sense, motivate or drive people under 25. So, I just summarize that group as "children." Philippine law forbids them from voting. So should our law.
Bottom line, we should not allow irresponsible people to have any say in government, period, no matter how much we love them. Irresponsible people (those in the above 6 categories) make stupid choices in Government. The fact that laws have changed to allow them to vote, or (in the case of the current President) to enter government, has begun an exorable decline of the USA to third-world status.
If you still don't get it, consider that fully 1/4 of the US population has IQ below 85. They make notoriously stupid choices in life. They have such low value of productivity that they rob the productivity of smarter people. They do this through street crimes and welfare abuse because most of them cannot subsist and fulfill the American Dream advertised on TV without some form of financial aid that they neither earned nor deserve. They also do it through an unproportional burden on infrastructures for health care, law enforcement, housing, courts, prisons, and schools. Who in his right mind could possibly conclude that such people should command government or chose its leaders?
As to felons, common sense dictates the recognition that if a person had such warped values to lead him to commit a felonious act, nothing in the prison sentence has ever guaranteed to correct the felon's thinking. Prisons incarcerate people to remove them from society more than to rehabilitate them. And most felons released from prison commit more felonies that result in conviction and incaration. Why should law abiding citizens ever trust them to vote intelligently and with respect for law?
I guess that at most 5% of the US population ( probably no more than .5%) has read the US and state constitutions from cover to cover, much less studied them. How can those who have read or studied them possibly trust the non-readers to make election choices that comport with those documents?
The other day two Democrat campaign workers approached me to solicit my vote for Obama for a second term as President of the USA. I asked them whether they would vote for Obama if they knew for an absolute fact that he does not have the natural-born citizen status required by the US Constitution. They said "Absolutely, I would vote for him anyway," virtually in unison.
How did US citizens become so immoral, unlawful, ignorant, and irresponsible as knowingly to put a non-natural-born citizen into the US Presidency in violation of the Constitution? You'd think the candidate's political opponent must be a demon from hell, or the son of a Muslim British Citizen born in Kenya, or something. What else could possibly justify flouting the Constitution like that?
To me, voting for a non-natural-born citizen as President pretty much equates to voting for a Yellow Dog as President. From the loyalty viewpoint they pretty much have identical qualifications. I have wondered whether the Democrat Party actually has any rules against voting for Yellow Dogs as Presidents, legislators, and the like.
This case-in-point illustrates the silliness and effective treason against the Constitution of allowing the irresponsible to vote. They will put the utterly unqualified into office. And the result will consist of the most recent four years of American political history - massive debt, runaway inflation, unparalleled unemployment, murderous Islamic coups in North Africa and the Mideast, and a socialist health care program that hasn't an iota of constitutional justification.
I believe I have adequately made the case that an increasingly large segment of the US population has no business at all voting in state or national elections, and that includes former felony convicts.