There is no constitutional right to vote. Argue all you want, but it’s a simple fact. To understand this, we need to set aside everything we were taught in public schools using a curriculum that is put in place by the unconstitutional Department of Education. It’s not in the government’s best interest to teach you how to limit the government, so very little is taught about the Constitution any longer. There are two types of rights and we can’t get them confused. There are natural rights, those that are God given, many of which the Founding Fathers enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, such as the right to bear arms. Then there are legal rights, which are those granted by government, so they really aren’t rights at all, since the government can take them away just as easily as they granted them.
The right to vote is a legal right and one that is granted by states, not the federal government. When our country was founded most states required voters to be land owners, because it’s a good idea for those who have a say in government to also have a stake in it. Most states didn’t allow women to vote, but New Jersey did. There is no single set of rules for the entire United States with regard to voting.
In 1870 the states ratified the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Contrary to popular belief, this did not give blacks or other minorities a right to vote. What it did was take race out of the infinite number of reasons a state could use to revoke voting rights. The 15th Amendment has the word right in it, but doesn’t grant a right. It merely recognizes that the legal right may exist in the states. Now a state could not base a person’s eligibility to vote on their race. If the 15th Amendment actually granted all minorities a right to vote, then it would have included black women as well, but it didn’t. States could still bar women from voting.
Fifty years later, in 1920, the states ratified the 19th Amendment. By doing this they relinquished the ability to use gender as criteria in determining who could vote. Like the other amendments dealing with voting, this one doesn’t grant women a right to vote. It says that their right to vote “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” So, they can’t deny you the legal right to vote on account of sex, but they sure could for any other reason except for race. Legal rights to vote could still be denied based on age or a trillion other reasons.
In 1964,the 24th Amendment was ratified eliminating the ability for states to charge a poll tax to vote. After all, how can a deadbeat’s vote be bought with welfare checks if they couldn’t afford to pay a poll tax to vote? This amendment ensured that the decline into socialism in the United States would speed up dramatically. This finished setting the stage which was set by the New Deal to ensure that people could vote for more and more handouts. When people vote for their own government dependencies, it’s easier for the government to maintain that dependence. A dependent citizen is a compliant citizen. Scratch that… A dependent citizen is a slave.
The myth that we have a constitutional right to vote makes people feel good, because it sounds fair, so it makes a poll tax seem unfair and a way for the rich to control things. Well right now the rich do control things, because so many of the poor depend on government for handouts. Another way of looking at it is that the deadbeats control things as they steal from us and vote to steal more.
Giving deadbeats the ability to vote by eliminating the poll tax wasn’t good enough. The government wanted more deadbeats voting and the more ignorant, the better. Along came the 26th Amendment. It was decided that it would be wise to allow uneducated, inexperienced, clueless children to vote. States no longer have the ability to determine who can vote based on age, over 18. The way it is written they can not abridge the legal right to vote for anyone over 18 on account of age, but they still can abridge that legal right for anyone under 18. Or not! A state could decide not to abridge the legal right to vote for 12 year olds if they wanted to. Then anyone 12 and up could vote! Again, like the previous three amendments, the 26th Amendment doesn’t grant a right to vote, it merely subtracts a reason from the unlimited number of reasons that states can use to revoke the ability to vote.
The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments never mention a word about welfare or other entitlements. They are free game. Every federal entitlement is unconstitutional with the exception of pensions. For instance, military retirees have earned the benefits that were part of their contract when they signed on for service. It would be perfectly legal and tremendously beneficial for states to revoke the legal right to vote from all recipients of unconstitutional entitlements. I may go so far as to grant an exception for Social Security, due to the fact that we have no choice to opt out. That is a an entirely different conversation.
I would like to see voting rights revoked from all recipients of programs like Welfare, HUD, Food Stamps (EBT), WIC, and Planned Parenthood, federally funded abortions. The revocation should last 7 years beyond the final receipt of any of these benefits to ensure they are forced to sit out one full election cycle, including senate races. I would reduce it to 5 years if the 17th Amendment is repealed and senate elections go back to state legislatures where they belong.
Legal residents of the United States who are not citizens enjoy all the rights that the Constitution protects. They even have the right to bear arms. I know legal residents who buy guns. The fact that no state allows legal residents to vote in federal elections is all you need to know to realize that voting is not a constitutional right.
It’s time to ban deadbeats from the voting booth! People can set their own destiny. They can choose to be a contributing member of society in every way including voting, or they can choose to be a leech, in which case they can no longer choose what they leech. Which would you choose?
AMP (Anna Maria Perez)
If you enjoyed this blog post, please share on Facebook, Twitter or one of the other choices below! Thank you!
Flat Out Unconstitutional 
[…] Welfare Deadbeats Should Not Vote! […]
LikeLike
Wow! What a mean-spirited article. So anyone who needs help from the government is a deadbeat? Many hard working people fall on tough times–divorce, job loss, death in the family. But they are all deadbeats? But the good rich property owners who bribe our government officials so they make tax laws that exempt the wealthiest people from their obligation to support the government ought to vote. You should be ashamed.
LikeLike
That’s why you have a state. Tax law should exempt everyone. There should be no income tax. You’re just fine with the fact that only top earners even pay taxes, aren’t you? What about the “fair share” deadbeats don’t have to pay? You should learn the Constitution and stop being so greedy.
LikeLike
Sorry that Rush and the rest that the Koch Brothers hired have succeeded in twisting your mind so. BTW, I pay over 30% tax. Mitt Romney pays around 10%; and who knows if the Donald pays anything at all. Who are the real deadbeats? Not the people who are almost too poor to feed their families.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone should pay income tax. What now? You are a brain washed lunatic. Nothing I have ever said comes from Rush or the Koch Brothers, who I know nothing about. I couldn’t care less what anyone else has to say. If you are incapable of actually countering what I have to say without trying to throw around other people’s names as if that lends legitimacy to your insanity, then it’s your own fault. You should try harder to be curious, learn, and speak for yourself instead of thinking that talking points and name dropping will get you somewhere in a a debate.
LikeLike
Funny, but my Constitution says the income tax is legal.
LikeLike
I suggest you research the ratification of the 16th Amendment. Then show me where your Constitution says that you can unfairly charge different people different tax rates and actually hand out money to deadbeats that was taken from other tax payers.
LikeLike
FOU, Sorry you are so filled with hate for your fellow man. BTW, any time government does anything, it if taking money from some people and giving it to others. That includes when they give it to the Pentagon to wage endless war and be the enforcers for Exxon, United Fruit, and the like. But you are OK with government taking my money to stuff Dick Cheney’s pockets and fund “defense” spending.
LikeLike
Hate for fellow man? Don’t you think it’s more hateful to demand your fellow man cough up what he labored to earn in order to support a welch? And don’t you dare, ever, claim that I am OK with government taking any money from you. If you make that claim, I dare you to back it up by linking me saying it. I now expect your apology and surrender as a loser to this debate.
LikeLike
No they are not “deadbeats” they are thieves. Oh and by the way add in government employees as well.
LikeLike
[…] August 2, 2015 ~ amp1776 ~ Edit […]
LikeLike
“I’ll have those ni**ers voting democrat for the next 200 years.”
LBJ (D)
LikeLike
Admiring the persistence you put into your site and in depth information you
offer. It’s nice to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same out of date rehashed material.
Fantastic read! I’ve bookmarked your site and I’m adding your RSS feeds to my
Google account.
LikeLike
Only allowing property owners to vote incentivizes people to own property and participate in their community. Allowing deadbeats to vote just assures our $20 trillion dollar national debt will be $40 trillion dollars before we can blink…
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is certainly some wisdom to only allowing those with a stake in the game to have a say in how the game is played. When people are allowed to vote to steal, the thieves will eventually outnumber the rest of us and the system will not be sustainable.
LikeLike
Would this include apartment dwellers? Spouses who are not actually deeded owners? Extended family farms? And do we give voting rights to out-of-country/state owners?? The investment in community is laudable, pragmatically where does that go?
LikeLike
Read the article. What does living in an apartment or not having a deed have to do with anything. I want the privilege to vote taken from deadbeats who are accepting federal bribes in the form of unconstitutional entitlements. Does that include all apartment dwellers to you?
LikeLike
The means of tracking entitlements is the speed bump It’s just too hairy to work out. Property, by the status it would be used in this sense, doesn’t connote tax paying. Nor does lack of it connote non-taxpaying slacker. Tax incentives are doled out to plenty of property owners in many forms. Not disagreeing with the pruning of the dole
LikeLike
It’s actually quite easy. The state requests a list of names and addresses from all federal departments of entitlements to whom they mail checks. They take this list from the Welfare department, export it into a CSV file, then import it into the voter roll database where it gets cross referenced with that list of names and addresses. Any that match are dropped from the voter registry and not allowed to vote. The few names that are left from the Welfare database that didn’t match up due to new arrivals to the state or changes of address are manually cross referenced to the voter database. If they are not found on the voter database, then good. They aren’t voting. If a match is found, they are dropped. All very easy for a low level DBA (Database Administrator).
LikeLike
Sigh. Sorry you have been fooled by the rich so. Corporate welfare is WAY more than what poor people get. The US military often serves as the enforcers for evil corporate execs. So the poor fight and die for them. Sad.
LikeLike
When you find me supporting corporate welfare somewhere, then you can use the “two wrongs make a right” excuse. Until then, take that nonsense elsewhere. If you don’t like being poor, quit.
LikeLike
Wasn’t the whole reason the founding father’s had a problem with the King of England was because they were being taxed with our representation? Weren’t land owners allowed to vote because they had a vested interest in the how the land was to be governed including taxed? Do those ideal still apply today? Should those receiving “entitlements” not have the “right” to vote for representation, do they not have a vested interested in how their “entitlements” are governed?
And what about all those who both work and receive some type of “entitlement?”
I am pretty sure the Constitution starts “We the People of the United States, In Order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty…”
It is not talking about some of the people, nor is it talking about just a certain class of people. This document applies to all the people equally. And first on the list is Justice. Is it just to deny people the ability to vote based upon a transient circumstance such as employment, or receiving “entitlements?” If YOU get fired from your job the day before the next elections, does that mean you loose your vote? What if your husband runs out on you with his secretary and leaves you with two kids at home, your only recourse is WIC so you can feed your kids, you should loose your vote because your husband is a bastard?
Ideas change, that is why the Constitution is a living document open to change as ideas do. The idea of “voting” for an official was ridiculous in the time it was presented. No other country was doing that. It was a crazy progressive idea and not well thought out. It took years to refine what it meant. But that does not deny our God given right to have a say in how we are governed.
The same goes with the idea of “promoting the general welfare.” A radical idea! How and in what ways is the government supposed to promote welfare? An open but important question, left for later generations to answer with such things as education, roads and railways, water ways, assistance programs and Social Security. Promoting the general welfare is a Constitutional prerogative. Maybe, instead of a haphazard approach we need an amendment outlining what exactly that ideal should encompass and limit what the Federal government can get their grubby hand into.
LikeLike
No, the revolutionary war was not started over taxation without representation. It was started over British gun control, when the redcoats marched on Concord to seize arms.
Did you really say, “Should those receiving ‘entitlements’ not have the ‘right’ to vote for representation, do they not have a vested interested in how their ‘entitlements’ are governed?” That’s the problem. People keep voting to steal. Federal entitlements are unconstitutional. Of course these deadbeats should not get to vote on how they are handled. Their federal entitlements should all be cut off, immediately and completely.
No, the Constitution is not a living document any more than your mortgage is. If it doesn’t mean what it says, why write it down? Show me in the Constitution where it says “this is a living, document: Change what it means at will.” It can be amended, but until it is, it remains static. Really? Ideas change? So, ideas about being free and not having a government rule over us with a boot on our throat change? Maybe we enjoy the boot on our throat now?
You do realize that they named the welfare program “welfare” just so that stupid people would think that is what the welfare clause meant, don’t you? If the welfare clause meant the federal government to steal my money and give it to you, why did it take about 150 years to start happening? Public school has failed you and many of us. It’s time to wake up. Sadly, we have to educate ourselves.
LikeLike
If the Constitution is not a living document, then it cannot be changed. But it can be changed therefore it is a living document. The way in which it lives is that it can be changed through amendments to take into account ideas which change. Yes, ideas change. If they did not then we would be a monarchy not a republic. We would have a feudal system of economics, not a regulated capitalism. Our system allows for changes to occur, but occur slowly, not in haste. And that is a good thing. Like was stated in the original post about voting, who could do it. It takes time to work out new ideas and implement them, some times it takes hundreds of years for an idea to run its course. Remember reading about Prohibition and how great this nation would be if we could just get rid of the scourge of alcohol? A new idea! which after decades of pushing got our Constitution changed. And then changed right back after people realized it was stupid plan. Bad idea!
If “entitlement” were unconstitutional then they would have been overturned by the Supreme Court in its much needed role as Judicial Review. But if you throw out that role of the Supreme Court then you have no recourse for unconstitutional laws.
Thank you for writing a blog that aids in my thinking and self education.
LikeLike
The Constitution is NOT a living document. The term living document is what liberals use to misinterpret the Constitution, because it says things they hate. Any document can be amended. It is tremendously difficult to amend the Constitution. Being amendable doesn’t make it living.
Whether ideas remain the same or change have absolutely nothing to do with the type of government. The Constitution laid out a republic that is as close to perfection as possible. Chaning ideas only takes us away from that. Right now we are ruled as an oligarchy. The Constitution is completely and utterly ignored by the federal government.
The Supreme Court has no enumerated authority in Article 3 of the Constitution to legislate, interpret the Constitution, or throw out laws. They exercise that power illegally after usurping it. Massive dumbing down of Americans allows them to get away with it, because they all think that is the job of the Supreme Court when it isn’t. The Constitution says no such thing and due to enumerated powers created by the 10th Amendment, they have no power that isn’t listed in the Constitution. Federal entitlements are all unconstitutional for the same reason. Congress is given no enumerated authority in Article 1, Section 8 to legislate in the area of wealth redistribution, charity, or any other kinds of handouts.
LikeLike
I love what the Constitution says! I think it is far from perfect, but much better than anything else that has come along.
The Supreme Court has from nearly the beginning held Judicial Review. There was precedent for them to do so which predated the Constitution and was “understood” to co-exist with the Constitution. The Constitution was not created in a vacuum but was part of a long line of changing and developing ideas spanning hundreds of years. All of that was a precursor to how the Constitution was developed. implemented and enforced. And those ideas continue to change! And our Living Constitution needs to reflect that change. There needs to be some form of review for laws that get passed which do not reflect the Constitution. If it is not going to be the Supreme Court, then what is it going to be, general revolt of the populace?
If you want a dead Constitution which holds no meaning and is irrelevant to today’s society then keep on trying to walk backwards into the past. I prefer to look forward into the future and ask “what do I want for my kids and grandkids?” I do not want countless generations of “welfare babies” so lets amend our Constitution to define “welfare.” Let us be active and take back our government and our country and move forward with clearer definitions and amendments to prevent the further development of our country into an Oligarchy and the corporate tyranny that will come next. Let us not let our representatives by bought and sold by the highest bidder. Lets get money out politics and force a balanced budget. Lets learn to be proactive instead of reactive. Let “We the People” have the final say in how our country is going to be run.
LikeLike
You don’t love what the Constitutional says. You refute it. You claim that it gives SCOTUS judicial review when the founders discussed that and left judicial review out purposely. The Constitution doesn’t enumerate a power to SCOTUS to usurp any power it like as long as it set a precedent. It’s exasperating dealing with people who literally read the exact opposite of what the constitution says out of such a rabid hate for it.
LikeLike
I never claimed the Constitution gave SCOTUS judicial review. You are absolutely correct, it is not in there but knowing that some type of review would be needed it became precedent for them to do so. And that happened quickly. So let me ask, do you feel there needs to be some type of review for a law to test if it is Constitutional? What would that look like if it is not the Supreme Court?
The legislative branch has passed many very stupid laws which have been deemed unConstitutional, if it was not for the Supreme Court knocking them down then we would have some very stupid laws on the books.
LikeLike
Precedent is an unconstitutional method of making changes. No, there is no need for any kind of review. The Constitution is written in 6th grade English that no one has any problem understanding. People want it reviewed when they don’t like what it says. Agreed about legislation. Without exaggeration, over 99% of all domestic federal laws are unconstitutional.
LikeLike
Politicians love passing laws. If there was no type of oversight it would be run away Congress. The Oligarchy wouldn’t even try to wide themselves in the shadows. The real problem is that SCOTUS gets to play God because THEY have no oversight. The Anti-federalist predicted much of this, but the powers that be, back then, just decided to go with it anyway. Thank God they at least got the Bill or Rights included or we would really be screwed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The people are the oversight and our founders told us not to obey unjust laws. Nullification is the answer. Not only that, but without a presidential signature, Congress can’t pass laws. Any laws that are not within the strict confines of the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8 are unconstitutional. It doesn’t leave much, domestically, to legislate on. Post offices/roads, coining money, regulating interstate trade, and patents are pretty much the gist of it.
LikeLike
If one feels that the TSA is unconstitutional what do you do when you show up to the airport? Ignore them and try to get on the plane? Fight your way through? Nope. We just keep bending over and taking it. So what recourse do we have as the people. If you try to ignore the unjust law, guess what you are going to jail. Will you fight it all of the way to the Supreme Court? Will you stage a rebellion to attempt to nullify it?
LikeLike
You get frisked. The TSA can be nullified, but states are too afraid. A single individual has little hope of taking on the entire TSA. Since the Supreme Court does not have the Constitutionally enumerated authority to interpret the Constitution, I would take nothing to them. Nullification is the way to go. The federal government can’t enforce anything that people actually stand up to in numbers, especially with a state behind them. Look how federal drug laws are not enforced in Colorado. They can’t. They are nullified.
LikeLike
Conservative judges have utterly transformed America by saying corporations are people. Where is that one in the Constitution? Hint: it isn’t there. They twisted the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect the newly freed slaves and made it protect corporate rights instead. So the corporate crooks can flood the election process with dirty money and elect puppets that care nothing for we the people. Gorsuch, Scalia and Uncle Clarence Thomas have pulled the wool over your eyes.
LikeLike
Wrong. Conservative judges have said that the 1st Amendment applies equally to corporations as it does to people because A: Corporations are in fact owned by people and B: the 1st Amendment says that Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, unless it is speech that represents a corporation.” I can’t believe how incompetent the public school system leaves you people.
LikeLike
So you think our FF wanted a nation in which billionaires and major corporations can buy our elections as conservative (aka corporatists) judges would have us believe? Now, anyone with a crazy billionaire behind them can run for President. Without that, good luck.
LikeLike
I agree. Stop George Soros and other Democrats from funding elections. Happy now? Corporations give far more to democrats, so I hope you get your greedy way. Now, back to reality. It is none of your business how other people spend their money. It is not the Federal Government’s business how anyone spends their money. Even if you are sad.
LikeLike
Taxation without representation was a decades old complaint and not what sparked the war. Gun control did that.
The federal government doesn’t have a say in who votes and never left voting only to land owners. States determine who votes and most did limit it to land owners in the beginning. New Jersey allowed women to vote.
There is no right to vote in the Constitution. Again, the federal government has zero say in who votes.
I never said you shouldn’t be able to vote if you get fired from your job. I said that people on federal entitlements shouldn’t vote. If you value your vote, don’t go on a federal entitlement. I’m not in charge of how you set your priorities, but you shouldn’t get your cake and eat it too. My money shouldn’t buy your vote.
I don’t think you understand what general welfare is. They named the entitlement program “welfare” specifically so people would think as you are right now. General welfare is not individual handouts.
Also, the Constitution makes it the responsibility of Congress to build post roads. Not railroads, not social security programs and not waterways. Post roads only. Anything else is not enumerated and when the federal government is involved is unconstitutional. Don’t put your desires over the Constitution, just because they make you feel warm and fuzzy. Public schools have mislead us for decades. We never needed any of this before, why now?
LikeLike
Nobody understands what “general welfare” is because it was never defined in the Constitution. And if it is not defined then it can be open to mean anything. The Constitution can be read two ways. 1. You can only do that which it expressly says you can do. 2. You can do anything you want unless it expressly forbids it. We, as a nation, are firmly planted in the second, but you want to stay in the first. Now the first reading may be more genuine and in keeping with “original intent” and all that, but we have strayed so far into #2 that trying to move backwards is senseless. No, move forward and make amendments to our living document so that #2 becomes redefined as #1. Set limits with clear and precise language and cut away all the rest, leave no doubt or room for “interpretation” that is the only way to save our nation from the money and corporations which have taken over. And that will only happen if We the People, make it happen.
LikeLike
Everyone knows what general welfare means and it certainly doesn’t mean individual handout. Read the federalist papers. Our founders knew the definition of words and never felt it necessary to provide morons in the 20th century and beyond with a glossary.
LikeLike
So you do want to use some type of precedent to define and interpret the Constitution. I thought it had to stand on its own with just the words in the document! It is ok to go to outside sources to help shape your opinion of what you think it says. So which sources are the only valid sources? I know I might sound a little snarky but if they meant something specific then they should have said something specific in the Constitution. You deny that the Constitution is living and say it cannot be interpreted but then you go on to outside sources to interpret the Constitution as if it was a living document which needs to be understood in a certain framework. That is fine with me, seriously. But go read the anti-federalist papers so you can get a well rounded view of the actual framework in which the Constitution was being debated.
LikeLike
I said nothing of the sort. Precedent by courts is legislation. Case law. Unconstitutional regardless of its institutionality Doing something illegal for a long time doesn’t make it legal. I said the Constitution needs no interpretation. None. Just read it. It says what it says very clearly.
LikeLike
Alexander Hamilton would disagree with you.
LikeLike
Not sure what you are referring to, but not all founders agreed on everything. They did know the definition of words. They did realize how some could become misinterpreted over time, as well and warned against it, which is how I know that welfare doesn’t mean handouts. They specifically warned against that misinterpretation.
LikeLike
It is true not all founders did agree. So which ones do we listen to? The federalists which get us pretty much in the situation we are in, or the anti-federalist who would have stayed with the Confederated States seeing and predicting all of the mess we are in today.
LikeLike
We don’t listen to the founders per se. Read the Constitution. That is what they finalized. Article 6 makes the Constitution the end all be all.
LikeLike
So you would have the Courts decide on today’s issues through the mindset of men who lived in an agrarian society in which slavery reigned, women were chattel, guns were single shot muskets, and there were no major corporations. OK. That makes sense.
LikeLike
It’s not a job for courts to decide issues. Show me in the Constitution where it empowers courts to command the people, interpret law or interpret the Constitution. Also if you think all guns were single shot muskets during the Revolutionary war, you are woefully ill informed. Many of our Founding Fathers were also inventors and scientists. Innovation and advancing technology was not something unfamiliar to them. If you are insinuating that the Founders thought muskets were the end of technology as far as arms were concerned, you are proving to be willfully ignorant.
LikeLike
You’re right. It’s not in the Constitution. That was a power grab by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.
LikeLike
People who are welfare more than three (maybe six months) in the previous 12 months) should NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE. I absolutely want that in place. However, i don’t like the image you use at the top of this article. You show a BLACK woman and a BLACK child. Are you IMPLYING that it is ONLY black people who are on welfare and/or are deadbeats? Because I live in a 99.9% black community (by choice, because I wanted to find out more about black people). These people are hardworking, God-fearing, loving family people. It is the QUIETEST neighborhood I’ve ever lived in. Why? BECAUSE all my neighbors are early to bed early to rise. Never have seen anyone doing a ‘dope deal’ here. Did have a teenage boy tell me (like teenage boys will do out of hormonal imbalance, I assume) that he ‘really wanted to smoke some weed’, at which point I gave him my card and said “when you want to learn how to program” call me, because my name is Violet WEED. But other than that, this is a great community. I know there are some welfare people here, I see them at the grocery store across the street when the ‘checks arrive’, but not many.
Welfare as a way of life DOES exist, but there’s many white and maybe two ASIANS living on welfare. (Yes, I’m a bigot. I don’t know any Asian (chinese, indian, particularly KOREAN, Japanese) people who are on welfare. They probably exist, maybe in San Francisco’s Chinatown. As for illegal aliens, some are on welfare, but most are working the JOBS THEY STOLE FROM THE LESS EDUCATED AMERICANS WHO ARE NOW ON WELFARE.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve implied nothing. Would you prefer I never show a picture with black people in it? Wouldn’t that be racist? It’s not my fault if certain stereotypes exist. Stereotypes are never free, they are earned. Perhaps the communities which have very high per capita rates of negative traits and therefore end up being stereotyped, should address the issues themselves and fix their problems.
LikeLike
I think it was you that assumed a black person pictured means “all blacks are on welfare”. If you really are as enlightened as you claim in your long winded diatribe about living in a community to learn more – perhaps you should see a mother and child in the picture instead of race??
LikeLike
So people who lose their jobs–maybe their employer shipped it off to China?–shouldn’t be allowed to vote if they need gov assistance. How about GW Bush? He was part owner of the Texas Rangers, a for profit baseball team. They got the gov to seize privately-held land, then the taxpayers were forced to pony up $100M or so to build a stadium. Bush pocketed millions. Yet, I assume you would allow him to vote, even though he has fleeced the taxpayers for way more than any so-called welfare cheat. Hmmm.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is the question of a ” poll tax”. Some liberal/Democrats/Progressives that will jump on this. The tact should be taken is welfare is in itself is a form of poll taxing for people voting who registered as Democrats. The cure should be a bona fide job is one of requirements to vote, period. Of course persons who are retired should be allowed to vote. A limit to people receiving welfare could be amount of time on welfare of the same as unemployment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, we basically pay a poll tax already. We pay taxes, so that the federal government can hand out entitlements as bribes for democrat votes. In a nut shell, we buy the votes that are cast against us and we have no choice. To me that is the worst kind of poll tax.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Political Alchemist's Blog.
LikeLike