Posted: November 10, 2010
6:32 pm Eastern
Ann Coulter
Jimmy Carter was such an abominable president we got Ronald Reagan, tax cuts, a booming economy and the destruction of the Soviet Union.
Two years of Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress got us the first Republican Congress in half a century, followed by tax cuts, welfare reform and a booming economy – all of which Clinton now claims credit for.
Obama's disastrous presidency has already produced Republican senators from Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Illinois; New Jersey's wonder-governor Chris Christie; and the largest House majority for Republicans since 1946.
We deserve more. Clinton only threatened to wreck the health-care system; Obama actually did it. We must repeal the 26th Amendment.
Adopted in 1971 at the tail end of the Worst Generation's anti-war protests, the argument for allowing children to vote was that 18-year-olds could drink and be conscripted into the military, so they ought to be allowed to vote.
But 18-year-olds aren't allowed to drink anymore. We no longer have a draft. In fact, while repealing the 26th Amendment, we ought to add a separate right to vote for members of the military, irrespective of age.
As we have learned from Obamacare, young people are not considered adults until age 26, at which point they are finally forced to get off their parents' health-care plans. The old motto was: "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote." The new motto is: "Not old enough to buy your own health insurance, not old enough to vote."
Eighteen- to 26-year-olds don't have property, spouses, children or massive tax bills. Most of them don't even have jobs because the president they felt so good about themselves for supporting wrecked the economy.
The meager tax young people paid for vehicle licensing fees on their cars threw them into such a blind rage that in 2003 they uncharacteristically voted to recall the Democratic governor of California, Gray Davis. Wait until they start making real money and realize they share a joint-checking account arrangement with the government! Literally wait. Then we'll let them vote.
Having absolutely no idea what makes their precious cars run, by the way, young voters are the most likely to oppose offshore drilling.
How about 10-year-olds? Why not give them the vote?
Then we'd have politicians wooing voters with offers of free Justin Bieber tickets instead of offers of a "sustainable planet" or whatever hokum the youth have swallowed hook, line and sinker from their teachers, pop culture idols and other authority figures. (Along with their approved-by-the-authorities "Question Authority" bumper stickers.)
Like 18-year-olds, the 10-year-olds would be sublimely unaware that they're the ones who will be footing the bill for all these "free" goodies, paying and paying until they die of old age.
Brain research in the last five years at Dartmouth and elsewhere has shown that human brains are not fully developed until age 25 and are particularly deficient in their frontal lobes, which control decision-making, rational thinking, judgment, the ability to plan ahead and to resist impulses.
Unfortunately, we didn't know that in 1971. Those of you who have made it to age 26 without dying in a stupid drinking game – and I think congratulations are in order, by the way – understand how insane it is to allow young people to vote.
It would almost be tolerable if everyone under the age of 30 just admitted they voted for Obama because someone said to them, "C'mon, it's really cool! Everyone's doing it!"
We trusted them, and now we know it was a mistake.
True, Reagan tied with Carter for the youth vote in 1980 and stole younger voters from Mondale in 1984, but other than that, young voters have consistently embarrassed themselves. Of course, back when Reagan was running for president, young voters consisted of the one slice of the population completely uninfected by the Worst Generation. Today's youth are the infantilized, pampered, bicycle-helmeted children of the Worst Generation.
They foisted this jug-eared, European socialist on us and now they must be punished. Voters aged 18 to 29 years old comprised nearly a fifth of the voting population in 2008, and they voted overwhelmingly for Obama, 66 percent to 31 percent.
And it only took 12 to 14 years of North Korean-style brainwashing to make them do it! At least their teachers haven't brainwashed them into burning books or ratting out their parents to the Stasi yet. (Of course, before teaching them book-burning, at least their professors would be forced to teach them what a book is.)
It would make more sense to give public school teachers and college professors 20 votes apiece than to allow their impressionable students to vote.
The Re-Education Camp Effect can be seen in how these slackers living at home on their parents' health insurance voted in the middle of the Republican tidal wave this year. Youths aged 18-29 voted for the Democrats by 16 points. But the kids aged 18-24 – having just received an A in professor Ward Churchill's college class on American Oppression – voted for the Democrats by a whopping 19 points.
Young people voted for Obama as a fashion statement. One daughter of a friend of a friend of mine spent her whole college summer in 2008 working at a restaurant and then, with teary eyes, sent everything she made to the Obama campaign.
Luckily, she doesn't have to worry about paying for tuition, rent or food. Or property taxes, electric bills, plumbers and electricians. After being exploited by the left, she'll end up paying for it for the rest of her life, with interest.
Liberals fight tooth-and-nail to create an electorate disposed to vote Democratic by, for example, demanding that felons and illegal aliens be given the vote. But it's at least possible that illegal aliens and criminals pay taxes or have fully functioning frontal lobes.
Republicans ought to fight for their own electorate, which at a minimum ought to mean voters with fully functioning brains and the possibility of a tax bill. Not old enough to buy your own health insurance, not old enough to vote.
No doubt, lots of 18 to 20 year olds are pretty clueless and easily swayed by blarney - but that is true of the age group regardless of whether or not they served in the military or any other general experience they may have had. I have known and observed a great number of young people in the armed services. Most of them are just as clueless as others in their age group, and thus I see nothing to support the argument that their military experience should give them special privileges regarding voting (no matter how admirable the desire to serve their country may have been on the part of some of them). I certainly would not want the country run by that group. Would you?
Here's an idea: How about a simple test of basic history and the principles of the Declaration of independence and the U.S. Constitution which must be passed before a vote will be allowed? Nothing extreme, just very simple. I mean, if someone does not know that the foundational Declaration of Independence stated that we were endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by our Creator, does not know that our Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, religion and the right to keep and bear arms, does not know the answer to simple questions such as how many states there are or whether of not the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico are states or not, why should they have a right to vote? I would especially include these three questions:
True of false: The first paragraph of the Declaraion of Independence upon which this country was founded contains the following text:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
True or false: The second paragraph of the Declaraion of Independence upon which this country was founded begins as follows:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
The Federal Reserve Bank is owed and operated by:
A. The United States government
B. Privately owned by international and domestic banks
Three simple questions which every American over the age of 18 should know the answer to, but most don't. If they did, we might see some real changes in this country and politics might become meaningful instead of the smoke and mirrors charade that has everyone thinking that party affiliation makes all the difference - and allows people to get caught up in mindless and jingoistic dribble by the likes of Coulter which only further obscures what is really going on behind the red and blue doors.
If they did, we might see some real changes in this country and politics might become meaningful instead of the smoke and mirrors charade that has everyone thinking that party affiliation makes all the difference -
You are both off the mark as far as I'm concerned. The system is responsible for the two party system, and while there are some on the lower end of the IQ scale that vote that way, neither having been in the military, or answering your 3 questions has any bearing on a thoughtful vote for individual candidates based on their voting record, or their commitment to the individual issues at hand.
Until the voting system is made free of fraud from dead people voting, the military not getting their ballots on time, voter machine fraud, people voting twice or more, voter intimidation, and voters not vetted to ascertain elgibility can we hope to make any progress in a legitimate vote.
That would be a good start, but not the end all. Then there is the issue of special interest money. Nowhere is that truer than right here in Colorado. Micheal Bennet benefited in numerous ways in his bid for a senate seat. First the president spent taxpayers money to come to Colorado to stump for Bennet. Why?, because Bennet voted for every lame azz bill that NoBama wanted passed. Included was the stimulus bill that gave billions to the banks. In return Bennet was the bankers choice for campaign funds. I read where the Colorado Senate race was the most expensive in the nation. $40 million dollars was spent by Bennet. This comment says it best
"Here's how Colorado citizens view Michael Bennet: A sleazy, lying, mud-slinging, lack of integrity, pockets-lined-with-special-interest IOUs, shameless, politician. He did what was required: sold his soul to the money-laden DC special interests in order to get elected. How he can look his sweet little daughters in the eyes and explain what he and his supporters did was right and ethical takes a special kind of human being. You usually find them in Dante's pit. I'm ashamed that my early contributions to him ended up in the $50 million pot of money he used to blast his opponent through negative and false advertising -- and still, voters have no idea what he stands for." http://tinyurl.com/2fydkm4
Sometimes Anne Coulter makes me want to repeal the 1st Amendment
Sounds like a personal thing, wouldn't it be better just to quit reading her?
The system is responsible for the two party system
Yeah, and the system has been engineered. Sounds like a personal thing, wouldn't it be better just to quit reading her?
Maybe you could put a warning in the message title go save me some trouble? While you're at it, maybe you could do the same for the bag of wind Limbaugh too. Neo-con tools both.
As far as my questions, are you saying that it is just fine for someone to vote who knows nothing of our country, the foundations in the Declaration of Independence it was founded on, or the Constitution which our country is supposed to be governed by - just so long as they find a politician's sound byte campaign messages appealing? That is the kind of reasoning that gave us NoBama.
Maybe you could put a warning in the message title go save me some trouble? While you're at it, maybe you could do the same for the bag of wind Limbaugh too. Neo-con tools both.
I will endeavor to make it easier for you to close your mind to those two, but have to remind you that more often than not I am multitasking and... well yesterdays political post on the news forum is a perfect example of what sometimes happens.
I have to tell you though that closing your mind to any news just because you don't like the personality, or the persons political bent is not a good idea. You may miss something.
As far as my questions, are you saying that it is just fine for someone to vote who knows nothing of our country, the foundations in the Declaration of Independence it was founded on, or the Constitution which our country is supposed to be governed by - just so long as they find a politician's sound byte campaign messages appealing? That is the kind of reasoning that gave us NoBama. I'm saying that a intelligent thought process that has no bearing on military time, or knowledge of the Constitution is paramount in choosing a candidate based on his past voting record, and/or person thoughts about the issues. If a person has voting rights, he should have a gist of what the constitution is about. Regardless, he/she is already here, and ready to vote. A well thought out vote trumps any voting qualification anybody can bring up. A politicians appealing sound bytes can't possibly be grounds for voting for somebody like NoBama. The voter that made the effort to the intelligent vote process couldn't have possibly missed the following facts that would kept them from voting for NoBama. His missing documents. His Muslim upbringing. His relationship with ACORN, and The Ayer's His lack of political experience Anti American statements made by both he and his wife at ACORN, and other functions. The list goes on. The not so thought out fell for the "Yes we can", and "Change". That is what elected NoBama.