Tea Party Leader In Favor of Voter Restrictions.... - 2010-12-02 5:12 AM
, For the landed Gentry only?...
http://gawker.com/5702830/tea-party-lead...-a-lot-of-sense
I knew the Tea Party would start fracturing or just become the conservative wing of the republican party after the election, but this is a bit much...
Tea Party Leader: Restricting Voting to Property Owners 'Makes a Lot of Sense'
Judson Phillips, president of prominent Tea Party group Tea Party Nation, has a terrific idea: "The Founding Fathers... put certain restrictions on... the right to vote... you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense."
Like a lot of people, I was pretty worried that after The Tea Party won the November elections and executed President Obama for treason, they'd stop peddling their bizarre, antiquated views of government in public. But I was wrong! Because Judson Phillips is out there, fighting the good fight for the landed gentry, on the Tea Party Nation radio station:
The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn't you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you're a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you're not a property owner, you know, I'm sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.
That whole property owners-only deal worked out pretty well back in the nineteenth century, didn't it? I mean, if you were a property owner! If you weren't (or if you were female, or black) well, no, it probably did not make so much sense, to you. But who cares what you think! How on earth could you have a vested interest in your community if you are renting, or, say, homeless?
So why not just add this proposal to the bizarre movement to repeal the 17th amendment, which would end the direct election of Senators? Hell, why not repeal all the amendments? And let's get a king in here, too! He'd look after the property-owners.
[ThinkProgress]
http://gawker.com/5702830/tea-party-lead...-a-lot-of-sense
I knew the Tea Party would start fracturing or just become the conservative wing of the republican party after the election, but this is a bit much...
Tea Party Leader: Restricting Voting to Property Owners 'Makes a Lot of Sense'
Judson Phillips, president of prominent Tea Party group Tea Party Nation, has a terrific idea: "The Founding Fathers... put certain restrictions on... the right to vote... you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense."
Like a lot of people, I was pretty worried that after The Tea Party won the November elections and executed President Obama for treason, they'd stop peddling their bizarre, antiquated views of government in public. But I was wrong! Because Judson Phillips is out there, fighting the good fight for the landed gentry, on the Tea Party Nation radio station:
The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn't you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you're a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you're not a property owner, you know, I'm sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.
That whole property owners-only deal worked out pretty well back in the nineteenth century, didn't it? I mean, if you were a property owner! If you weren't (or if you were female, or black) well, no, it probably did not make so much sense, to you. But who cares what you think! How on earth could you have a vested interest in your community if you are renting, or, say, homeless?
So why not just add this proposal to the bizarre movement to repeal the 17th amendment, which would end the direct election of Senators? Hell, why not repeal all the amendments? And let's get a king in here, too! He'd look after the property-owners.
[ThinkProgress]