I saw today this advertisement for the PBS show Block the Vote and a book it talks about called Stealing Democracy. It's really easy to infer the political slant of the author of the book. Note the statistics listed for Kentucky:
1998: Because former felons are denied their right to vote, U.S. Republican Senator Jim Bunning ekes out a narrow victory, winning by only 6,766 votes (Kentucky banned 94,584 former offenders from voting).
Kentucky is one of only four democratic systems in the world that ban voting by all former offenders for life.
1984: Had former felons who had completed their sentences been allowed to vote, U.S. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell would likely have lost the tightly contested Senate race.
The voting of felons has been an overused issue by liberals for years. Note the author's assumption that had felons been allowed to vote, they would vote enmasse for the liberal candidate. No wonder they want that right restored to felons.
But what's the the problem behind that law? Felons already lose at least a couple of rights. The right to freely go anywhere they wish (by being imprisoned) and the right to keep or spend their money as they wish (by being fined). Voting is a third right to consider by a felon BEFORE they commit the crime. Something being a "right" does not necessarily mean you get to keep it after committing a crime.
Also, note a couple of statistics from Florida:
Florida is one of only four democratic systems in the world that ban voting by all former offenders for life.
2000: Had former felons who had completed their sentences been allowed to vote, Al Gore would have won Florida (and thus the presidency) by about 31,000 votes.
Again, the same assumption that felons vote liberally. These were 2 of the 5 statistics listed for Florida. None of the 5 listed the Gore campaign's blocking of the military vote. Doesn't that fact also influence the stealing of democracy?
-Colonel Steve
Recent Comments