Thursday, Dec. 8, 2016    Login | Register        

Can we keep this republic?

Terry Garlock's picture

As mid-term elections draw near, the chatter of TV news escalates in points and counter-points of the political tug-of-war. Whether you are on the left or right in the arguments, if you can set aside pre-conceived notions long enough to read this column, please consider that much of the noise completely misses the larger point.

For example, much was made of a mid-September televised town hall meeting arranged for President Obama to talk to citizens on camera. Whether you believe this CNBC event was fair in its presentation or that it was staged with a pre-selected friendly audience, you may remember how Velma Hart told the president she was exhausted in her defense of him.

Ms. Hart, a black woman, said in part to the president, “I’m a mother. I’m a wife. I’m an American veteran, and I’m one of your middle-class Americans. And quite frankly I’m exhausted. I’m exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are.”

She said, “The financial recession has taken an enormous toll on my family.” She said, “My husband and I have joked for years that we thought we were well beyond the hot-dogs-and-beans era of our lives. But, quite frankly, it is starting to knock on our door and ring true that that might be where we are headed.”

The talking heads chattered for weeks about this and other examples of unhappy citizens pleading to the president their case of personal and family travails, lost jobs and worries about paying for healthcare. While they asked each other how the president can repair the damage to public confidence in his ability to make our lives better, I wondered how the pundits could miss the larger point.

The president is not, and should not be, responsible for our individual well-being. His job is to provide for national security, see that our laws are enforced, conduct foreign policy, appoint major government functionaries and influence a legislative agenda, including policies to promote the general economic well-being.

The president does not create jobs – business does that by taking risks in hopes of making a handsome profit. Pleading an individual family case of woe to the president is just downright silly.

Of course, TV news loves the personal drama of citizens publicly heaping their suffering on a president trying to strike a patrician pose, and they keep the camera focused on him to capture every twitch of empathy so the pundits can debate whether he was sufficiently contrite and reassuring.

This recurring American farce should have a spot on Broadway.

I don’t know how long presidents have been conducting the charade of promising to make our lives better, but in 1928 Herbert Hoover’s campaign slogan was, “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.” In 1980 Ronald Reagan struck a nerve when he asked in his televised debate with President Jimmy Carter, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

A rich irony closer to home is that President Obama made “hope” a major campaign promise, and now the faithful are losing theirs. I can understand children or the mentally weak falling for a politician’s offer of hope, but any thinking adult who looks to a politician, whether Republican or Democrat, as their source of hope is in serious need of spiritual counseling or a head examination.

Two major disappointments are elements of my meandering point.

First, the news media fails to remind the public that the president’s job has limitations, that the policies he enacts to nudge economic results in one direction or another sometimes take years to show their effect, and that we citizens are responsible for pursuing our own happiness without any government guarantees.

Second, we seem to be raising generations of citizens well-educated on rights, self-esteem, gender equality and tolerance of sexual preference but wholly ignorant of our country’s history and the capitalist system that has made America the envy of the world.

And so we have earned an electorate that foolishly looks to the federal government to take care of them and solve their problems.

These are the voters who elect administrations like the present one, an administration that doesn’t understand or appreciate our own capitalist system and has become downright anti-business in its rhetoric and policy.

I have heard much about the strength and resilience of America, but our system can be broken and I worry about the dangerous combination of an ignorant electorate and irresponsible media.

In 1787, as Benjamin Franklin left Independence Hall in Philadelphia after the final day of deliberation at the close of the Constitutional Convention, he was met by a gathered crowd. There was much controversy over what shape the new government should take, and the deliberations were held in secrecy.

A lady asked Mr. Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got?”

Franklin replied, “A republic, ma’am, if you can keep it!”

The founding fathers knew very well the difference between a democracy and a republic, something I will save for a future column, and with great care they established a republic. Thomas Jefferson observed, “An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic.”

As you watch TV news and see more examples of citizens expecting the president to take care of them, ask yourself whether our citizenry is sufficiently enlightened on our form of government. Maybe you will join me in wondering, “Can we keep this republic?”

[Terry Garlock is a Certified Financial Planner. He lives in Peachtree City and writes columns occasionally for The Citizen. His email is]


PTC Observer's picture

Sadly we haven't had a Republican form of government for many many years.

We in fact have a democracy a form of government that our founders feared and attempted to avoid through the Constitution.

"We have the greatest opportunity the world has ever seen, as long as we remain honest -- which will be as long as we can keep the attention of our people alive. If they once become inattentive to public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors would all become wolves."

T. Jefferson

tgarlock's picture

. . . have been unfaithful to our intended limited government, I couldn't agree more.

I'm not a scholar on the subject, just writing my observations, but the term "republic" is rather vague since it can be used in a number of ways, and many like Madison in the Federalist Papers equate it with representative democracy, where we elect representatives to speak and vote for us in Washington, as opposed to direct democracy, which involves citizens voting directly on all significant decisions, and that nightmare might be doable with current technology. Of course the mob rule result of direct democracy was wisely feared when our country was founded, especially given the limited education so many citizens held.

If you meant that our drift has gone so far that the word republic no longer applies, I'd have to say you could be right, and tell me more.

Terry Garlock

Terry Garlock, PTC

PTC Observer's picture

Is that a Republic is defined by a limitation on the franchise. It is not one man or woman, one vote. Now I know that this concept is pretty foreign these days but back when the country was founded the vote was limited to white males with property and in some states freed men with property. Slaves, women, non-propertied whites were all excluded from the vote. This was not an unusual concept in the 18th Century; eight out of ten citizens in England during this period were not eligible to vote. So, a Republic is defined as a form of government that limits the right to vote.

No, I don’t believe that only white males with property should be the only people eligible to vote. I do believe however that the concept of a Republic has merit in today’s world. The problem with a democracy is not simply that it is mob rule but it assumes that we are all equal. The problem with an equalitarian ideal is that not all people are equal. They are born equal but each person has their own abilities through which they derive their property through their labor, and as we know from the Constitution the primary role of government is to protect individual property. But in our form of democracy those with less ability are able through the vote to deprive others of their property. The idea of a redistribution of wealth dates primarily from the early 20th century, but it has its roots in the Hamiltonian notion that the central government should control the states and all the people within the states. Clearly this was not what the founders had in mind. During the ratification process Hamilton assured states in the Federalist Papers that he agreed that states would always have primacy over the central government. Once ratified he immediately worked to use the Constitution as a tool to consolidate centralized power and usurp the power of the states. In other words he was dishonest and without honor. He proved this throughout his life, but that’s another story.

So what’s the answer? If we could somehow return to a Republican form of government the most logical way to restrict the vote would be to not allow those that derive their income from government to vote. It is a conflict of interest. What rational person would not vote to increase their wealth at the expense of others? So, who would be excluded? People who work for companies that have contracts with the government, all government workers state, local, or national would lose their vote. Military personnel would lose their vote. I know this is an emotional point but as you well know in past the vote was lost when you joined the military and this was changed after the Second World War. It wasn't until the early 1960's that officers started voting as they still felt it was honorable not to vote. All elected servants and their staff would be excluded. If people wanted to vote they would simply have to find a company that did not do business with the government.

This would put the power of the vote back into the hands of the people that create incremental wealth and it would restore some sanity to the out of control spending we have seen since 1913. It would also stop redistribution.

Hope this clears up what I meant.

tgarlock's picture

. . . a republic as a form of government that limits the right to vote. That could be one style of republic, but the broad definition of republic is a system of electing a non-monarch government through representatives of individual citizens. Ours is described interchangeably as a democratic republic or representative democracy, though it has morphed from the original as you pointed out, and the fools in Washington have long ago pushed the Constitutional limits aside.

Your point about limiting who can vote is certain to make some knees jerk, but it's an interesting notion worthy of exploration. Of course in the PC world in which we live everybody would run from the idea. I have often thought while politicians blather about new ways to make it easier to vote, I would prefer to make it harder to vote if there were a way to screen voters to weed out the ones who don't know who the candidates are, much less the issues involved. The consensus is that the goal is more voters, but consensus is overrated; I would say a higher percentage of SERIOUS voters should be the goal.

Terry Garlock

Terry Garlock, PTC

Yes, that is how I feel also! We need to limit voters by stricter qualifications---somewhat like we used to have.
A voter should be able to read and write, look like a real American, be serious about voting---know the issues like Ms. O'Donnell and Mrs. Palin do, and all should be quizzed at the door to the polling place as to who they are going to vote for and why! They need to be able to name all running.

They should be able to give a serious explanation about all the serious issues they will vote on and how they will vote. No one is to wear a hood however. Georgia's poll workers should be from New Jersey and do the quizzing.

Not all citizens are equal and some are so dumb that they will even vote for socialism. If they come to the polls in a limo or on a bus, they are to be automatically disqualified.

The poll tax must be reinstated except the fee should be the amount of the average Social Security check---somewhere around $1000 + per voting date.

All voters should have sufficient assets to qualify to vote. A voter with nothing to lose might vote for just anyone! If they are conservatives it will be assumed that they have more assets than debts, except for bankers and developers and insurance employees.

It should be "easier" to vote for most people. If the vote were to be cast by Internet, it should be done only on a 52" HD SONY, or better, and the password should be the name of the current head of the Republican Party and his net worth in pounds! (as of that morning).

New suits and armani ties must be worn with polished shoes (on their feet not on their ties!) They must act with suitable decorum anywhere they can be seen and have an IQ of at least 180 as determined by the Atlanta schools erased tests people. Must show the unerased card!

No biased person can not be allowed to vote. If you are drawing welfare, on a federal pension (except military), getting food stamps or low rent supplements, and have been caught with a tail light out, you can not vote.

If you have never flown a helicopter or took off from a carrier deck, you can not vote until you do and parachute into the water!

We must also change the name from democracy to republicracy to avoid all the voting confusion.

PTC Observer's picture

"a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government."

Key word is "entitled", we of course restrict the vote today based on age and citizenship.

Yes, you can call it a representative governnment if you wish but it is a "right" to vote that we should focus on. There is nothing like self interest to get people to pay attention to the issues and candidates. Today many have simply given up on the political process and thereby given up the process to theives. They have given up because their vote makes no difference. Your idea to keep people from voting by making it harder is not the answer, the only answer is to return to the Republican ideal and ration the vote to those that produce.

We are closer to a theocracy with the gods in washington delving out from their looted booty entitlements to their subjects. Worshiping at the altar of redistribution. The masses don't seem to care what the form of government is as long as they get a piece of the pie, the fact that the pie was stolen is irrelevant to them. Who is John Galt? Pray for us all. -GP

Observerofu's picture

then you are just another drive by American.

But then again that is how we got this President. Most of the people that voted in 08 had fallen for the "Hopey Changey" stuff. Few actually looked at who and what Obama was and what he really stood for. Granted McCain was no better, but an uninformed voter is no less a danger to our Republic then say Iran is.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

[quote]I would say a higher percentage of SERIOUS voters should be the goal.[/quote]

Informed voter should be the goal. Some very serious voters are misinformed.

tgarlock's picture

. . . informed is a better goal, just as Jefferson observed.

Terry Garlock

Terry Garlock, PTC

No more falling for catchy slogans, like ...."Hope and Change" -GP

A more anti-business government that the one we have now. Their policies are so destructive the question has to be asked, are they that out of touch or is it intentional? Vore for Freedom Nov 2nd. -GP

On Meet the Press, White House Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "there's an excitment about what this President is trying to do."

Fred Thompson, former U.S. Senator: "Yeah, just like there is excitment when someone drives the wrong way down a one-way street." Which made me think.....November 2nd, Pit Maneuver!!! -GP

Fred Thompson is now selling reverse mortgages to old people who can't eat and pay for medicine! (So is Fonzie).

They will give their kid's heritage to the financial institutions who pay Fred!
He is is real DUDE, Fred is. Kinda Reagan-est in speech, but a little fuzzy mind just like his mentor! "tear down that wall," does anyone think the Russians even heard that? They were glad to get rid of a devastated East Germany---ruining West Germany!

Reagan wasn't Moses, coming down from the mountain with tablets! He was a bought man-=-=--General Electric.

It's easier to call you 'crazy' and/or 'nuts' - than to acknowledge that there is so much truth in what you say about the current controversy regarding our politics. The excitement that Fred Thomas generated was null and void. No more LAW AND ORDER for him! Reagan was a charming 'B' actor who was used by the Republican Party. He never got over being upstaged by Jane Wyman - an Oscar winning actress. . .and he was fortunate enough to marry Nancy Reagan - who protected him fiercely.

It's so much fun to watch you libs floppin' and flailing as your miserable party goes right down the tubes. All you have left are meaningless insults to dead people.


They are musket toting patriots come back to life to reclaim the republic. Cloaked in the Constitution but if you give an example of where they are misguided; they attack the author. They find a patron saint in Ayn Rand who was an intellectual elitist and would have scoffed at their populist movement. Most are against a society of Shiria law but want to impose their own theocracy. They want “character” in candidates but overlook the failing of their own. We must be a Christian nation because the Constitution does not provide for a separation of church & state. They want to ride their motorcycles w/out a helmet & no way can you make ME have health insurance. Nevermind when they crack their skull… they will take care of that $1 mil bill. It’s all a leaderless hodge-podge & how dare you be against “their” Constitution, their religion & apple pie. I just want to know, Are O’Donnell & Palin riding their brooms on Saturday or Halloween?

But Brooms will be used to sweep some of the communist trash from the US House and Senate! -GP

I'm curious as to why you believe that the Obama administration is "anti-Business".

and as member of the US Chamber of commerce, National Federation of Independent Business and the BBB, I will give you a few brief examples: Obama's blend of Keynesian economics/Marxism is the problem. "Spreading the wealth around" and taxing the "rich" are psychologically damaging the business environment. By letting the Bush tax cuts expire he shows a lack of knowlege of how job creation (employment) works. By drastically expanding government thru czars and regulations he shows further lack. By attempting to take away the secret ballot (thru card check), he shows loyalty (payback?) to Unions insted of business. By attacking the US Chamber of Commerce he shows further contempt. Basically in a nutshell all of the rules and regulations are creating an evironment which makes the United States a less attractive place to invest and create jobs than places in Europe, Asia, etc. Jobs are leaving. Those that have the financial ability are leaving or retiring. God Bless America, Pray, we need a Miracle. -GP

You belong to all of the worst organizations that make it necessary for all those who don't to fend for themselves!
Keynesian theories (all are theories) is useful when needed only, it is now needed to a small degree--even less than salvaging the banks and autos and AIGs! (All members same as you).

Why on earth do you want to steal from the revenue (Corporate and rich) as he did, again?
Is there some advantage to business in that I don't know about?
I can assure you of this: It can not and will not create EIGHT MILLION jobs, even in ten years!

Only Keynesian can hope to do that in five.

Anyway, it is not the President's job to create jobs....that is your job!
Let him stop useless wars, promote trade, propose budgets for congress approval, and appoint officials!

As to his suggested approval of unions (President) he cares little for so few people anymore who have strong unions! I could care less if the teachers have unions. The sweepers and clean up ladies need one!

I do suggest that you take your "financial ability," and leave us an go someplace where maybe you can say God Bless America for the money, but I REALLY like Swiss Banks, and banking Islands off Mexico's south.

I can have numerous servants there very cheaply.

Cyclist's picture

<strong>Anyway, it is not the President's job to create jobs</strong>

Has anyone told Obama, Pelosi and Reid of this?

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I will be working on a shovel ready stimulas job OOPS looks like that was another lie. Wonder how all the spending will be paid for. Remember, government can not create wealth, only spend money it taxes(robs) or just print it, but there are consequences to that. -GP

I suspect that Limbaugh finances this outfit!
They are the ones from which you got the information.

More crap: President Obama is not Christian; he is not a citizen; he is a reform Socialist; he lies; and of course "shovel ready" is no good for the USA.

The personnel behind this sad little publication do not list themselves at all. They just ask for donations.

If anything will bring this country down it is the radical radio and such publications as Sad Hill and ignorant people.

We still have the flat-earthers; the nobody went to the moonies; all Muslims are terrorist people; Congregationalists--who make their own rules as necessary; bigots, racists, televangelists; hypocrites; born ignorants; polarized groups; and those who don't care what might be reasonable!

EVERY time religion of any sort is involved or runs a government it has severe troubles---has for centuries.
Christians and Muslims have been at it since 1000 at least.

Hindus and such don't care what we do as we are heathens.

the lame street media: After many years of experience I now judge people by their friends/actions/policies and not so much by their words. Obama has surrounded himself with radicals and marxist's and his policies seem to be based on worldwide redistribution of wealth. This book explains a lot -GP

Government Can Not Save Us!!! Personally I have had to lay off many workers. Wake up. The private sector which is under attack creates JOBS!!! Apparently you would have everyone work for the government. Here is a simple analogy for understanding why the socialist system we've had since 1933 does not work:
There are two people, each on a hospital gurney. Person #2 can not produce his own blood, so from time to time blood has been taken from person #1 and given to him. At first, this is fine and there is no problem since the amounts required are minimal. Yet, over time the amounts taken from #1 become greater and greater. Person #1 soon has more blood taken from him than his body can replace. He gets ill, his organs start shutting down, and before too long he dies.

The blood, of course, is money. Person #2 is the government which does not produce "value" (i.e., profit, wealth). Person #1 is the private sector, which, if left unmolested, can produce more than ample amounts of profit. The problem we now face, with our corporate taxes (of 35%) the second highest in the world, is that body #1 is beyond the point where it can give anymore blood. In fact, it is hemorrhaging and on the verge of death - as evidenced by the recent financial collapse. The crises we now face are not problems of capitalism, but the inherent problem with socialism, i.e. the growth of government and its interference in markets. Still, the mass of ignorant Americans are being led to believe that this is a crisis of capitalism. It is not.

You say that the "private sector" is under attack." That is the reason we hove 8-9 million less jobs, I assume?

Were they "under attack" during the 2000s? No, they were allowed to expand mercilessly on credit--even making up products to sell on credit!

Great, huge, unbelievable amounts were robbed from ignorant believing people, which has all, but what they were able to store away, reduced the value of all real estate and savings, forever.

The same crap was done by Reagan who overspent by trillions. The Defense Industrial Complex ate all that.

Independent voters are all that can now be trusted.

November 2 will tell the story.

It looks like they will be coming after the Home Mortgage deduction next what gets me is the psycological use of verbage/propaganda, you keeping more of the money you have earned is considered "lost revenue" for them. We are going to be hit by estate taxes , and the alternate minimum tax and your health insurance being taxed as income will suprise even more people: It aint pretty folks. Eventually it will hit home with everyone. -GP

The conservatives will win enough seats along with the nutty TEAS to stop such foolishness.
I'll bet they even put 8 million to work in their two years that President Obama couldn't do!

Of course they can't give them jobs paid for with taxes now can they?

But where will they work? In the Health field? (can't afford that) In Manufacturing? (there are no factories) In Banks? (they are broke--local ones anyway)
In Restaurants? (can't afford them) In call centers? (no money there) In Retail? (selling what extra) Pilots? (takes too long to train) Doctors? (that is going to happen anyway)

I know, they will cut the budget ACROSS THE BOARD 20%! (mostly in welfare, social security, military (can't do that), aid to Georgia and other states (no way Hosea), I just don't know where they are going to get that much!!!!

Then 5 million more will be looking for a job, won't they?

After the progressive/socialists/marxist's destroy free enterprise, there will not be anywhere to work. Where will all the government funding come from then? Tax the rich more? There won't be any rich to tax. Raise the tax on middle class? There won't be a middle class. We have not learned from history. Socialism always fails, but sometimes only after totally destroying free enterprise. -GP

Am I to understand that if republicans were in charge all of the time we wouldn't have our current problems?

Then by all means let us put them in and see!

If only Reagan hadn't taught them how to borrow money and NOT raise taxes, George wouldn't have known how! He even added a reduction in income to the government thinking it would develop immeasurable progress---it didn't.

as a big government, Bush republican, I am not. I am not ashamed of my beleifs, so here are a few: I am a Libertarian leaning Conservative, in case you really feel the need to classify me. I believe Honesty and Integrity should be prerequisites for any elected offical. I support the Fairtax. I am pro-life Christian. I believe in a pro-business small responsible government with balanced budgets . Now tell me what you believe in. -GP

I assume you see President Obama as the leader of those progressives/socialists/marxists (your label looks like something off of Glenn Beck's blackboard) determined to destroy "free enterprise" a.k.a. corporate control of America.

In his attempt to destroy "free enterprise" Obama has bailed out and saved the American auto industry, bailed out and saved the American banking industry, provided aid to small businesses, and enacted health insurance reform which will ultimately relieve businesses from the burden of being health care insurers.

Only the nutty right wing could see Obama as some type of dangerous socialist.


You see bailing out and saving, I see government takeover of the private sector. Unions getting ownership before the real owners (preferred stockholders). You will have to enlighten me on the aid Obama provided to small business, did your company receive some of that? Did that come from his private stash, I must have missed that one. As far as health care, do you know of any country with government health care that even comes close to our private system in quality and availability? Name one. With this unconstitutional healthcare takeover, insurance companies will cease to write policies and government/single payer will have to come to the resue. Our great quality healthcare will then be destroyed. And yes he is, as all other socialists are, very dangerous. -GP

I always like that somehow Clinton, the gov of a somewhat conservative state (the state voted for a Rep. gov, '66, before Nixon's Southern Strategy)& the president that left office w/ a surplus is a leftist. Somehow being "progressive" on social issues negates any fisical responsibility. The party of TR, Winthrop & Nelson Rockefeller & all the other "progressives" is no more.

The ill-advised Bush tax cuts were always temporary in nature.

I don't see how anyone could honestly refer to the expiration of a temporary tax cut as a "tax increase".

Here's a real-world example:
Each year the Coca-cola company cuts the prices of its soft drink products by as much as 50% over the Labor Day weekends.

Most people would simply enjoy the temporary price reductions. A few dyspeptic people, however, would choose to denigrate the Coca-cola folks for their massive price increases in their products once the sale was over. Both sides are technically correct.

and is on life support. The Doctor rushes into the ER and says "quick nurse, get me a syringe, I need to take out more blood". Does this make sense to you? Well, it makes about as much sense as raising/increasing taxes in this economy. You can argue terms/semantics, as a matter of fact you can call the expiration of tax cuts anything you want, the fact is it will still hurt this economy. -GP

No one is stopping you and all of your liberal bed-wetting friends from paying more taxes. If you feel that strongly about it - go ahead. The government will take it - all you have to do is send them a check.

If you feel that strongly about it, what's stopping you? (or are you full of nothing but hot air and empty promises like all liberals?)

Silly Joe, nobody likes paying higher taxes. Unfortunately, there's this thing called "responsibility" which I realize is a foreign concept to America-hating Jesus-renouncing Military-spitting pseudoconservatives such as yourself.

I've got no problem whatsoever with letting all the ill-advised Bush tax cuts expire. Letting those tax cuts expire is an important first step towards fiscal responsibility.

is created by the private sector, not government. This reminds me of the boy cutting open the belly of the goose to find out where the golden eggs were coming from. -GP

The Founders must be Spinning in their Graves!!!

PTC Observer's picture

put no restriction on the states concerning voting rights, these restrictions came later as the result of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery and were appropriate, see the 15th Amendment further extended by the 1964 Voting Rights Act. Then the 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments.

General state voting requirements are covered under the 10th Amendment.

With that said, the Founders are certainly turning in their graves; however, they are turning for numerous other reasons.

All states require an individual to be a U.S. citizen in order to vote in state or federal elections. I still say they are spinning. -GP

The "founders," wealthy Englishmen who were Deists--not Christians, did not write a perfect "Nation organization" chart!
It mainly kicked out the British Empire (after a war with them over a long supply line.)

They were traitors to the British, patriots to the new country they hoped to rule. And did a long time.

I saw no mention of Indian rights, slaves rights, women's rights, but a lot about landowners rights!

Maybe you think that is the way it should have stayed, but not us!

Cyclist's picture

From Georgia Patriot's link:

<strong>Abdirizak Daud, 40, moved to Minneapolis 18 years ago before coming to Portland in 2006. He hasn't been able to find a job. Some of his nine children have attended Portland schools, and he'd like to have a say in who's looking over the school system and the city, he said.</strong>

Let me guess.........a democrat.

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I'd say that he can't vote, wouldn't you?

However, it is likely that he utilizes some democratic assistance since he wouldn't have a prayer of getting anything from conservatives!

He is probably human in spite of his name! Bet those kids will be scientists!

Cyclist's picture

illegal’s have been voting for sometime. Google "B1 Bob" and read about the illegal’s that voting against him in his re-election bid back in the '80s.

It seems to me that giving non-citizens the right to vote cheapens the very reason of being a citizen.

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

will be working for the government, because that is all that will be left!!! -GP

Heck, we liberals do not want to pay more taxes.

We want to go where the money is--tax the wealthy or sort of wealthy until they squeal and then tax them some more. And if you make more than $200,000 per year, Obama and we Democrats want more of your money. Better keep your hands on your bank account.



Ad space area 4 internal