Government watchdog Judicial Watch announces it’s settled with the state of California and Los Angeles County to clear as many as 1.5 million inactive names from its voter rolls. One America’s Jack Posobiec sat down with Tom Fitton to learn more.
This bill only demonstrates the hypocrisy of these Communist Democrats. On the one hand, they want to lower the voting age to 16 and on the other, they want to raise the age of a person being able to purchase a rifle to 21!
Washington, D.C. Democrat Council Member Charles Allen introduced legislation that would lower the age to vote to 16 in the 2020 elections for both local and federal elections.
Democrats are in panic mode as they are losing their grip on reality every day. Still, the latest push by the March For Our Lives Communists have probably spurred this bill forward.
The typical sixteen-year-old in America works, drives and may even be responsible for caring for younger siblings or family members, so why can’t they vote? More than one politician in D.C. thinks they should be able to.
D.C. council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6) introduced legislation on April 10th that would lower the voting age to 16 in the 2020 federal and local elections. Allen said he was inspired by the high schoolers leading the March For Our Lives initiative, and seven of 13 D.C. council members support the legislation.
Well, on the surface, I would almost agree. There are many 16-year-olds who do those things, but there are many who simply don’t. There is also a part of me that wants to side with those who do because, after all, they are paying taxes from their paychecks, and possibly property taxes on cars they may own along with taxes on virtually everything they purchase. So, in that sense, a part of me thinks they should have a say in that.
However, understanding how our education system is and the fact that these teens also, for the most part, live at home with mom and dad, then their parents speak on their behalf, and so this is where I draw the line.
Multiple votes in households is counterproductive. Obviously, the head of the home should be the one that represents the family and gives a voice for the family in the political sphere.
The voting age really doesn’t need to be lowered or raised. What we need is an educated populace that is not spoon fed by a complicit media and the two-party system, something our founders warned about.
On Wednesday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo decided to unilaterally allow parolees in New York State to vote in elections. The legislature had voted down such a measure just a few weeks ago. Speaking at Al Sharpton’s National Action Network conference in New York City, Cuomo stated, “In this state, when you’re released from prison and you’re on parole, you still don’t have the right to vote. Now how can that be? You did your time. You paid your debt. You’re released, but you still don’t have a right to vote.”
The executive order suddenly allows 36,000 additional voters, presumably all of whom will pull the lever for Cuomo. More than half of those voters live within New York City, The New York Post reports.
Now, this is rather convenient. What would we think of a foreign dictator who, in order to shore up his electoral prospects, simply declared that a class of people who had not been made eligible to vote by the legislature could vote — and oust those members of the legislature? We’d think that pretty corrupt. This sort of activity also lends credence to Republican complaints about Democratic views of illegal immigration — namely, many Republicans believe that Democrats are in favor of more illegal immigration because once in power, Democrats will simply legalize those immigrants for purposes of changing voting demographics.
It’s also rather obvious that Cuomo is making this move in order to placate his left wing base, which has been increasingly enchanted with former “Sex and the City” star Cynthia Nixon. Cuomo doesn’t face a serious threat from Nixon, but he can’t afford to lose his base to an enthusiastic outsider, the way Hillary Clinton did to Bernie Sanders.
In any case, this is foolish policy. The idea of parole is that we do not fully trust you to participate in civic life — if we did, you wouldn’t be on parole. The natural effect of removing the penalties of lawbreaking while on parole would be to increase jail sentences in order to keep those we don’t trust from voting. The whole point of parole is that it’s a trial period for re-entering society on the fullest level.
But when there’s political hay to be made, don’t look to politicians for decent or moral policy.