Get PJ Media on your Apple

Unexamined Premises

Rap sheet? No problem!

Rap sheet? No problem!

The criminal organization that masquerades as a political party — that would be the Democratic Party, for those new to this racket — is now transforming itself into a criminal organization that masquerades as… a criminal organization! It’s just that they’re now calling ex-cons “returned citizens,” as in “returned from the Big House,” not that once-in-a-lifetime trip to Paris. It’s like TNR for humans, minus the “neuter” part! The Washington Post reports on the ongoing shenanigans in its home town:

Above an official portrait of Mayor Vincent C. Gray, crisp silver lettering spells out a welcome to one of the shiniest new places in D.C. government — the Office on Returning Citizen Affairs. And on a flier lying nearby: “YOU CAN LEGALLY VOTE!” The bustling facility is designed solely for convicted criminals, a center for training, job placement, housing services and other programs for a slice of the population growing by thousands each year. Ex-offenders account for at least one in 10 D.C. residents and perhaps many more. That makes them a potentially pivotal, if uncertain, voting bloc — and a highly coveted target that no political campaign has ignored in the tightening April 1 Democratic primary for mayor. Every mayoral candidate has promised something. Any taboo that previously muted politicking with prisoners, some of whom once preyed on city residents, has fallen away in favor of winning a few thousand votes that could tip the balance in a close race.

I bet it could. The new bureaucracy is called ORCA for short, and you can check it out at the link. Here’s a handy clip-’n-save:

Somewhere, Alexander Hamilton wishes he'd won that duel with Aaron Burr

Somewhere, Alexander Hamilton wishes he’d won that duel with Aaron Burr

As I wrote here at PJ Media:

The Democratic Party has always appealed to the basest instincts of the American people, molting and changing shape as the political winds dictated but solely devoted to its raison d’être: the accumulation and retention of political power. As it evolved over the course of the late 19th century, its chief mechanism became, in essence, bribery – not simply of civil officials but of the public itself. It’s unclear who said, “A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only last until the citizens discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury.” But that may as well be the party’s animating ethos: “social justice” disguised as sympathy or, worse, compassion. Always wrapping itself in the false cloak of righteousness and celebrating the folk wisdom of the demos, the Democrats have consistently championed class envy, social division, and often – quite nakedly – racism, if they thought it would buy them votes. Only the Democrats could reinvent themselves so effortlessly, molting from the party of the Ku Klux Klan to the party of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. From the party of the aggressive atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who destroyed school prayer and helped set the country on its downward moral spiral in 1963, to the party of Bible-toting Baptist presidents (Bill Clinton) and the racist ravings of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. When your only principle is power, it’s easy to embrace flexibility and nuance. This amoral relativism raised to a high art of hypocrisy – for such it is – at the party’s core has long posed the most potent threat to its continuing existence; therefore, it is the one aspect of its nature that must be most assiduously concealed and obscured.

So I, for one, welcome this exciting new development in potential electoral chicanery. The franchise was once so sacred that it was restricted to people with skin in the game. Today, it’s a right — to be exercised as often as possible, with no untoward legal consequences. Unfortunately for our representative democracy, it’s become the right to keep the Democrats in power by, in the words of their famous phrase, “any means necessary.” Hey, it works for them. What works for us?

<- Prev  Page 3 of 3   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Cats are now a criminal organization? They don't like the leash, but I don't think that makes them a criminal organization. Tea Partiers don't like the leash either so are they also a criminal organization? Well, maybe, I suppose, could be, I guess, Dear Leader thinks so anyway. Forward!
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
By anyone who actually has to use it. You think Thatcher subjected herself to the nightmare? Not bloody likely, mate.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
...the strange phenomenon of Anglophilia that seems to infect so many Americans.

You needn't be Anglophilic to appreciate the political ancestry.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (113)
All Comments   (113)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤

Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail

✒✒✒✒✒✒✒✒ www.workbarr.com

✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
my best friend's mom makes $61 /hour on the computer . She has been without work for 6 months but last month her income was $20647 just working on the computer for a few hours. visit this site right here .....>>>>>>>>>www.jobsyc.com
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
my friend's mom makes $75 an hour on the computer . She has been fired for 7 months but last month her income was $20709 just working on the computer for a few hours. why not look here........... http://www.works12.com
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
This just in. Check my update on page two of this post:
http://time.com/40107/britain-2-people-catch-tuberculosis-from-pet-cat/
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
There's several David Kahanes on fb. which one are you?
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Look for the cover of RULES FOR RADICAL CONSERVATIVES.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
Transfixus sed non mortuus.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Cats have never maimed and killed kids. Cats do not crap on other peoples lawn. Cats don't end to be walked twice a day. Cats don't bark their heads off at odd hours of the night. Cats clean themselves. Cats are excellent at keeping vermin out. This is why farmers and horse owners keep them around. Cats helped improve sanitation and spread of the plague by killing rats. They are impressive animals. Nature needs predators to keep a balance between species.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Wow, 19, too?

I don't care if you're a woman, black, or 18 years old, so long as you pay taxes I think you should get to have a say in how they're spent.

Yes, I'm most concerned with the Progressive Era amendments, but 14 should go, too. I get that 14 was a response to the culturally ingrained racism of the day, but it clearly subverts States Rights, and Individual Rights. The 14th amendment is the impetus for the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act.

All of that garbage needs to be repealed.

Edit: Oops! This was supposed to be a reply to Michael Walsh's reply to me farther down the thread.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
States don't have rights.
States have powers.
People have rights; and powers.
Where States have rights, people don't.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
I was wrong. You are correct, BronxZionist. I apologize for chewing you out over this comment.

Thanks for setting straight.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
It was clear from your first stupid response to me that you've never read the U.S. Constitution, and that you have no concept of why it was written, or the thought process behind the "why".

Now, you've underscored your ignorance with this comment. God help us.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
I just figured I'd throw 19 in there too, to see if anybody would notice. But it is the case that women tend to vote for the Mommy Party, which is what gave us Barack Obama.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
So people should only be allowed to vote if they are inclined to vote the "right" way.

Why not just skip all the pretense and have only one legal political party?
For that matter, just cut to the chase and have only one legal candidate?
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
He literally opened his comment with the fact that he was joking. You then attack the straw man you fashioned from the twisted remains of the original context.

You are arguing the wrong thing with the wrong people. Michael Walsh has not seriously advocated for tyranny. He regularly rails against tyranny.

I'd call you a troll, but I know you post here regularly. I guess that makes you a home-grown domestic troll. PJ Media's very own man-caused disaster.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's clear to me that BronxZionist has no sense of humor, or understanding of deliberate exaggeration. It must be awful to be so literal-minded.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
And remember when the current occupant joked about having the IRS audit his opponents?
Deliberate exaggeration!
Sense of humor!
Literal-minded awfulness!

What kind of horrible person takes the Constitution more seriously than that?
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yeah, because being literal-minded with the Constitution is so two centuries ago.
I mean really, all the cool kids know it is a living document . . .
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Wow. Just wow. And "huh?"
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes, he opened by saying it was a joke . . .
Then continued by saying it really is true anyway.

That is the kind of disingenuous absurdity you expect from a comedian.
In politics it gives us Leviathan and The Social Contract.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, to be honest I was just thinking about this the other day. That is, whether or not a married "stay at home mom" (or even a situation where the husband is a "stay at home dad") should have the right to vote. Technically, it's her husband who's paying taxes, but if she weren't staying home to raise the kids he wouldn't be as free to work the hours to pay their way.

I know that many single women voted for President Santa Claus, but most of them are college-aged morons who's full-time job is being a student. Again, these idiots would be covered under the concept of "no pay taxes, no vote".

Only working women or married women of working men would have the franchise.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ah, so I am right - you do wish to tyrannically prohibit people from voting on the basis of sex.
Inevitably that will turn to equally selective and subjective denials based on race and age.

The joys of tyranny!
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Stupid is as stupid does, mamma always says.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
And mamma is right, you are quite stupid.

It is "interesting" that above you take me to task for taking the comment seriously when he was "obviously" joking, yet here you treat it seriously and declare outright that support restricting voting on the basis of sex.
It is not so much you are trying to speak out both sides of your mouth with this, but that you are spewing out both cheeks of your seat.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
What about serving soldiers or veterans of the armed forces who don't pay taxes? Should they be allowed to vote? I'm inclined to think that anyone who puts their life on their line for their country has some skin in the game and should be able to vote. I expect other groups would also suggest plausible reasons why they should be able to vote, even if they don't pay (income) tax....
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
You know, to address your thought process, might I just ask -

If I happen to be walking past your house and notice it's on fire, and I run in and carry you out - thus saving your life - am I now entitled to tell you how to spend your money on your home?

I mean, when I risked my life to save yours, by your reasoning I now have some skin in the game. Based on your reasoning, had you not poorly spent your own money on your home; 1.) it either wouldn't have caught fire, 2.) the fire would have been suppressed, 3.) or you would have been alerted and I wouldn't have had to risk my life to save you.

So, don't I now get to decide with you how you will spend your money on your home?
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Who peed in your Cheerios this morning?

Perhaps you've never encountered the concept of devil's advocate or the idea of posing a hypothetical question but that's what I was trying to do. Someone - I don't even recall who at this point - suggested that only (income) tax payers should be able to vote. However worthy that idea might be - I'm trying to keep an open mind on that point - it occurred to me that others may have some claim to making a sufficient contribution to society, even if they weren't taxpayers, to merit getting a vote too. I put that forward to see whether people might agree. That's all.

I was not using it to demolish the idea of having only income tax payers get the vote, just to determine whether reasonable people might disagree. I did not introduce the "skin in the game" metaphor, someone else did. I was just using it because it seemed apt.

And that's all I'm going to say in this thread. I have no interest in starting a flame war, however unjustly you chose to attack me.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hi, Sparky.

Based on your history of replies, I doubt you'll come to any kind of logical conclusion, so I'll do you a favor and answer my own question.

No, I don't get to tell you how to spend money on your home, because I don't actually have any skin in the game, which is a nonsense phrase in this case. Financial responsibility is what we're really talking about.

Just as I freely risked my life to save yours - a noble deed in any respect worthy of high praise - I still don't have any financial obligations in your home. If a man freely joins the military to avoid paying taxes, he's no more financially responsible while fighting Iraqis than the day he joined.

So, no, serving soldiers who don't pay taxes and veterans who don't pay taxes should not have the right to vote. This is the same kind of stupidity that informs us that all veterans and soldiers (and cops and firefighters and EMTs) are "heroes". They aren't.

Heroes put themselves at risk to help others. I submit there are plenty of soldiers, cops, etc, who never in their careers perform a single heroic act. So, what's your point?
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes, go ahead, create your own inane strawmen to try and justify your program of tyranny.
Like all such drivel, all your reveal is just how obscene your ideology actually is.
You should however do something about that extreme inferiority complex you have in respect to people in the military and veterans.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
But you haven't identified a single straw man. You've only offered your own idiotic non-sequitur.

Thanks for participating!
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Your strawmen is the absurdity of conflating having a voice in government with having a say in a household budget, compounded by your use then rejection of the term "skin in the game" when, by your chosen example, life is very much on the line.

You really need to stop participating.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Further, those who are paid in tax dollars should not pay taxes (why give them something just to take a little bit right back?), AND they should not get to vote. This would put an end to the self-licking ice cream cone that is most government bureaucracy.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Sparky, you probably haven't read my original thread below where I address this situation. I'm not talking about income taxes, which were unconstitutional prior to the 16th amendment.

Below, I list several amendments that need to be repealed. With that context, this part of the argument should make more sense to you, assuming you have much of a background or understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
If you're ever in County Wicklow, go to the Wicklow Gaol and listen to the tales of British oppression. The most feared punishment of the time was transportation to Australia which could be had for as minor an offense as petty theft.

I'm a quarter English so I'm genetically disposed to Anglophilia. I'm also descended from the Scots-Irish who helped settle the new world and finally rebelled against the British yoke. Personally, I'm grateful to all my ancestors, but seem to have a particular affinity for those responsible for British common law and the Magna Carta.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
To be fair, I'm 1/16 Missouri Blackfoot. I'm also partially English and Irish. Mostly, I'm German and French. In none of those cases and I predisposed to be a lover of some lesser culture.

Your final points are great ones, though. Some good things did come out of Great Britain. America, for one. British common law and the Magna Carta were definitely important influences on our country and our culture.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Love your handle -- everybody needs to know Pepusch and Gay's "The Beggar's Opera."
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Most people probably associate this moniker of hers with the double hit song 'Mack the Knife', once by Louie Armstrong, again by Bobby Darin.

From Wiki:
"The Threepenny Opera (German: Die Dreigroschenoper) is a musical by German dramatist Bertolt Brecht [BF: a filthy communist BTW] and composer Kurt Weill, in collaboration with translator Elisabeth Hauptmann and set designer Caspar Neher.[1] It was adapted from an 18th-century English ballad opera, John Gay's The Beggar's Opera,[2] and offers a Socialist critique of the capitalist world. It opened on 31 August 1928 at Berlin's Theater am Schiffbauerdamm."

But of course noted anglo- and Germanophile Michael Walsh is a classicist. /s
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Not sure why the sarcasm. I was a classical music critic for 25 years, the last 16 of them at Time Magazine. And I am a Germanophile, having spent many years in that country and raised my children there.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Maybe I should have used /k. I was kidding you, or thought I was.
17 weeks ago
17 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Lovely folks, then and now; why the English are heroes to anybody but themselves is beyond me, since I am entirely immune to the strange phenomenon of Anglophilia that seems to infect so many Americans."

I no more hold the actions of Cromwell and his army against the English, than I do the massacre of Magdeburg against Catholics. You shouldn't either, but then you may well be quite the hypocrite.

I have no trouble, RE cats, with laws being passed generally recognizing the legality of carrying silenced .22s, and with the hunting and trapping of on non-urban public property, all feral or loose housecats--with strict liability for the same accruing to the hunters. I have no issue with people who have a problem countenancing the existence of feral, un-housed cats taking up a collection to provide bounties for the same.

What I do and should object to is the use of public funds to accomplish the same end.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
'Course, I have no problem with laws being passed which explicitly make legal the general public to be generally armed, either.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All