August 29, 2017 Sticky Situation. by Chris Muir Share this Share: Tag:Americans, Men & Women, Political Correctness, Relationships
Just the original Constitution? No Bill of Rights? No nineteenth amendment? Gotta say I have a few problems with that. True, there are some truly awful women who, in a perfect world, wouldn’t be let within a mile of a voting booth. But there are Just as many truly awful men. And, just guessing here, but from the Sam’s posture and the look on her face, she’s about to make that point.
Women belong in the bedroom and the kitchen, not the voting booth. Mostly in the bedroom, if their cooking is inadequate. I heard some deplorable person say that once. I bet she was a sexist.
“The time will come, when you will change your minds, and scream ‘save us!’ and we will turn, and answer you…. NO”
That time is now
I was thinking similar. “You” want us whities to do all the work, but get none of the rewards? Ummmm……no.
And to stretch a point, not all property owners were white. As has been pointed out in the “who was a slave owner” discussions, one of the first slave owners was a black man. And if he was purchasing slaves, then he had to have property (acreage) for them to work.
Property was not just land. Blacksmiths, carpenters, wagonneers ETC were considered “men of property” since they owned their own tools. Many of these were not white and one route to manumission was to learn a trade, particularly blacksmithing. Also, the Bill of Rights was originaly part of the Constitution until southerners who would become the DEMOCRATIC party refused to sign on until it was changed to 10 Amendments.
As one suffragette said (roughly) ” We do not need to vote, we need to be ARMED “
TLDR: net productive citizens vote…if you cost more than you contribute for any reason, sorry. Not fair? Life isn’t.
And that screaming party title DEMOCRAT was about as irrelevant then as now…REPUBLICAN too.
More to the point, not all the property owners were men. Women were eligible to vote long before Amendment XIX was ratified. There just weren’t as many of them who owned property.
To argue that the Bill of Rights is not part of the original Constitution misunderstands the compromise that allowed the Constitution to be accepted. It was agreed that the Bill of Rights was indeed to be included as a condition for ratification. Yes, it took some time to finalize what would be included, but without the promise that personal rights would be codified as protected from government intrusion, there would be no Constitution.
If we went back to only property owners being able to vote in national elections, that would almost instantly solve the problem of societal leeches, restore the original intent of “promote the general Welfare” from the absurd contortion the courts have twisted it into, and ensure that only those citizens who have proven themselves to be responsible could elect officials to represent them, not those voting based who might give the best goodies.
Similarly, ditching Amendment XVI and XVII would also provide great benefits – eliminating the income tax and restoring taxation based on use, not production, and restoring the voice of the States to the Congress by having Senators elected by the states, not by popular vote. Had that latter situation been in force in 2009, there would never have been an Obamacare to repeal since the legislatures of 30 states opposed it.
Desert Lion, you’re singing my song. Note for note.
Minor nit, “by having Senators SELECTED by the states”
There. Fixed it for ya. Yer welcome.
The time of “etc. for free” is coming to an end.
Of course it was never really free, was it?.
“The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress”
The Master, RAH
Add that the Affirmative Action racism has sucked the life from many families in a genocidal intended way. Further I will not venture at the moment.
(Is it safe to say that I am pro chick? 🙂 )
Whatever happened to judging people on the content of their character? It seems to have been lost somewhere along the way. I believe that was intentionally lost.
Deep decisions are upon us.
Damn. Here I thought someone was going to get laid.
Sam~Life has never been fair. Life is complicated.
Life is sticky.
Sometimes sticky is good in life.
Sometimes it’s just how-do-I-get-this-off-my-hand.
Life: sometimes it comes at you quickly.
Life sux… but what’s the alternative ?
Well with Sam around, I can think of a lot of things…that might not be as bad.
As they say, Embrace the suck!
Life’s a beach, and there you fry.
I don’t claim to have the answer, but anyone looking around today can realize we don’t have the answer now.
Well, clearly your thumb is better…the feisty is back.
I prefer the Robert Heinlein model. After completing a term of Federal Service you have the right to vote and run for Public Office. A Full Citizen. A resident citizen is only prevented from those two responsibilities. Only after you have proven that you will put the welfare of others over your own, can you help decide public policy. “Starship Troopers” is a great book. As usual Hollywood gutted the story in a lame movie. Somehow Hollywood has all the rights for Heinlein’s works so only they decide when and how they are brought to the dumb-masses. “The moon is a harsh mistress” is another great book that outlines the making of a government for the loonies.
Re-listening to the Moon is a Harsh mistress now. It’s being made into a movie as we speak, I think the title is “Revolt” or something similar
the book’s good, too. hope the movie does Wyoh right…
Which, if true to Hollyweird, is what the movie will be, “Revolt”ing.
I don’t think Heinlein was suggesting that as a model. Look at how it worked out in the book (lots and lots of gov’t workers in make-work jobs, for one thing).
And its Heinlein’s family foundation that controls the works.
The vast majority of gov’t jobs now seem to be make-work. They are there to keep the unemployment numbers down and to redistribute wealth.
Yep. Hollywood Фагготizing everything great authors do!
Well, if we go back to the way it was originally written, it sure would be nice to clarify the definition of the word “regulate” so that it is understood in the context of the document to mean what it did at that time it was written.
The change in definition over the years has probably done more to damage the original intent and to expand government power than any other single thing since.
Actually, the definition of “well-regulated” hasn’t changed. What ignorant people think it means, especially when they believe the only way things work well is when the government directs the operations, diverges widely from both what it actually means and what the Founders intended.
Might be worth asking a piano tuner what well-regulated means and see if that still fits. (It does.)
“To Sail Beyond the Sunset” is a great study on how our society evolved/devolved over the last 150 years. “The Number of the Beast” gives some excellent comparisons of various societies. I especially like Beulaland’s concept of “Balancing” (Let the Punishment fit the Crime).
Rah, Rah R.A.H.!
In my wildest dreams I envision true-to-story Hollywood versions of Friday, Number of the Beast, Glory Road, any of the nudity-filled, wives-who-call-their-husbands-sir and are happy/horny breeders later tomes… but there’s just no way feminists would ever allow them to be made, like ever.
A film maker that had any balls would make the movie & let the snowflake whine and cry…..
What are the odds such a man/person exists in Hollywood these days?
“Number Of The Beast” is one of the master’s greatest works, no doubt.
“Who is John Galt” seems appropriate somehow…
I hope Zed is taking a rhetorical turn here. Because much mischief can be derived from that “male, property-owners” requirement.
Now, I would love to see an amendment that restricts your vote if you receive net benefits from the gov’t. This would exclude wages, fee-for-service/goods and insurance payments. Otherwise, if you received benefits from the gov’t, you would lose the right to vote while you received those benefits, and for a period afterward related to how long you were receiving them (so politicians couldn’t shut down the gravy train on 1 Nov and start it up again 1 Dec).
This takes gov’t bribes out of the equation, as to buying votes from the people.
Hadn’t thought of that shut down /restart. Nice touch.
Thanks, that would mean we Veterans and anyone on Gov disability (like Eon) would lose the right to vote
Lose Gov Disability and keep the right to vote, it’s pure welfare.
Lose SS too (of which I avail myself starting last year in an effort to get back what was taken from me). Yes it was ostensibly an insurance program but it would save billions to eliminate it even with the option to take lump sum payment for all actual contributions (forget interest, compounding, etc. that just won’t work…but take a vote on who would take that lump sum and take their chances that the old-age fund won’t be there for them.)
By law, social security can only pay out what it takes in.
Ah. A scrupulous pyramid scheme then. 🙂
The elite mantra: Laws ate made to be broken, but only by us.
Srsly, that only applies (applied) to the old-age fund. When they want to steal it as payola, they just call it something else.
It shouldn’t work that way. Veterans aren’t receiving a gift, it’s a contract liability. We didn’t sign our lives away for nothing.
Disability should be an insurance-based system – I would call it one now (for vets, anyway). But, yes, it needs to be made more explicitly so.
It never was “male, property owners” – only “property owners”. Another myth perpetrated by the progressives seeking to bend society.
Nor was it “WHITE male property owners”. Just “property owners”.
To add another log to the bonfire,
There was a time in the US when you had to take a “Poverty Oath” to recieve government assistance. You basically had to declare youself a ward of the state unable to vote or own property as if you were a minor child.
A fricken MEN Zed.
Hate to say it, but many need to read the Ashes series by William Johnstone.
The way it looks, that might just well be our future.
I’ve got damn near every one of them.
For some reason, this scene came to mind: https://youtu.be/6FaSRDSd75E
Might want to go back and read the old Constitution carefully. Citizen voting isn’t even mentioned in the original document and Bill of Rights. It wasn’t until the 14th Amendment in 1868 that citizen voting is brought up, and then only to say that if enough males >21 yo are denied the right, then that State’s number of Representatives is reduced proportionally.
So there is NO federal rule that only males could vote, nor have to be White, nor any property or literacy requirement or proof of wealth. All that was left up to the States .. until later Amendments came along and specified that color, race, and gender were no longer allowed to limit the voter base. And the voting age was lowered to 18. Most states had dropped the “freehold” requirement by the late 18th Century.
Astute observation, there is also zero there giving the authority of the Federal Government to grow to such a state that it would be necessary. Since it seems that we have invested the right to grown beyond intent, should we not also invest in the right to regulate?
Adding to Astroprisoner’s comment, the meaning of ‘regulated’ has indeed changed many times. During Revolutionary Times it referred to a rifleman’s ability to hit what he was shooting at to any distance. The term ‘volley’ wasn’t in the Colonists Militia Lexicon.
First. A family is needed.
Then no raping 7th Century murder cult invited in by a former president that is an acting member, with so many members of that cult now firmly set in the USA deep state and across the European states, almost all sucking off of the production of the host societies. And with delusional people praising their diversity.
Not just that. The whole of Sharia Law. It is a conquest of the world set of commands.
”The first thing we do, let’s kill all the rapists.”
Apologies to Will.
Or better yet, deal with them Beulaland fashion. Heinlein wouldn’t even try to describe how rape was “balanced”. Just remember, the punishment fits the crime!
”The first thing we do, let’s kill all therapists.”
Works this way for me, too.
Voting should be restricted to only those who adamantly renounce and denounce every last tenet of Marxism. Otherwise, you are inviting a malignancy into the republic that is near impossible to eradicate.
The problem is that anyone can lie, even under oath. Politicians make a career of it, as do “activists” and “social justice warriors”.
Pacifists are especially prone to it. As RAH said, when no one is looking they hoist the Jolly Roger.
No where in the US Constitution does it limit the vote to “free white male property owners”, the definition of voter belongs to the States. And 12 of the 13 States had a religious limitation that excluded Roman Catholics, Maryland excepted. I read the US Constitution on a regular basis.
A solution for keeping Welfare rolls from expanding is to not hand it out like condoms to anyone. No additional funds for additional children added by birth or acquirement. Nothing to refugees. Just because a female gets knocked up, that is not to be treated the same as hitting the Uncle Sam lottery of Free Stuff. Mandatory birth control for anyone currently on assistance until they get off it.
Or chastity belts. For both sexes.
That birthright citizenship does not exist must be formalized.
Every one of the 10,000 Chinese women flying in a month (I read on the internet 10,000 a month once. Internet. It must be true.)
Wang vs USA must be enforced properly. A further decision when there are legal issues must be made by the US Supreme Court. All invaders must not be given USA citizenship to their children.
Almost all of these are invaders in asymmetric armies meant to conquer and plunder the USA.
And change any laws needed to get that across and stop the Communist destructive Democrats and Marxists.
Yes, as I recall, the 14th Amendment was intended to handle a very specific circumstance, making freed slaves citizens…I assume, like that vaunted “PRIVACY” right that is nowhere in the Constitution, that the idea of birthright citizenship for everyone has basically been invented out of thin air.
No argument. NO “birthright citizenship” for anyone not of citizen parents.
Parents and two children. MAXIMUM, two children.
The 14th Amendment, as was said, was for a specific instance and circumstance. It SHOULD HAVE BEEN A LAW, NOT AN AMENDMENT. Laws can be more easily amended, or even repealed. Amendments, not so much.
As was taught to me in several Constitution classes, be very, very slow and wary to add amendments to the Constitution. When you do, you fundamentally change the government.
Look back……how many Constitutional Amendments that we currently have, would have been better off as laws instead?
We’ll see if the call goes out for white boys to “step up” in Houston.
They mostly don’t want us there (city is less than 25% white and less than 25% of that are men). And they have joined the suit to provide shelter and comfort to criminal invaders. It’s Texas, but not really. But they will want us now.
That’s a big step-up. But you know the call will come and they will be asked to -told to- handle it, and you know they will be castigated for not stepping up fast enough or strong enough, even when they do. That’s going to be a graphic and tragic demonstration of what this whole thread is about, right there in Houston.
The citizen composed Cajun Navy come to rescue people was shot at by looters and many had to stand down from those areas. Some headed back to Louisiana where they look to be needed soon.