Thomas Jefferson called an educated public as “the only safe depositories of their own liberty.” If so, a new poll conducted by the University of Pennsylvania suggests that we have a serious problem. The poll made a truly alarming finding that many Americans cannot name a single first amendment right. Penn’s Annenberg Public Policy Center found 37 percent could not name any of the five rights protected by First Amendment and fewer than half (48 percent) could name freedom of speech.
If you are not depressed enough, the poll also found that one-third of Americans (33 percent) cannot name one of the three branches of the U.S. government. Now here is the most crushing state: only 26 percent could name the three branches.
Jefferson said:
“I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”
“The Left’s Dumbing Down of America Nearly Complete: Almost 4 Out Of 10 Americans Cannot Name A Single Right Under The First Amendment”
—BUT THEY CAN NAME 684 DIFFERENT SEXUAL PERVERSIONS, PREFERENCES, IDENTITIES
Public school is the indoctrination center for the collectivist, redistributionist, Globalist, AKA Progressive Democrat, party – and the redistributive, do-nothing-job creating machine for the teachers union.
The ascension of teacher’s union, followed by the elimination of civics in the curriculum and the liberal PC teaching of history has added to an increasing number of low information registered Democrat voters. But, Republicans control governors, state houses, WH and Congress. People do know “sh!t from shinola” and you can tell by elections who they consider “sh!t.” But, Dems do excel in registering voters, particularly deceased voters.
Nick,
There is enough civics illiteracy across the political spectrum that identifying it by political party is of no value.
My main point is that Dems run the Education Industry and stopped teaching civics when their teacher’s union took over our kid’s minds.
I understand your point Nick and without even gathering the data I would agree. My point is the progressive movement in general is destroying this country. They are a blood cancer on our body politic and they are in both major political parties.
High schools have degraded from the classical education, where teenagers learned Greek and Latin, poetry, history, debate, and mathematics to graduating students who can neither read nor string a sentence together.
Liberals have run the education system for decades. You would think that having full control, they would produce the results they’ve been promising us. And yet, we now have efforts to remove algebra as a college requirement because so many high school graduates cannot understand it. We have graduates who can’t add without a calculator, can’t speak well, express themselves at all in writing, understand a newspaper article, understand the basic function and working of government, or have an inquisitive mind. That handicaps them for life.
Karen, they have produced the results they want. Students ignorant of our constitution and the US founding principles generally. Students well versed in the enlightenment philosophy behind our founding, and the reasons our constitution emphasized liberty and placed limits on democracy, do not make very good social democrats.
Any school which had a classical program indubitably incorporated a very thin sliver of the age cohorts in question. My own hometown had in 1900 a population of 150,000 and one secondary school for the whole city. It did not enroll more than 15% of the city’s 12-18 year old population, and that was an ordinary urban high school of the day, not a school devoted to Ivy League prep. I lived for a time in a suburban township whose school district had handed out its first high school diploma in 1893 (the first settlers there arrived more than a century earlier). Harvard University discontinued its Greek entrance examination in 1897 and its Latin examination in 1916.
And on an even still more ominous note, here’s the Sage of Monticello:
𝘐𝘧 𝘢 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘪𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦.
~𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘴 𝘑𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘠𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘺, 1816.
Steve, is that you?
Trump would fail the citizenship test let alone a test on the content of the Constitution.
The root cause of the many problems we face today are voter ignorance, voter apathy and a lack of self-reliance. Placing blame anywhere else or suggesting solutions that do nothing to improve on these three is evidence of the ignorance pervasive in our electorate.
An aspect of it is that people simply do not care to remember. Another aspect is the hopelessly haphazard quality of basic education in this country.
If you remember that the primary purpose of schools is to provide employment for people with ‘master’s degrees’ but who are unsuitable for the business world, everything begins to make sense.
“If you remember that the primary purpose of schools is to provide employment for people with ‘master’s degrees’ but who are unsuitable for the business world, everything begins to make sense.”
**********************
Things do seem to fall into place with that assumption!
There are so many great quotes to describe the purpose for education, but this one from Lincoln really gets to the heart of the decline in civics literacy:
The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.
My father had a wooden paddle taken to him in 1939 for bringing vaguely obscene mock-advertising postcards to school (‘a son of a hotel by a son of a beach; pies like your mother used to make; tarts like your father used to make…’). Were residual modesty and the utility of corporal punishment ‘the philosophy of government’ in 1969?
Oh! Snap! I swear I can feel Olly’s pain. And Abe’s too.
All the same, you have yet to draw attention to the public education movement spawned by Noah Webster. Nor the mass proliferation of daily newspapers that followed hard on the heels of the Websterian thing.
Sure there was pamphleteering in the founder’s generation. But The New York Times? The Washington Post? When did they get started? And how many Americans would’ve been able to read them before Webster and his disciples?
Wait a second . . . You’re going to ask, “So what?”, again; aren’t you?
Were residual modesty and the utility of corporal punishment ‘the philosophy of government’ in 1969?
Nope. In 1828, Arthur Stansbury published Elementary catechism on the Constitution of the United States : for the use of schools. Was slavery the philosophy of government in 1868? Were Jim Crow Laws in effect in 1939? 1969?
http://www.archive.org/stream/elementarycatech00stanrich/elementarycatech00stanrich_djvu.txt
Those who can name the concepts described have a grossly mistaken sense of superiority toward those who cannot. We have little control over how our brains function. Reasons for failure could be a pre-occupation with pain, mental illness, poverty, dangerous living conditions or affliction with learning disorders, impacts from toxic substances during gestation or later could also be the cause. Criticizing such people does no good. Easy availability of birth control, strict sanctions for rape, voluntary sterilization, and easy availability of pregnancy termination would help. Already many highly skilled folks do their best to help those with challenges, with limited success.
Chris, What if people who “. . . have a grossly mistaken sense of superiority” also “. . . “have little control over how [their] brains work?”
Reasons for failure could be a pre-occupation with pain, mental illness, poverty, dangerous living conditions or affliction with learning disorders, impacts from toxic substances during gestation or later could also be the cause.
None of which existed with the generation that founded this country?
Evidence?
Of what? That people in our founding generation had a pre-occupation with pain, or that they had people with mental illness, poverty, dangerous living conditions, learning disorders or impacts from toxic substances?
If you cannot reason your way on that one without evidence, then go look for it yourself and through the process, you might develop reason.
Or absolute laziness and apathy.
Why are you inclined to use pejorative terms? Heirs are often lazy. Disabled folks exert more energy than anyone else.
We have little control over how our brains function
We can all see that yours don’t.
I doubt that the people you refer to as having “pre-occupation with pain, mental illness,” etc. are the ones who were polled.
That is a really weird comment.
I do have to wonder how many people would answer “don’t know” just as a way of getting the survey out of the way. The results might be different if the poll included a “f*** you, pollster” option with every question.
DaveL, you may be on to something with that last observation of yours. In the same spirit, what if the poll is actually a psyche experiment and we’re the test subjects?
Chris,
Your post reminds me of Kant’s What is Enlightenment? You grossly mistake enlightenment for arrogance and ignorance for humility. Enlightenment and humility are positively correlated. Ignorance can be overcome, but not if it’s willful. That is the arrogance exploited by the guardians.(see below)
That the step to competence is held to be very dangerous by the far greater portion of mankind (and by the entire fair sex) – quite apart from its being arduous is seen to by those guardians who have so kindly assumed superintendence over them. After the guardians have first made their domestic cattle dumb and have made sure that these placid creatures will not dare take a single step without the harness of the cart to
which they are tethered, the guardians then show them the danger which threatens if they try to go alone. Actually, however, this danger is not so great, for by falling a few times they would finally learn to walk alone. But an example of this failure makes them timid and ordinarily frightens them away from all further trials. Immanuel Kant: What is Enlightenment?, 1784
This points at the crux of the problem, ignorance. Most Americans believe the myth of democracy in the US because the reality is too difficult and shameful. Democracy is only as effective as an educated and continually informed voting public. However, if the education one receives is BS and one reads rags like the Washington Times and Fox News that rarely print anything that illustrates the ‘other side’s’ point, then what the idea of a democracy from two plus centuries ago evolves into an oligarchy. The reality that politicians are made and destroyed by funding from oligarchs flies in the face of the American myth of its own democracy. For far too many, perhaps the majority, Americans it is less stressful to ignore the truth and go for the ‘Number One’ routine.
It doesn’t matter what a Constitution says. Constitutions have been around for thousands of years. It is the execution of the Constitution and the bare facts of the conditions that if ignored result in ignorance and in our case this oligarchy. Leadership is only as good as the quality of its leaders. One thing one must agree on, regardless of party, America’s leaders are not the best of the best. And, when one takes the time to pay attention to them, they come with strings.
America must prohibit the private funding of elections. The more advanced nations with the true democracies have made that decision for the better. Their voters are better informed, their leaders are of a vastly higher quality, and there is far more cooperation between the more than two parties that govern. Democracy means representation. You get what you deserve.
Well stated.
issac – could you give me an example of a Constitution that has been around for thousands of years.
Paul, if Isaac could give such an example–which he can’t, of course–it would undermine his argument about the importance of education, including literacy, as bulwarks of democracy.
P. S. If Isaac cited The Athenian Constitution, then his claim would be only that “the concept” of “a constitution” has been “around for thousands of years.” That would fit nicely with Isaac’s segue into oligarchy trope.
Paul
The ancient Greeks: Athenians, Spartans, etc all developed constitutions and attempted to integrate them into the manner in which they governed themselves. The Carthaginians as well as the Romans had constitutions. The idea of a set of dictums that would out last the moment and/or its ruler(s) is as old as mankind. Religion is but a constitution. The more advanced nations of the world understand that they themselves create the constitution and therefore as they evolve, so should the constitution. Those peoples mired in the past live under dictums that are not supposed to be tampered with, regardless of how unnecessary and bizarre. Extreme examples of this can be found in the extreme interpretations of Islam today as well as Christianity a few centuries ago. And, of course, there are the holy people who faithfully interpret all this for us. The priests with their religions, the lawyers and judges with the constitutions. There is less perversion with the legal systems of today but perversion does exist. It typically is associated with the Constitution as a final word sort of thing, not a living sort of thing. A prime example of this perversion can be found with Scalia when he stated that corporations should enjoy the same rights as individuals along with connecting it to a Constitution that was carved in stone at the time of its inception and not a living and therefore changing thing. What is interesting is how the priesthood meets the legal systems.
issac – you have yet to show me one Constitution that has been around for thousands of years. And religions do not have constitutions.
Thick as a brick as usual
issac – show me a constitution that has been around for thousands of years. Also show me a constitution from a religion. BTW, ad hominem attacks do not count as evidence.
@ issacbasonkavich about PCS:
Always. (Or at least 99.9999…% of the time.)
Isaac,
Excellent post, as usual.
Piling on here:
Agreed.
Very well stated.
Issach –
This is exactly what the 1% want. Their servants know this very well. It’s comforting to know that JT knows it and why he wants an informed electorate that can be lulled into not supporting silly goose notions like
medicare for all, no more Betsies trying to end public education, only incremental increases in taxes for the 1% that are the greatest beneficiaries of our duopoly political parties system.
We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic.
Dave
We are an oligarchy. It is what it is, not so much what was written and intended two + centuries ago.
I believe in the myth of issacbasonkavich.
“The more advanced nations with the true democracies have made that decision for the better. Their voters are better informed…..”
Which countries are these?
Canada, France, Great Britain, Germany, etc.; all do not allow private funding to purchase their representatives as does the US; all have multiple parties to represent the more than two concepts typically found in any people. The US has two parties, one more than a dictatorship. The US does not have a system that allows the best to be considered to represent the people. The candidates for office in the US are elected through a circus that is primarily funded by the oligarchs that run the country. Step back and take a good look. The least informed voters can be found primarily in the US. The graphic illustration of this can be seen in the content of the last Presidential election. The entire circus was nothing more than entertainment. The intelligent concepts pertaining to the issues were nowhere to be found. If you missed that then I rest my case.
The least informed voters can be found primarily in the US.
Hello!!! After all that blathering, that was the point of JT’s post. How many political parties does our constitution say we must have? That’s right, it doesn’t. Your incessant whining about the oligarchs and buying representatives are a reflection of the civics ignorance of the population. If our system of government has one fundamental failure, it is that it allows the very people responsible for selecting and removing those who run it to be as ignorant as their heart desires.
Now go ahead and explain why cleaning the voter rolls, requiring voter ID and civics literacy assessments are bad for a constitutional republic?
Of course the Constitution does not go into how many parties the people should have. The reason why we can’t get past two parties is because two parties creates the confusion and circus we have today. One party cancels out the other. There is no real representation. The crucial issues never get to surface. This sort of pitting of one side against the other in order to retain control is nothing new. This is a system that benefits the oligarchs first. It is not representative of the people, even if they were informed and educated on the issues.
The concept of check and balances was well understood by the founders. Unfortunately the structure is no longer viable. This is not 1776. The first move can only be to take private financing out of the equation. This will result in more options as far as representation goes. The bottom line is that if the system is showing signs of disrepair then perhaps it needs to be repaired. Maintaining a broken system on the premise of a perverse interpretation of sacred texts is not the way to fix this.
As far as cleaning the voter rolls, requiring voter ID and civics literacy goes:
-The voter rolls should record registered voters only. The government has the ability to register every citizen eligible to vote. Cancel an aircraft carrier and put the money to better use.
-A neutral governmental oversight committee must prevail over politically generated issues regarding elections, i.e. gerrymandering, making polling stations available. Any political party in power should never have the opportunity to design the demographics, whatever they may be.
-The registered voter should have an ID linked to the voter’s registration. Every effort must be made by the government to facilitate the obtaining of voter ID, the registering of voters, and the transportation to the polls as well as the availability of polls geographically as well as time wise. The government must serve the voter to the absolute utmost to be in a position to cast a vote.
-More important than civics literacy is issue literacy. If the government controlled the vehicles by which the issues were debated by the candidates and this manner resulted in an equal time distribution on select media systems then there would be far, far, far, less BS and perhaps more on the issues. This is what is missing in our elections, the issues are not understood because they are not referenced. All that is referenced is trash.
issac is this the way they do it in Canada?
issacbasonkavich,
The industries least affected by government intervention such as consumer electronics and data processing are innovative and serve society well. The most regulated/subsidized/controlled industries like education, healthcare and national defense are a mess. The path to nirvana just might not be more government control of everything including the messaging that gets out to voters. Freedom works, centralized control doesn’t, and this is more true not less in a modern complex society.
Sad? Of course! But even this blog generally focuses on only one part, freedom of speech (sadly only as respects white supremacists) whilst mostly ignoring the other parts of the first amendment.
Constitution hating conservatives are trying to pass laws (North Carolina and maybe 15 other states) allowing nazi’s and slavers to run down those exercising their right to peaceably assemble. Those drivers are called terrorists all over the world (but heroes in conservatopia) …..but conservatives are trying to legalize it so they can run over non nazi’s and non slavers.
Freedom of the Press? Almost every day our embarrassing dumbass president tells Americans its the press that lies instead of being man enough to ever tell the truth. white supremacist followers (and congressmen) then threaten the lives of reporters for simply printing the truth. Is there any outrage here? Almost never! It’s almost always to protect conservative pedophile speech like Yannapoulos instead of actually protecting all parts of the first amendment.
As for the religion part, that would take paragraphs to on barely start on. But one only has to look at Ala…effing …bama to see a religion before constitution judge who will soon bring his hate to the floor of the senate.
JT – If one wants to know why Americans know so little about our first amendment maybe you should start your morning looking in the mirror.
Some people come to blogs only to attack the owner of the blog or other commenters, rarely adding ideas of value.
Social security and Medicare are not free. I ran a small business for over 25 years and I made out paychecks. Anybody who gets a paycheck pays into these 2 systems.
Has anyone suggested they are free? All government programs are funded by taxes, debt or central bank monetary expansion. The Social Security Act, for example, created both a welfare benefit and a separate tax.
This is pop quiz; isn’t it? Let’s see . . . There’s the right exercise one’s religion freely. There’s the right to speak freely. There’s the right to assemble. There’s the right to a free press. But is the establishment clause a right? Or just a prohibition that backs-up the right freely to exercise one’s religion?
If forty percent of the population can’t name one of those rights, does that mean that the First Amendment really says: Congress shall pass no laws? If so, does that mean George is right about all of it?
The fifth is the right to petition for redress of grievances. I’d be willing to bet that the same 40% doesn’t know the words “Congress shall pass no law …” (the most beautiful five words in the English language).
JR, you’re right on the first part. Except that I staple the right to petition to the right to assemble and make just one right out of both. As for the second part . . . does that mean George is only 40% right?
Same percentage as die hard Trump supporters what a coincidence.
Of course, the typical American has no idea what the First Amendment says. Americans are today only taught by certified Leftists who teach them that they have no right to free speech and that they can get fired, demoted, or punished in any number of ways if they communicate any things not approved of by the Leftist agenda. And the funny thing is, those teachers are right! That’s how bad things have gotten. So, as far as most Americans are concerned, the First Amendment might as well state: “You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can and will be used against you.”
Balderdash.
There are fools, damn fools, and Leftist fools, so naturally, DB can’t tell his rear end from a hole in the ground.
Agreed!
Although fools and damn fools can disagree from time to time, Leftist fools never disagree. So I understand your reasoning (or rather, the lack thereof).
In this video, Mark Dice interviews some typical Leftist Californians to gain insight into their intelligence (or rather, the lack thereof). There are fools, damn fools, and Leftist fools.
The founders came up with the then unique idea of government by self governing citizens. They also stated for that to happen the citizens would have to be educated, learn to read and write. For that effort they would join the ultimate power in the country. Ideas considered heresy in most of the world.
Yet the founders believed in the idea of a educated, independent, reasoning, thinking citizen so much they didn’t bother to include a party system in the Constitution while at the same time rejected out of hand the idea of a democracy. Well… two fifths of the voters in last falls election reached that lofty 240 year old goal. One tenth to go. Some how our Representative Constitutional Republic has survived 241 years no matter that most have no clue.
Not sure if knowing that should be a requirement for the franchise but it should be a requirement for a High School Diploma.
Self-governing citizens but only if they were land-owning white males. The majority had no say.
What have you got against land-owning white males?
Since they have been using high-stakes testing in schools, right now only English and Math are tested. Since the others are not tested, they go by the wayside, including civics. I do not find this surprising, just sad.
A great deal of time in elementary schools is frittered away on ‘non-academic mush’ as Thomas Sowell put it. In secondary school, much time is wasted on half-assed liberal education for students who are just not interested and would benefit from vocational instruction (provided behavioral issues do not dictate they be tossed out on their obstreperous butts).
An elementary curriculum which ran from age 5 to age 13 or 14 and consisted of language (culminating in English grammar); literature as a component of mastering reading, writing, and grammar; arithmetic and elementary algebra; and the fundamentals of American history, geography, and civics would be very much in order. You can make use of music, art, and sports as diversions at the elementary level (provided you replace dreary singalongs with actual instruction in playing instruments).
DSS – I have taught at every level but post-graduate. The problem with teaching 7-9 graders is their hormones are going bonkers. Think back, what do you remember learning as an 8th grader? I cannot remember one thing I learned, it is a blur of bad memories. I spent more time scraping them off the walls then teaching them. 😉
Back in my 6th grade through 10th grade days (1955 to 1959) American and world history classes were required courses. My college curriculum included required courses in American history and US government. So, today’s students , even if disruptive, still need to know our history. No matter what.
Dave Bufalo – regardless of the class, what did you LEARN in the 8th grade? 😉
The Bill of Rights
Reasons behind the American revolution
Paul Revere’s ride
Washington’s raid against the Hessians at Trenton and how the Hessians were drunk
The shot heard around the world
The Boston tea party
The term, “Not worth a Continental”
The Minute Men
Plymouth Rock and the Pilgrims
Jamestown as the first successful colony
The first Thanksgiving
The Declaration of Independence
The Crusades
etc.
I first learned this bit of history in the 6th grade. Subsequent history courses reinforced these topics.
I will concede that school life and class room behavior in the 50’s was a whole lot different than today. Back in the day chewing gum was something that got you into trouble and sitting on the bench in front of the principal’s office as a disciplinary action was a shameful disgrace.
Dave Bufalo – tell me, what did you learn about Paul Revere’s Ride?
One if by land and two if by sea.
He warned that the Red Coats were coming to confiscate guns, which led to the confrontation at Lexington and Concord.
Dave Bufalo – Paul Revere was captured by the British and walked back to Boston. He never made it to Lexington or Concord. Actually, there were two riders taking different routes and they met up and then were joined by a young doctor who was out courting and was returning home. The British got Revere and the other rider, the young doctor made it to Lexington and Concord. Revere rhymed better in the poem. 🙂
…and there you have it. Getting the facts correct is important. But civics literacy is more than just knowing what happened, but going through the process of understanding why.
Dave Bufalo – tell me, what did you learn about Paul Revere’s Ride?</em?
Wait for it…
I’m pretty sure my hormones were raging every bit as much as contemporary 7-9 graders. I still managed to learn algebra, geometry, some English composition and a bit of US history and the Bill of Rights.
Think back, what do you remember learning as an 8th grader
Elementary algebra, American history (good textbook we had), French. The science class was an unmemorable jumble and meant, I think, to teach us to use labs. The English teacher I was assigned was a woman who had a stupefyingly high opinion of herself; she was as an instructor marginally competent because she could not reliably put thought into word in any venue. .She went out on maternity leave and they hired a temp replacement whose book was actually theatre, and, I was told by one of the other faculty the following year, was known to toke with the seniors off hours; better instructor though because at least his test questions were on class material and formulated so they could be answered. There was an art / music sequence as well, but not really treated as an academic subject or taught conscientiously. The art teacher openly despised yours truly, for reasons quite obscure.
Amazing how precisely you can recall things which happened before you turned 40. Everything since is just mush.
Ignorant individuals are easily manipulated. As long as a people place greater value in entertainment than they do education and self-teaching an informed public is an elusive ideal.
Just like da Root, eh, Darren?
I’d love for that poll to be broken down by political affiliation.
Thats a easy one……..Obama burned the bill of rights, Obama was not born in USA, and Trump is one of us..HRC had plans to burn books, and Dubya said it was just a godda*mn piece of paper.
Is this meant to be sarcasm? Just asking.
It really makes a person wonder what it is that the schools in the U.S. are teaching anymore. Ignorance keeps people from seeing what is right before their own eyes, they see, but they do not see.
Makes one wonder whether essentially universal suffrage is a great idea.
That was my first thought, too!
Many do not register to vote and many who are registered do not bother to vote.
I don’t think so. I don’t think women should be allowed to vote, and failing that, no one on any form of Welfare, except Social Security and unemployment, should be allowed to vote. That would not be a fair thing, but it would be a smart thing, and more workable than what we have.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The Nordic model is fair and far more workable than the mess in the USA.
Would you, in your “any form of Welfare except Social Security and unemployment” include industrial and agricultural subsidies, tax write-offs and abatements, or just plain non-payment or evasion of taxes by our sterling captains of industry? And what about bailing out of Wall Street during the last bubble burst? After all, they are ‘persons’ too and they are allowed to ‘vote.’
I am sorry, but you do not seem to understand the concept of a corporation as a separate artificial entity, distinct and apart from its stockholders and/or officers unless certain acts allow the “piercing” the corporate veil. As such, Chase Bank, for example, does not get to vote. This is the same reason that the “emoluments” lawsuits against Trump will fail, and why Hillary could gets pooploads of money from foreign governments while being the Secretary of State – – – since the money went to the artificial entity(s) of the Foundations.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
1) SS isn’t welfare, neither is unemployment.
2) If you think women shouldn’t be allowed to vote then why did you vote? No commitment to your ideals?
3) Get a dog.
Actually, SS is welfare – please see Flemming v Nestor (1960).
You asked, “2) If you think women shouldn’t be allowed to vote then why did you vote? No commitment to your ideals?”
No, ding-a-ling. I would gladly give up my right to vote if it applied to ALL women. It is the very least I could do for my country. But, until that right is taken from all women, I at least get to cancel the vote of some ignorant ghettopotamus on welfare, who wants free stuff for her four illegitimate children, or some high-class moronic white broad in a gated community who thinks we should be nice to illegal immigrants, and therefore both vote for Democrats.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
ghettopotamus
LOL! Good post Squeek.
Please explain why you “don’t think women should be allowed to vote.”
As a group, I think we are too stupid and greedy to vote. Individually, there are many conservative women who do not fit that category, but I would gladly give up my right to vote if it would mean the removal of 2 to 3 ignorant female voters. I did not think that way earlier in my life, but I do now. Here is a good article on the subject, and a small excerpt:
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
So why are women more ignorant than men? Or should most men also be denied the right to vote?
On average, I think women are dumber than men because we can be. We don’t have to be smart or hard working to succeed in life. All we have to do is find a man who values us sexually, and then we have it made. Now, in a society where marriage is becoming devalued, that is definitely a more dangerous proposition, because a woman who opts for that course may find herself dumped for a newer model when she hits the late 30s or early 40s. But it still works. A lot more women can make a living stripping than men. That is just the facts of life.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
You are not going far enough, when any baby is born there must be a hearing on its level of genetic inferiority and of the cultural inferiority of its guardians and if these exceeds a certain threshold it and its descendants are consigned to slavery on giant plantations and to being property of respectable white men.
Women were hardly slaves when they couldn’t vote. There were a lot of “Lord and Master” laws, but some of those continued well into the 1960’s and 1970’s. I think the real question is, has women being allowed to vote resulted in a better society, or a worse society?
I would argue a worse society. I did not always think this way, and used to fuss a lot with one of my uncles who was of the opinion that America’s fate was sealed when the 19th Amendment was passed. He also thought the fact that Dr. Smith was not ever put into the airlock by the Robinson family, of the Jupiter 5, and sent out into the vacuum of space was a sure sign of our impending doom.
These ideas once seemed ridiculous to me, but not sooo much anymore. Be honest, if you are an accomplished and professional type woman, and someone asks you if you are like most women, what do you say? Because most people in this class that I know say, “Oh heck no, I am not like most women.” I say it, too.
Why? I submit that it is because we have a negative view of the vast number of our fellow gender. And while we think we can cast an intelligent vote, do we really think the same of the rest of the girls? I don’t.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Every thing you assert about the majority of women I would assert about the same majority of men.
The reason fools need the vote is to protect their interests, they may not be good at detecting all the nuances of the politics but they still have enough of a tendency to recognize developments hostile to their interests, that their voting is worthwhile or would be were it not as in the US that money buys more influence than a mere vote.