With the possibility of the SAVE Act becoming law (click here for our outstanding, witty, and pretty spiffy coverage of it), the Left has gone to a tried-and-not-at-all-true method to try to get public opinion on their side: calling it Jim Crow 2.0, just like they’ve done when previous voter ID bills have been introduced in recent years. Since we’ve already talked about voter ID bills previously, I figured I’d focus on the Jim Crow 2.0 part since it’s like a boomerang or a Taco Bell meal: it keeps coming back.
Jim Crow 2.0
What the Left thinks it means – Republican efforts to stop blacks from voting
What it really means – an overreaction to voter ID laws
To fully understand the implications of Jim Crow 2.0, we have to take a look at Jim Crow 1.0. (We’re avoiding Jim Crow 1.5 because it’s a vastly inferior version. Oh, and it doesn’t exist.) Jim Crow laws were a series of laws passed in the South after the Civil War designed to segregate whites and blacks in everything from transportation to education to voting. Let’s just say the South took the loss worse than John McEnroe on PCP, so this wasn’t exactly the best look for the Land of the Free and the Home of the Bottomless Cup of Coffee.
By the time the 1950s and 1960s rolled around, such laws started looking more and more racist because, well, they were. The civil rights movement helped make Jim Crow laws a thing of the past, ensuring blacks and whites could coexist on a level playing field.
Yeah, and if you believe that, I have a Jasmine Crockett victory party ticket to sell you.
Jim Crow laws were a black eye (or an African-American eye if you prefer) on our history and society, so introducing the idea into any conversation has to be done carefully so it’s not taken out of context. Or, if you’re a Leftist, you bring it up when you want to imply something is racist. While the original Jim Crow laws imposed literacy tests and poll taxes among other means to suppress the black vote, the same can’t be said of current voter ID laws, including the SAVE Act.
Well, it can, as the Left has proven, but it’s bullshit.
There is a league of difference between a poll tax and having to pay for a birth certificate to establish your citizenship so you can vote. Take getting a copy of your birth certificate, for example. The cost of getting a replacement copy ranges from $10 to $34. Inconvenient? Maybe. Prohibitive? Also, maybe. But if you are really passionate about voting, you will make it happen.
On a related note, you know what states have some of the lowest costs to get a birth certificate? The evil, backwards, racist South. And what states have some of the highest? The good, smart, progressive blue states.
Isn’t it ironic, doncha think?
The thing about the Jim Crow 2.0 talk is it’s not designed to make you think, but rather to feel. The Left wants whites in particular to feel collective shame over our past, even though most of us (and most of them, for that matter) weren’t alive when those laws were in place. No matter how many strides we make towards racial unity, they will always view whites as fatally flawed and undeserving of forgiveness.
That sentiment isn’t just one way, though. The Left also sees blacks as inferior and without agency. They see other potentially oppressed groups the same way, but for the purpose of this sketch we’re going to limit the focus to blacks given the subject matter. White Leftists in particular feel they have to speak up for the black community because they have both a superiority complex and a savior complex.
One tiny problem, kids. This attitude makes you racist.
Blacks are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, thank you very much. In fact, there are some I wish would shut the fuck up, but that’s not the point. Blacks don’t need white Leftists to stand up for them. They are motivated, capable, and smart enough to figure shit out for themselves. And since you can’t figure out what a woman is, maybe you should sit this one out.
You know, until 2138.
In the meantime, I have a request for the black community. Call out the Left’s bullshit with the Jim Crow 2.0 talk. It demeans your history and your present, and the more you entertain it, the more you give white Leftists the power to speak for you. Instead, I urge you to take the advise of the great philosopher James Brown, “Say it loud! I’m black and I’m proud!”
Well, either that or, “I feel good!” You know, whichever.
The funny thing about the Left’s resistance to voter ID laws is it flies in the face of what they say they want. They always say America needs to be more like Europe in governance, regulations, and the like. But guess who has voter ID laws.
Europe.
Oops. Better get on board there, Leftists! Unless of course you want to call Europeans racist…
On second thought, you’ll probably do that anyway, so scratch that.
Comparing any voter ID laws to Jim Crow laws is a non-starter for me, not just because I happen to agree with the concept of voter ID, but because the two concepts go together like oil and Joseph Hazelwood. Leftists are going to try to shame you into rejecting a good idea because they don’t have a logical basis for their arguments. Then again, these are Leftists we’re talking about there, and they have a protective order against logic.
Instead of feeling guilty about shit you didn’t even do, push back and ask them why they require photo ID for their events, but not for a democratic vote. Or better yet, ask them for their alternative. And don’t be surprised if they don’t have ready answers because, let’s face it, they haven’t thought beyond the “Jim Crow 2.0” stage.
On the plus side, it will give you an opportunity to point and laugh!
Tag: voter id
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In case you haven’t figured it out from the glut of political ads out there, 2026 is an election year. Didn’t we just have one 2 years ago?
With an impending election looming on the horizon, attention is brought back to the topic of voter ID. Congressional Republicans have introduced the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, a.k.a. the SAVE Act as a means to rile up their base…I mean address the problem. Of course, Leftists disagree with it because it riles up their base…I mean it will cause fundamental damage to our democracy.
Allow me to cut through the bullshit with…well, my own bullshit.
the SAVE Act
What the Left thinks it means – a racist and sexist voter ID to address a rare occurrence
What it really means – a voting law that has issues, but is trying to come from a good place
One of the fundamental concepts of America (at least until recently) is the concept of the voice of the people being heard, whether it be through a protest or at the ballot box. In the latter case, it’s essential we trust the process so we can trust the results, even if we don’t like them. I’ll be the first one to tell you I didn’t enjoy some of the previous Presidents, but I accepted their victories as legit. Yes, there were always a few cranks out there who claimed elections were rigged, but most of the time they were ignored.
Then the 2020 shitshow happened.
Not only did we have to deal with the insanity of government overreach in the name of protecting people from COVID (unless you were an elderly person in New York State, that is), but we had what can only be called a hinky election. There are a lot of other things it could be called, but I’m trying to stay family-friendly here. And if you don’t like it, go fuck yourself.
Even if you aren’t inclined to believe the election was stolen, there are too many questions without suitable answers even almost 6 years after the fact. How did someone like President Brick Tamland go from getting less than 1% of the vote in the Iowa Caucuses to getting more of the popular vote than Barack Obama without him doing anything more than…being Brick Tamland? At the time, Donald Trump had a 43% approval rating, so it’s hard to believe there was so much anti-Trump sentiment that it would sway the vote.
Unless bullshit was afoot.
It was after the 2020 clusterfuck that Republicans redoubled their efforts to institute voter ID laws, suggesting there were dishonest players out there who were gaming the system. You know, like ACORN. In response, the Left did what they always do: lie their asses off. The Left went from saying voter fraud doesn’t happen to it being rare to it’s only Republicans doing it.
But as inconsistent as their message has been, they are consistent on one thing: they are against voter ID. Their stated reasons are laughable enough, including it being racist and sexist, but the actual reason is much simpler.
It means the Left can’t cheat as easily.
That’s why the Left is bound and determined to tell us blacks and women are incompetent and can’t get their shit together well enough to obtain the documentation the SAVE Act says is needed to prove citizenship. And just what is that documentation? I’m glad you asked because otherwise this would be a much shorter Lexicon entry.
– a valid photo ID
– a US passport
– a birth certificate showing your legal name at birth (because, duh, birth certificate)
– additional documentation (marriage license, divorce decree, etc.) as needed in some circumstances
While the Left focuses on how few people can access these documents, I do take issue with these requirements as they pertain to women. Although it’s not an impossible task, especially if you’re as organized as my wife, it’s still a hassle for people who haven’t had an issue voting prior to the SAVE Act to have to jump through hoops like trained poodles to exercise their voting rights.
And what about trans people? This is going to seem odd coming from me, but it’s still a valid issue for me. To prove you’re who you say you are, you have to produce documentation of a life you no longer lead, which can bring back some painful memories, as well as emotional scarring. I don’t have to dig their lifestyle to defend their right to vote.
Of course, voter ID isn’t the only matter addressed in the SAVE Act. There are aspects impacting voter registration, maintaining accurate voting records, and other forms of red meat for Red voters. This is where it gets complicated for me. I understand the reasoning and appreciate what the SAVE Act is trying to do because, let’s face it, there’s a whole lot of shady shit going on.
Where I part ways with the Right is how many implications haven’t been completely thought through yet. Just with the two examples I came up with above, I can see how this has the potential to backfire on the Right. I know the Left is going to call you (and by extension me) misogynistic, transphobic, and the like, but you don’t have to give them ammunition.
On the other side of the fence, the Left doesn’t really have much to offer in opposition. Between denying there’s a problem and relying on the “racist” and “sexist” labels, you’re not giving people a reason to take your side. Especially considering the absolute fucking morons you’re trotting out to do it. You’re literally making the job easier for Republicans by being so fucking bad at fighting it. Come up with something new, for the love of God, or whatever deity you pray to these days.
Even though it’s flawed, the SAVE Act does have some elements worth preserving. And you know if the Left is shitting bricks over it, it can’t be half bad.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With the Presidential election a little under 5 months away (I’m surprised I didn’t hear more about this), all eyes are on the election process as much as the two major party candidates running (or in President Brick Tamland’s case, stumbling). While the Left has been repeating “Trump is a convicted felon” until their face turns blue…r, they’ve also been raising concerns about election interference. After all, our elections are sacrosanct and it’s clear Trump and the GOP is trying to weaken our faith in the election process by questioning the results.
You know, like these same Leftists did in 2000, 2004, 2016…
This raises the question of what constitutes election interference. A good question, but one with some really bad answers.
election interference
What the Left thinks it means – steps taken to question or derail our elections
What it really means – a nebulous term that covers a lot of ground without providing consistent and concrete examples
Elections used to be easy to handle. You show up, show ID, go into a booth with a curtain like a small shower, and pull your levers or mark your ballots. Or in some cases, mark your ballots while pulling your lever. And even when we disagreed with the outcomes, we lived with them without discord.
Then, the political parties realized they could cheat. Whether it was Chicago Mayor Richard Daley delivering votes for John F. Kennedy or the whole hanging chad controversy from the 2000 Presidential election, it became more commonplace to think our elections could be rigged through underhanded means. But surely two major political parties with decades of shadowy meetings and more vices than Sodom and Gomorrah with an all you can eat buffet would never sink to fucking with the election process, right?
Nevermind.
When you think about it (and I have because our Internet was down for a couple of hours), election interference as a concept has a pretty wide scope. Even with the various state election laws and federal election laws, there are a lot of gray areas. Just like my hair these days.
But the existence of laws themselves doesn’t make partisans any less tempted to break them. And when you consider election law violations are investigated as infrequently as the media covering anything involving Hunter Biden, there’s a good chance any election crimes are going to go unpunished. If anything, I’m surprised more people haven’t started questioning whether our elections aren’t as staged as pro wrestling.
Actually, that’s not a fair comparison. Pro wrestling is much more on the level.
Now, that’s going to get me branded as an election denier by the Left, which is fine. I’ve been insulted worse by better people. But if you’re going to tell me my questioning of election results that make less sense than a Kamala Harris sentence is threatening the integrity of elections, you’d better come with evidence beyond “we’re uncomfortable with you telling the truth about our election crimes.”
In fact, Leftists consider what they consider to be “misinformation” to be election interference. Considering these Leftists can’t figure out what a woman is, I’m not going to take them that seriously.
And it’s this same attitude I’m taking towards the Left’s sudden concern with election integrity and preventing interference. From where I sit (in my living room in my comfy chair as I write this), this concern is based not on acknowledging the screamingly obvious, but hiding the election interference that has already occurred and may be gearing up again to help President Tamland limp across the finish line in November.
One safeguard the Right has asked to be put in place to reduce election interference is voter ID laws. Actually showing identification and having a poll worker confirm you are who you say you are is a good way to better ensure election integrity.
Which is why the Left opposes it. Not only do they consider them to be burdensome, but racist! After all, it might make minorities actually have to do something outrageous, like…getting a driver’s license!
Yet, voter ID laws could easily fit under the Left’s umbrella for election interference because it doesn’t fit in with the overall plan: electing more Leftists. And with the election of more Leftists come the appointment of more Leftists into positions that you’d need an act of God, an edict from the Vatican, and a signed note from your mother to get them out of.
To go along with this, Leftists could consider laws against electioneering to fall under that designation. Fortunately, we’ve never had a major party offer food and water to people in line to vote, like, ever, right? Also, consider laws restricting mail in ballots. Certainly, the Left would consider that election interference. In fact, as it currently sits, election interference could mean just about anything.
Except for the shit they do. Like…oh I don’t know…getting their favorite rich relative Uncle George Soros to push for Leftists to be responsible for counting the votes in various states? And if these people are aligned with one side or the other, what safeguards are there to prevent them from miscounting votes or tossing out valid ballots while excusing invalid ones? And if there appear to be boxes and boxes of ballots that mysteriously show up at the 13th hour, it’s up to these folks to determine if they’re valid, even if there are discrepancies.
Call me a cynic, but I’ve seen too much election-related fuckery because of dishonest bullshit from partisan players. And with how vague and contradictory the Left’s definition of election interference is, I have zero faith in their professed desire to tackle it.
However, there is a method to their madness, that being holding the Right accountable to the rules. Thank you, Saul Alinsky. The only difference is the rules are being set by the Left and the Right is going along with them because, well, they’re the rules. The Left has no intention of following the rules they make, but they’ll be sticklers whenever the Right deviates from them.
That is, until the Right decides to force the issue. Voter ID laws, restrictions on mail-in ballots, and other options on the table are not only reasonable, but doable. And they put the Left in a difficult position: support laws that will go a long way to ensuring election integrity (and cut down on the amount of bitching from everyone except the Left), or admit they’re full of shit.
Guess which one I’m betting on.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
If there is one thing the Left excels at, it’s sucking at life. But if there’s another thing they’re good at, it’s hyperbole. If there is a problem they can market, it’s the most horrible problem ever! After the 2020 Elections and the results being more questionable than a Media Matters hit piece, many Republican-led states looked into passing voting laws designed to address the issues they saw. As expected, the Left overreacted, calling these new laws a threat to our democracy.
Then again, the Left thinks a threat to our democracy is anything from new voting laws to fines for overdue library books. It’s gotten to the point it’s become a rallying cry to get their supporters energized enough to take a day off work and…sorry, I couldn’t even type the rest of the sentence with a straight face.
Now’s as good a time as any to add the term to our Leftist Lexicon.
threat to democracy
What the Left thinks it means – a group or idea that can potentially unravel the social and political fabric of America
What it really means – an overused catchphrase that is both unintelligent and inaccurate
There is one thing I forgot to mention in my introduction. The Left is good at connecting two things that have no actual connection whatsoever. Remember, these are the folks who maintain speech can be violence, but actual violence is speech, and mostly peaceful speech at that! So, it’s not surprising the Left would try to conflate new voting laws with events that will destroy our country, move us closer to a fascist/totalitarian state, and, Marxist Utopia forbid, lead to another Nickelback album.
The problem is these new laws have gotten a bad rap (by the same Leftists who told us the 2020 Election was the most secure in history) because the Left…lied about them. Whether it’s Georgia’s proposed law that allegedly bans people from getting water while in line to vote (it doesn’t) or Texas’s proposed law that allegedly restricting access to vote (it doesn’t), the Left has people thinking any Republican effort to curtail the potential for voting fraud are politically-motivated, racist, ageist, and overall evil.
And, surprise surprise, this is by design. The Left doesn’t have any substantive arguments against the proposed laws, or at least none that doesn’t make them look like idiots. Let me put it this way. There are Democrats who are exposing the Left’s lies on these bills. No matter how you slice it, that’s not a good look.
As deceptive as this is, unfortunately it works with a lot of people outside of the Left’s bubble because it preys upon the fact most of us fell asleep during Civics 101. We are not a democracy, nor have we ever been. Whether we will be one later…well, let’s just hope it doesn’t happen unless you want to be Piggy in a live-action version of Lord of the Flies. Many Americans think we are for the reason I mentioned earlier, and it makes it harder to convince people of the truth.
And, no, a democracy and a republic are not interchangeable, nor are they close enough to be synonymous with each other. In a democracy, the people have a direct voice within the government, while the people have an indirect voice within the government through the election of representatives in a republic. A slight difference, but one that means a lot in the grand scheme of politics. For there to be a threat to democracy, there must be a democracy to threaten.
The other aspect of the Left’s latest squawking point left to tackle is why the Left makes so many seemingly minor molehills into metaphysically dangerous mountains. For this, let’s focus just on the voting laws. The purpose of the laws is to prevent people and parties from undermining elections. That is troubling to the Left because these laws shut down many of the tricks they’ve used to win elections in recent years. That gives Leftists a vested interest in shutting down these laws, even though the specifics of these laws make sense. It’s like watching a debate between Ben Stein and an agitated honey badger. One will present the facts in a measured tone, and the other will rip your throat out if you get too close. And if you’ve ever had your throat ripped out by Ben Stein…
But just like the honey badger, the Left doesn’t care about the facts. They need people to be afraid because fear makes people malleable to the point they abandon critical thinking and focus on self-preservation. And with the Left thinking they know what’s good for you more than, well, you do, they’re going to do whatever they can to get you under their control. Then, after you die, they will control how you vote. Isn’t that nice?
Unfortunately, it’s worked again, and many people are lead to believe the new voting laws prevents people from voting, but only certain people (i.e. non-whites). The facts aren’t as sexy as the fear, so the sexy wins. But as we’ve found out with supermodels, sexy isn’t the same as smart. While the fearmongers screech about how these new restrictive laws prevent people from giving voters in line water, they leave out a little detail: it applies to everybody connected to a political campaign or movement. If it’s the Girl Scouts doing it, no problem. If it’s the National Organization for Women stumping for Biden/Harris, that’s a problem. The devil is in the details, kids, and the Left just so happens to not like to give all the details as they tell you Republicans want people of color to die of thirst while in line to vote.
Meanwhile, we here in “flyover country” have this nifty little thing called tap water that we can put in our own containers and drink to our hearts content. (Offer void in Flint, Michigan.)
As with most Leftist ideas, the best weapon is common sense. Why are the Left so up in arms about voter laws in Republican states that are often looser than voter laws in Leftist strongholds? It’s pure politics, baby. If the Left wants to turn states like Texas and Georgia blue in our lifetimes, they need to keep their cheating on the down-low. New laws mean the Left’s goal to flip red states is going to be delayed as they try to figure out new ways to cheat. To put it simply, the Left is counting on you to be scared so their status quo doesn’t change. They’re not interested in saving democracy; they’re interested in saving Democrats!
Sorry for saying the quiet part out loud, Leftists, but if you’re not going to level with us, I’m going to level with us and, spoiler alert, it’s not going to end well for you. Take your faux-patriotic self-generated OHMYGODWEREGONNADIE bunk and stick it where the sun don’t shine.
Namely, under Jerald Nadler’s beltline.
In the Meme Time
Another Leftist meme showing how ignorant the Left really is today. Unfortunately the useful idiots still buy it.
The whole problem with this meme is none of these activities are safe to mail. Every single one of them has been intercepted, lost, or has been used fraudulently by another party.
Checks are stolen every day from the postal service worldwide. If you want to securely send funds use direct deposit, Paypal, Venmo, bitcoin, or some other electronic transaction that is more secure than dropping a check in the mail and hoping it gets there.
Draft registrations, who uses this term? This is Selective Service registration that every male must fill out when he turns 18 years of age. I did it, but back then other methods just weren’t available yet. And these too can get lost in the mail or be filled out fraudulently. It does happen.
Prescription drugs being sent via the mail is a lucrative business and supply chain for those that abuse prescription drugs. Lots of issues with this and total lack of safety for sending such substances in the mail system.
Passports, Driver Licenses, or other State issues IDs. These are stolen and used fraudulently all the time. From kids with a fake or false ID so they can buy alcohol to the very depth of identity theft.
But then there is the granddaddy. Voting by mail. This one, unlike all the others, has three avenues of potential fraud to be committed.
Requesting the ballot.
Receiving the ballot.
Returning the ballot.
All the others the initiating transaction is in person or at least more secure than just filling out a form and sending it through the mail. And once received these other items are kept.
Not so with voting by mail. It is just not safe.
And until we have a secure solution, blockchain voting. It should not be the norm. and should only be used in extreme cases. Get to the polls in person to cast your vote.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Even though the Presidential election has been over for 4 months, we’re still talking about it. I know elections have consequences, but I didn’t think one of them would be being bored out of my mind while watching people with zero clue about how government works argue over simple concepts. And the normal people trying to educate them can be frustrating, too.
Lately, the conversation has revolved around election security, and, no, I’m not talking about the possibility of having armed guards at polling places. Leftists are doing everything they can to not only say anyone who rejects the notion the 2020 election had issues with voter fraud, but also to say future elections are subject to voter fraud.
Yes, they are that contradictory.
But what to Leftists mean when they speak about election security? It’s not what you think…
election security
What the Left thinks it means – methods to expand the voting base
What it really means – methods to ensure Leftists win more often
When you look at the various proposals Leftists have come up with to promote election security (and I have because I have no life), it’s astounding what they’ve managed to lump together. Here are some of the high/low/no lights
– Abolishing the filibuster in the Senate
– Preventing gerrymandering
– Promoting mail-in voting
– Working against any new laws requiring a photo ID to vote
– Electing more Democrats/Leftists
– Making it easier to register potential voters
Maybe it’s me, but there seems to be a lack of security in the Left’s election security proposals. Between the ridiculous (preventing gerrymandering) to the sublime (blocking Voter ID bills), I have yet to see how any of these would lead to the kind of widespread election security the Left say they want.
Unless…this isn’t actually about election security at all!
And it’s not. The Left has any number of ways to create electoral chaos, from voter registration fraud (hi, former ACORN nuts!) to ballot harvesting to “helping” seniors fill out ballots for Democrat candidates to accepting and counting votes from the posthumous. The Left has a vested interest in keeping the chaotic status quo because these aforementioned election shenanigans would go the way of Andrew Cuomo’s popularity with the elderly in New York.
Keep this in mind the next time Leftists claim Republicans can’t win elections without cheating.
The scary thing to acknowledge is that some of the Left’s election security ideas have merit. I’m okay with eliminating gerrymandering because it turns Congressional districts into an Etch-A-Sketch. Just when you have the lines drawn the way you want, someone else can come along, shake it all up, and force you start over. As current state-level politics lie, Republicans have the Etch-A-Sketch in a majority of the states, so it’s no wonder the Left wants to get rid of it. In doing so, however, they remove the power they would have if/when they win back the states. Not to mention, the Left have used gerrymandering for the express purpose of getting more minorities elected to Congress. As we’ve seen with Congressional geniuses like Hank “Guam Is Tipping Over” Johnson, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Maxine Waters, this is a brilliant idea that can in no way make the Left look bad.
To any Leftists reading this piece, that last sentence was sarcasm.
Although I agree with the elimination of gerrymandering, it shouldn’t be involved in any discussion about election security (nor should it be involved in any discussion of Senate elections, yet it happens). On the other hand, there are potential solutions, like voter ID, that should be involved in any discussion about election security, but get dismissed by Leftists because…they might work.
Take voter ID, for example. Having potential voters show some form of identification before they vote is (or at least should be) the cornerstone of election security. The fact the Left pushes back so hard on this should be a red flag as to their commitment to secure elections. More to the point, though, voter ID laws speak to actual election security because they address a major problem with voting as it stands now: in many cases, we don’t know who is voting and whether they’re eligible to vote. Granted, it’s not foolproof given the number of fools out there willing to test the boundaries, but it’s a step in the right direction. The underlying issues of availability and cost to get the necessary identification are related, but not to the point that they negate the positive impacts.
Since it doesn’t perpetuate the problem and the stereotypes connected to it (namely, that Leftists believe minorities are too poor and/or stupid to get ID cards), the Left will never go for it. Which is why we have to. As with personal security, election security starts and ends with us. That’s going to require a bit of effort on our part, but it’s going to be worth it if for no other reason than to watch Leftists’ heads explode as their strategies face the failure that comes with honest men and women doing the right thing.
In the meantime, be careful of Leftists bearing promises of election security. Unless, of course, you think the election equivalent of Barney Fife might do a good job.