Tag: voting rights

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If you’re like me (and if you are, I apologize), you’ve been following the Lindsay Clancy shitshow…I mean trial. I touched on it briefly last week, so if you want to read it before getting into this week’s entry, check it out here. If you don’t want to, click on the link anyway because reasons.

Anyway, one of the twists I didn’t see coming was a renewed discussion about the 19th Amendment. The odd thing is members of the Left and the Right are coming out and suggesting it may have been a mistake.

And all it took was a triple murder of children to bring both sides together.

So, let’s dive in!

the 19th Amendment

What the Left thinks it means – an important Constitutional Amendment enshrining the right of women to vote

What the Right thinks it means – one of the biggest mistakes we ever made as a country

What it really means – a Constitutional Amendment that underscores the power women have in government

The 19th Amendment reads as follows:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Wow. Looks like there was a time when the federal government didn’t need to overexplain something! Color me impressed!

Seriously, the 19th Amendment came about during a time when women were becoming more visible in everyday life and in politics. Although the origins of the women’s rights movement started in 1848 in New York, the 19th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1920. After centuries of being considered non-factors, women finally had the power to make their voices heard.

And in 2026, many are wishing they would shut up.

I’m kidding, of course. As much as I like to point and laugh at Karens wanting to speak to managers and shake my head as others defend a triple murderer because uterus, I have been blessed to have many strong, intelligent women in my life, not the least of which being my wife.

And, no, she is not standing behind me as I write this. After all, she knows where I sleep.

Just kidding, honey! Love you bunches!

More to the point, not all women are psycho hosebeasts with the morality of Hunter Biden at an all-you-can-snort cocaine party on Epstein Island. For example, I would think Margaret Thatcher would be bitch-slapping the Lindsay Clancy fangirls and telling them in no uncertain terms murdering three kids is bad. Of course, if Thatcher were doing that today, we might have a zombie problem, which is just a bit more important than a triple murderer.

Since 1964, more and more women are voting, outpacing the number of men voting in Presidential elections. Even before then, voting data showed women tended to vote Democrat. With this combination of factors, women became a voting bloc that could no longer be ignored.

And yet, Republicans have for a looooooong time, as shown by the gap between women voting Democrat and women voting Republican consistently being in double digits. That, and the fact Democrats pandered more to women than a nerdy simp trying to get the attention of an attractive woman.

Not that I know anything about that, mind you…

Although this explains why Republicans might want the 19th Amendment to go the way of Jeb Bush’s Presidential aspirations, it doesn’t excuse it in light of current events. With the Left being eternally confused about what a woman is, this is an opportunity for Republicans to reduce that gap if they’re smart.

Unfortunately, that’s a bit of an ask these days. After all, all the Left needs to do to mobilize women is to mention abortion rights and wait for the votes to roll in…oh, wait, that’s what they do when they’re fabricating votes to cheat…I mean win elections. But the game plan is still the same.

1. Invent an emotionally-based threat to women.
2. Create ads that play with women’s emotions.
3. Rely on their allies to amplify the threat to women.
4. Blather.
5. Rinse.
6. Repeat until the election cycle is over.

Let’s just say this tried and true method that gets results doesn’t put women in the best light. Yet, it’s tried and true for a reason: it works. The Left continues to use women for votes and money by exploiting female psychology, which tends to prioritize emotions. Although emotions can play a part in our ideologies, it doesn’t always work out when it comes to electing competent people.

If you doubt me, I have two words: Joe Biden.

But it took a triple murder of children for people on both sides of the aisle to reconsider if women should have the right to vote. Personally, I think that breaking point was when older women started to identify with Taylor Swift’s music, but that’s just me.

What’s also me is a bit of pushback on repealing the 19th Amendment. In spite of the outbreak of winemomitis so prevalent in today’s society, I still think women can make good decisions. The fact I got married shows that!

More to the point, women aren’t purely emotional creatures. They just think differently than men do, which is necessary for both genders (and, yes, still 2 genders, kids) to be better people. If we want to have a better society and government, we need to be better people, and taking a significant chunk out of the voting pool because of the actions and sentiments of some freaks doesn’t achieve that.

There’s also a Leftist workaround already in place to deal with the repeal of the 19th Amendment should it come to pass. All Leftist women have to do is self-identify as men and fellow Leftists in positions of power will let allow it. Except, of course, if you’re a man self-identifying as women to play in the WNBA, that is.

Instead of repealing the 19th Amendment, there has to be another option. And being the idea guy that I am, I think I have one. I call it the “Are You Fucking Stupid?” test.

Prior to getting a ballot, a potential voter, man or woman, must submit their recent social media history to election officials. If a majority of them have to ask if you’re fucking stupid, you don’t get a ballot. I’m not talking about having shitty taste in music, movies, or the like. If your serious posts on issues make you look like an idiot, you clearly lack the intellectual heft necessary to vote.

That eliminates the TikToker vote, and it helps to clean up social media for people who have more than two brain cells to rub together. So, win-win!

In the meantime, I urge anyone who has second thoughts on the 19th Amendment to really think about the implications of such an action. You would be condemning an entire gender to disenfranchisement all because some of their sisters decided to back a triple murderer because fee-fees. That’s not fair, nor is it advisable.

Remember, as the great philosopher LL Cool J so eloquently put it, Mama said knock you out.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Another week, another series of Ls for the Left, this time on the electoral side of things. The US Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana attempt to redistrict on the basis of race by a 6-3 margin. One of the key parts of this decision revolved around the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which in part prohibits racial discrimination in voting. What the case in question (Louisiana v. Callais for those of you playing along at home) did was bring to light the use of the Voting Rights Act to carve out racially-specific districts.

The Left, being the mature and thoughtful people they be, took to the airwaves to lay out a cogent and well-reasoned response.

Nah, I’m bullshitting you. They lost their ever-loving minds.

So, what’s all the hubbub, bub, over the ruling? I’m glad you asked, otherwise I would have had to pull something out of my ass to write about this week. You know, like I do every week.

Voting Rights Act

What the Left thinks it means – an important law that’s been gutted by the Trump Supreme Court

What it really means – a law that had noble beginnings, but got warped by the Left

To put it mildly, America has been pretty shitty towards blacks over the years. And by years, I mean centuries. Even during the more progressive 1960s, we still had to overcome societal biases and realize blacks were equal to whites and should be treated as such.

Enter Lyndon B. Johnson and the Voting Rights Act. With the President’s signature, many voting rules/laws that were around since the end of the Civil War, such as literacy tests and poll taxes, designed to prevent blacks from voting. And, unlike most laws getting passed today, it actually worked. Blacks started voting in droves, becoming an important voting bloc to this day.

Where this shitshow goes off the rails is in the application of the law, namely Section 2. You know how some states have gerrymandered districts that look like a meth head drew them on an Etch-A-Sketch? Thank the Left for that. In the 1990s, Democrats had the brilliant idea that only blacks should represent blacks in Congress. And by brilliant, I mean fucking stupid and racist. Then again, these are Democrats we’re talking about here, so being stupid and racist is kinda their brand. Just ask the SPLC.

Too soon?

Although the racial gerrymandering was permitted for decades, mainly because the Left made it so anything even resembling treating everyone equally racist (yeah, I don’t get it either), there was a tiny problem with it. Namely, the 14th Amendment.

I quote Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There’s a lot to take in, but the Reader’s Digest condensed version is everyone is subject to equal protection under the law, and you’d better have a damn good reason to limit those protections. Although Leftists will disagree, being white isn’t a good enough reason. Neither is any attempt to get more minority representation in the halls of Congress at the expense of equality under the law.

“But what about the institutional racism of the past, you bigot?” Leftists will probably say. And my response is simple: you don’t seem to think very highly of minorities, do you? I mean, it’s not like prominent Democrats have recently tried to make themselves relatable to blacks by suggesting they’re not smart…oh, fuck, they have. To hear assholes like Chuck Schumer, Gavin Newsom, and too many others to count talk, blacks are incapable of doing anything in their own best interests, so white Leftists just have to do things in their best interests.

When it comes to Ilhan Omar and Jasmine Crockett, they might have a point.

Overall, however, blacks aren’t as helpless as the Left believes. I firmly believe America isn’t as racist as the Left wants us to think and Republicans (the most evilest raciest racists that ever racisted evilly) have shown they will vote for candidates who don’t look like them. Just look at the 2025 Virginia Gubernatorial race. Winsome Earle-Sears ran as a Republican and managed to get over 42% of the vote in a losing effort. One doesn’t do that well without at least some whites voting for you.

And who did Democrats vote for? A white woman who makes Edgar Winter look like George Hamilton.

And if you want to go back a little bit further, didn’t we have a black President a couple of times a few years ago? And it’s not like he didn’t get white votes.

So, why do Leftists insist America is too racist to elect blacks without their help? I mean, aside from the fact they’re racist dumbasses. It boils down to the same philosophy the SPLC used: they need there to be racism to justify their efforts. As long as rich white Leftists can convince people the country is one big melting pot of white supremacy, they can keep the votes and money rolling in.

That’s why they freaked out at the Supreme Court decision. They had to confront the fact their racist anti-racism attempts were actually racist racist attempts. And instead of saying, “Maybe we should rethink this whole racism thing,” they let their masks slip and showed they don’t think very much of blacks after all.

Aside from the gross misapplication of the Voting Rights Act, I still think it serves as an important reminder of why we had to pass it in the first place and to never let up in pursuit of racial equality. The USSC ruling doesn’t gut the Voting Rights Act so much as it removes a way for Leftists to skirt the issue while telling people they’re totally fighting for equal rights.

And if we can’t trust the words of people who think Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a brilliant legal mind, who can you trust?





Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Election integrity has been a pretty hot topic in recent years. (Candidate integrity, on the other hand, not so much.) To address this, the House of Representatives voted on the SAVE Act, or as the kids like to call it the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. The short version is it updates existing legislation and includes ways for people to prove their citizenship so they can vote.

Which means Leftists are upset over it. Of course, it’s a day ending in “day” so they’re already upset about something. But this time, they’re pulling out all of their favorite shits…I mean hits. It’s sexist, racist, anti-trans, and, this is a new one, a poll tax because people might have to pay to get documentation.

So, is the SAVE Act the second coming of racist voting laws or a step towards more secure elections? And is this another lame segue into a Lexicon entry? The answers are coming up!

the SAVE Act

What the Left thinks it means – a Republican bill that disenfranchises voters by making it more difficult for people to vote

What it really means – a Republican bill that requires voting adults to be, well, adults

According to the bill itself, there are a number of methods of identification that will work to prove citizenship for the purposes of voting, ranging from a drivers’ license with REAL ID to a birth certificate to a marriage certificate and so many others. And even if you don’t have that documentation handy (which, realistically, you should, kids), the bill provides for a way to attest to your citizenship so you can vote. Should be a slam dunk, right?

Not quite.

The Left have been able to convince some of our fellow talking meatbags that requiring identification to vote is a bridge too far. It’s just way too complicated, expensive, and inconvenient to get identification, let alone use it to vote. And as Leftists love to tell us, voter fraud isn’t a thing. Until it is. Then, it’s not that big of a deal because it’s so rare.

That’s what we call “moving the goalposts,” kids.

The fact there’s voter fraud at all concerns me, regardless of who does it. One of the bedrock principles America has is we get to vote for our leaders. Granted, the last few Presidents don’t really speak highly of our ability to find good leaders, but the point remains. Voter fraud erodes that bedrock to the point we don’t even know if the candidate with the most votes will be the winner after the dust settles.

And no, Mrs. Clinton, you don’t fall into this category. No matter how hard you protest, you lost the Presidency because the popular vote isn’t what decides who gets to be President. Now, put on your Make America Great Again hat and shut the fuck up.

At the core of the Left’s assertion regarding voter identification is a belief some people are incapable of fulfilling the task of obtaining the necessary documentation for a myriad of reasons: age, inconvenience, cost, and so on. And, yes, these can be barriers, but they aren’t insurmountable if you’re willing to put in the work.

Cue Maynard G. Krebs.

And I’m only half-joking about that. Leftists are always down for making it easier to vote, mainly because that’s how they can game the system. When you set expectations higher than “must be solid matter,” it irks the Left because it makes them have to do actual stuff to overcome it. You know, like farming out voter fraud efforts to a Leftist organization with ties to our good friend Uncle George Soros.

But I’m sure that would never happen, amirite?

Although they’d be hard pressed to admit it, underneath the Left’s efforts to beat back anything even remotely related to election security is a very bigoted assumption: the less fortunate can’t advocate for themselves. To the the Left, these folks are incapable of much, so they need champions to speak for them. Enter the Leftists! Only they can defend the rights of those poor souls to do nothing constructive for themselves!

That’s mighty white of them! Often, quite literally!

However, by doing this, the Left treats the less fortunate as lessers in every aspect. This reduces these adults to children, incapable of doing anything without Leftists. And what confuses me more is there are people willing to be treated like children because it’s easier than being a ward of the state than a participant of it. I guess I’m just wired differently, what with me being a fan of Atlas Shrugged, “The Prisoner,” and personal freedom.

And, oddly enough, freedom is one of the ways the Left tries to convince people the SAVE Act will curtail theirs. That’s by design. By pumping up the fear, the Left whips up a frenzy, albeit an incredibly uninformed one. There’s a good possibility those who think they’re going to be negatively impacted already have all they need already. If they don’t, there are options that may or may not involve money and aren’t that inconvenient.

But the Left doesn’t want you to know that. They want you to be afraid.

And what’s more, the SAVE Act has only just passed in the House. The Senate still has to take it up, so if you’re affected by it or think you are, you have time to get that documentation or help someone else get it.

But the Left doesn’t want you to know that. They want you to be angry.

Is it just me, or does anyone else see a pattern forming here? It’s almost as if the Left want people not to learn about the SAVE Act and would rather gas up a mob because…well, that’s a good question. Purposely misleading people typically doesn’t end well once the people find out. And with the favorability ratings of the Democrat Party hovering just above that of STDs, they’d better hope people don’t find out anytime soon.

That’s not to say I’m completely happy with the SAVE Act. There are some unintended (or possibly intended) consequences that will affect women, trans people, and anyone else who has had to deal with name changes. It’s already a hassle to get even basic information and documentation updated (thank you, bureaucracy), but to add that hurdle to a Constitutionally protected right? That’s a Bridge to Nowhere too far.

The solution is somewhere in the middle. To balance out the need for election integrity and the need to protect the rights of eligible voters, there should be a way to identify eligible voters that can be cross-referenced with a database that can be updated regularly. Maybe a card of some kind, one that confirms a voter is registered…

Nah, nobody would be dumb enough to invent that. Forget I said it.

All that said, the SAVE Act has good intentions and is attempting to solidify trust in our elections. Maybe the Senate can make some adjustments to address the concerns I raised. Only time will tell if the SAVE Act will be an asset or a liability.

Oh, and before I forget, the answer to my second question is yes.