Randy writes:

Last Saturday evening I attended a “Constitution” neighborhood meeting in South Jordan, Utah. It was nice to see so many neighbors who are now attempting to contribute to the conservative movement, where just eight years earlier I was told to leave several neighbors alone (door to door campaign walks) because they were Republican and they did not agree with my conservative agenda. Yes, Utah is a state ruled by the Republican Party, but one also where most “Republicans” vote as moderate Democrats.

The format of the meeting is three speeches/presentations on any constitutional topic, followed by a free-form discussion.

Unfortunately the meeting started off with one of the ladies giving a patently distorted, sociological, programmed view of suffrage. I hope this is not a topic with which she hopes to carry the conservative moniker, as it only took me a minute to call into question the direction of the meeting, and wonder if it was not in fact a socialist group hiding under the tenor of conservatism. Fortunately the following speakers shifted back on topic discussing a challenge to the Health Care fiasco, and the Federal Banking System.

Although I understand and respected the established rules of engagement, I was disappointed that a direct challenge was not an option during the suffrage presentation. One who knew nothing of the history and effects of suffrage would have taken away the following:

· Young people, blacks, and Women were and continue to be unfairly discriminated against.
· Only land owners were allowed to vote (fact).
· Racism and sexism was and continues to be a white only issue.
· Militant and violent protests were justified as no lawful action was effective.
· Emmeline Pankhurst, Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, Harriet Beecher Stowe were all heroes.
· We could not exist without the 13th and 14th Amendments.

What was either consciously and or intentionally ignored, or she was unaware of, where the following facts:

· The feminist/suffrage movement was and is a pure socialist movement.
· They as a collective worked to repeal the Contagious Diseases Act.
· They were and are hardcore and violent radicals.

 The suffrage movement spun or strongly influenced the following groups – Women’s Franchise League, Independent Labor Party, The Great College Street Society, Ladies National Association for the Repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts, Women’s Social and Political Union, National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, East London Federation of Suffragettes, Independent Women’s Social and Political Union, National Women’s Rights Convention, Society of Revolutionary Republican Women, and more. More recently the American Socialist Movement, American Socialist Workers Party, American Socialist Union, Socialist Party of America, Democratic Socialists of America, Socialist Labor Party of America, National Socialist Party of America, Socialist Propaganda League of America, Socialist Party of North America, Irish Republican Socialist Committees of North America, National Organization of Women, and more.

Feminism and Suffrage encourages, champions or condones the following:

· The destruction of the nuclear family.
· The destruction of organized religion.
· The movement to feminize men.
· The homosexual movement.
· They are pro-Abortion during all three trimesters.
· They are promoters of the occult.
· They condone and commitment violent action to promote their radical socialist agenda.
· They are willing to use children as tools to promote any and all points of their agenda.
· They are pro-prostitution.
· The dumbing down of America.
· The revision or complete rewrite of American History. 

There are very few women involved in the political process, where the ones that are are often destructive and uneducated about the topics. I love and cherish my wife beyond words, but she has never (as best I can tell) spent a minute thinking about or considering a vote prior to casting it. She has voted party line.

Quite honestly that is not the vote I want a woman or man to cast. I want them to research a topic or legislative position, and vote from that discovery. Women tend to vote emotionally, and men tend to vote logically or in protest.

Since this was my first meeting, I did not volunteer as a speaker for the next session, but will present a rebuttal to suffrage at the following meeting. If you have any suggestions for addition or subtraction, I have very large ears, and four eyes with which to view.

Thanks for what you do, and your stabilizing view of a return to a strong and well thought-out America.

Randy adds:

I want to point out that suffrage has provided some very commendable contributions, not only to women, but society as a whole. I also believe that even a broken clock will be assumed to be working twice a day by an unobservant passerby. The benefits have been at best accidental quantum events due to the nature of feminism and its goals.

Laura writes:

Thank you. I’d like to point out that women shaped and influenced society long before female suffrage was ever seriously imagined. Whether the female suffrage is ultimately a good thing or not, its importance to feminine influence and identity is wildly exaggerated.

                                               — Comments —

Amelia B. writes:

A thought for Randy’s further debates on the subject:

Randy mentions that “Women tend to vote emotionally, and men tend to vote logically or in protest.” While this may or may not be true, I do not think it is your strongest argument, and is most likely to get people so angry that they stop listening to you. Moreover, for every woman who votes party line, I’d imagine that you could find a man who votes party line out of a sense of masculine fidelity to the “club”. The point being, this line of argument isn’t the most fruitful one.

Instead, you should focus your discussion on what a vote is, and how society can best be directed. From my limited understanding, our Founding Fathers established the vote because they wanted to avoid having centralized power as much as possible. Thus, voting serves to keep a government accountable to the will of the people, and to keep a check on the power of the government.

As for the best direction of society, I’m going to reveal my inner philosopher and argue that both voters and leaders should have to meet some basic level of intelligence and political savvy, not to mention wisdom, to earn the privilege of voting. (When did voting turn from a privilege to a right, anyway?) Insert some criteria here- a certain level of education, property-holding, marital status, a much higher age limit (55?) etc. The point is that, given the complexity of political issues, and the ease with which the media can manipulate political messages and feed them to the public, I do not think the average person takes the time to really think through their decision before voting. Indeed, I would argue that it is not profitable for a society to have their entire population spending days upon weeks researching, arguing, and debating political issues. Yet, without this type of deliberation it is impossible to make wise voting choices. Thus, I think there is a strong case for imposing some restriction on suffrage to ensure that truly worth candidates are elected, for the well-being of all.

A side note: if the requisite for suffrage were being a married man, this would give women a real power, since by marrying a man a woman would be “voting” for his ability to make wise decisions. This would also give women a modicum of political power, through her influence on her husband. Heaven forbid, it might also strengthen the institution of marriage.

Another note: if suffrage were restricted in a way so as to disenfranchise large portions of the country, it would be best to do this in such a way that trying to earn the vote would be better than rioting. For example, predicating the vote upon a high level of wealth would probably just lead to class hatred. But predicating it upon an accessible level of property ownership, or upon being married, might incentivize people to these goals, if they were truly attainable for the grand majority of people. Alternately, an “age of wisdom” such as 55 as a requisite would be relatively easy to instate, because it would not be easy to categorize as discriminatory.

Laura writes:

A few months ago, at Dennis Mangan’s blog, someone suggested a point system, whereby voters could earn more than one vote by virtue of various criteria considered valuable in a voter, such as age, experience, property ownership, marital status and sex. For instance, a married man 55 years or over who  owned property and had no mortgage might be worth three votes while a single 30-year-old woman who rented an apartment might have one. It’s an intriguing idea that gets around the revulsion most people feel toward disenfranchising anyone. Of course, the whole idea is founded on principles that are repellent in a radical democracy.

Randy writes:

Amelia, you are spot on. The only reason I am proceeding in building an argument to rebuke major portions of Saturday’s suffrage speech, is in direct response to the supportive reactions to my statements during the freeform discussion. Had I received any serious challenges, negative body language, or in the worst case caused someone to leave, I would proceed further with extreme caution. I will not be making such a brazen, personal, and out of hand statement as previously conveyed about peoples general voting habits. I will shine a light on historical facts contained in my message, and look for other helpful suggestions such as those you provided. 

The Internet is not a bastion of tact and grace, nor is it a place that provides for anything more than a static interchange of ideas, and equally static responses. I am certain that several would rise up against me, if for no other reason that I did not parrot the public school and University rubber stamp of suffragettes as caped heroes who shot lightning bolts from their eyes. But this is war, and my goal is to inflict so much psychological damage that the socialist machine looses the will to fight. OK, maybe not in such a grand capacity, but at least I can cause a small group of people to look at a timeline of cause and effect events starting way back in the late 1600’s in Europe. 

I am a big bite kind of guy, but realize these types of meals are much more easily swallowed and digested when given in pre-chewed baby sized spoonfuls. With any luck I will use these two months to construct a well thought out argument, that conveys grace, yet challenges people to think, and dig deeper on their own. A man or woman could do worse than to help his fellow freeman to logically invest themselves toward the path of self-enlightenment.

 Laura writes:

A static interchange of ideas? I like to think the Internet also offers a dynamic interchange of ideas.

Randy writes:

Static ideas in as much as once you post it, it’s hard and fast. If you reread it and want to modify your thoughts, you have to follow up with additional posts. Unlike a conversation that is truly dynamic, where based upon what a person says in response, you can adjust and modify on the fly.

Laura writes:

Okay, I misunderstood. You mean static compared to conversation. 

J. in Brooklyn writes:

I’m impressed with Randy’s knowledge of the history U.S. feminism and would like to know some of his sources.

The woman at his Utah meeting is a plant, in my opinion.There is no group that has public meetings that isn’t targeted by leftists if there’s a hint of political benefit, e.g. our Linux Users Group (one of the NYC ones) was visited by one.

I think the way to frame the suffrage issue is to first ask what plans his locale has to maintain the integrity of the elections in their area November 2010. It is highly probably that rushing the polls, etc. on a scale hitherto unprecedented will be attempted, etc. [see e.g. James Simpson’spiece in DC Independent Examiner of some weeks ago for discussion of possibilities.]

From my experience with NYC elections (some first hand) the RKBA is essential in preventing stolen elections. Mayor Dinkins forbade currently serving NYPD members to serve as poll watchers in the 1993 election. Many retired ones did serve; since NYers still allow themselves to be disarmed they and the NYFD poll watchers are almost the only people who can carry.

He can present this as a “conservative” issue: How do we maintain the system as it is, given the current voter registration requirements and records.

I would have few objections to the Alabama voter registration requirements in effect there, including Selma in 1963!  There was a written test, and an taxpaying requirement or work history requirement. I suppose I would go with the written test first;  I have fantasies of requiring oral exams of candidates, not just voters. One other initial restriction I favor  is raising the voting age. Military eligibility age was long considered a separate issue. The Alabama 1963 rules were post-19th Amendment obviously. I do not see one immediate winner argument against the 19th but disqualifying welfare recipients is a prime desideratum. Welfare as presently established promotes single mothers.

I  don’t have any one clear winner argument for repealing the 19th.   It would appear that the 19th proponents were indeed the forerunners of the contemporary crowd.  Then there’s the pragmatic issues of getting out the vote now. Randy needs to tie the suffrage restriction/reinstatement issue with the dire situation we are in, and with the issues (the “Health Care and the Federal Reserve — and much kudos for his group on getting the latter in their sights) and  and the inevitability of the demise of democracy when the voters decide to vote themselves largesse (there’s many better quotes
on  this around than my formulation here) and say:

Here we are now.  What do we need to do now to reverse the trend, to ward off takeover by the elites and their pawns and restore the Constitution and prevent any more such attempts at overturning it?

Please follow and like us: