The rumors are true. There is a move afoot to adopt a new Amendment to the Constitution of the once United States. The 28th, named Restoring Voting Sanity.
The text is making the rounds: here it is. Updated: 5:00 PM (thanks, Anon, for the clarification).
Restoring Voting Sanity
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
The nineteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
The twenty sixth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Only those men, who can trace their citizenship to at least two generations, and who are in natural undissolved original marriages and only those blessed with natural issue shall be eligible to vote in any election in the States, territories, or possessions of the United States.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Reminder that the 17th Amendment allowed for the direct election of Senators. The 19th Amendment allowed females to vote. And the 26th Amendment extended the voting franchise to 18 year olds.
There is ample precedent for the repeal of Constitutional Amendments. The 21st Amendment repealed the hersterical Safety First! matriarchal effeminate 18th Amendment, which, you recall, banned wine, beer, and liquor. Banned wine, beer, and liquor! It can be no surprise, and it is no coincidence, that the first Amendment after the monumentally farcical 18th came the passing of the 19th Amendment.
So it is no trouble to repeal harmful or foolish Amendments.
That the Senate no longer functions, or even resembles functioning, as a sort of aristocratic debate hall is in dispute by no one. There was never a good reason to have direct elections, as in the House. The inevitable coarsening of debate, and indeed leading to its very absence, has occurred. Return to having the Senate raised by their peers.
The experiment having 18, 19, and 20 year olds voting has provided more than sufficient evidence that this was a bad idea. I mean, have you ever seen or interacted with college students (outside enclaves like Hillsdale or St Thomas Aquinas)? The presence of rare exceptions does not justify wholesale enfranchisement. Require maturity again.
And so to the 19th. May I quote to you Michelle Obama herself on this important subject? As this hopeful, some say, presidential candidate said of watching the inauguration of Donald Trump, “I cried for 30 minutes straight, uncontrollable sobbing”.
Uncontrollable is that which cannot be controlled.
Obama went on to say, “there was no diversity, there was no color on that stage”. Both false claims. Perhaps the uncontrollable crying led to partial blinding.
Need I point out that a leader who reacts to a mundane event with uncontrollable crying is not fit to serve?
Women’s natural compassion and emphasis on feeling are perfect and ideal fits inside families. But outside, it leads to things like this. The balance toward feelings has already progressed too far. Reclaim calm rationality.
Now, we are stuck living in an “our democracy”, a form of government in which it is believed that right and wrong can be put to vote, that Reality itself can be made illegal, or redefined, by a vote. This is not wise nor sane, yet we are, at least for now, stuck with it. One goal of this Amendment is to lessen egregious harms resulting from such a system.
This is why this Amendment contains the idea of interest. Those with children naturally have a greater, even vastly greater, interest in the future state of the nation than those without. Limiting voting to male heads of households strengthens the interest of the future state. It ensures a natural, small-c conservativism, and reduces the chances of wild swings of policy. Reduces, I say. Not eliminates. But that small-c conservatism would result is obvious. Reclaim the future.
To those who say this Amendment is unfair. So? To those who say is discriminates. So? To those who say this Amendment is “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobic”, or any of a score of judgmental terms. I say, and say again, So?
Pass on the text to your Congresscreatures, if they haven’t already seen it. Let’s get this Amendment adopted!
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. For Zelle, use my email: email@example.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.
This is a truly great idea, but I’d sooner be able to fly to the moon (heck, even Pluto, or Alpha Centauri) than this would be ratified by even one state. Nice dream though.
This effort will quickly be impaled on the horns of a dilemma:
To repeal the 19th Amendment, there will need to be an agreed-upon definition of “woman.” Clearly, that ain’t gonna happen these days.
Other than that, great idea!
A strong family, being necessary to the health and future of the nation, a marriage is the permanent union of one man to one woman.
A woman may not divorce her husband except by cause of grievous physical abuse, extended and willful neglect leading to poverty and hunger, or abandonment of over two years time not due to military service. A divorced woman shall receive no proceeds from the union she has broken, and is owed nothing by her former husband.
A spouse may not be unwillingly called upon to testify against their spouse, nor a parent against their child, nor a child against their parent, nor siblings against each other.
Let only married cucks who hate other men vote. Great idea. This will finally cause the civil wae we need.
If voters — even all-male, head-of household voters — are under the malign spell of a hostile, foreign money-power’s mass media/education propaganda operation then… what matters voting?
Other than that quibble, sure.
Where was this 60 years ago when it could have passed? Too late now. The looters are in charge now and they’re not voting away their power…
Which, is why the nonsense you hear nowadays that “secession is illegal”. Well, sure it is. You think the looters would willingly let the productive class leave?
We aren’t voting our way out of this.
Your idea is to limit voting to the slice of society you think best reflects you; i.e traditional Roman Catholic adults.
Isn’t that what everyone wants?
I -and everyone else who is not R.C.- would not support this.
What about first finding some trait the majority of Americans think they want promoted, then slice the population to bias for that?
As an example, if Americans want to promote self-reliance, voting could be limited to people with earned income between $30,000 to $100000/yr.
“Original marriage” would disenfranchise remarried widowers. Needs clearer rephrasing.
Re McChuck: so a woman divorces her husband because he refuses to support her and her children, and afterwards is entitled to nothing, so she continues to not be supported by her husband, but he now has no legal obligation to do so.
Also, you need to include sexual abuse as grounds. Hey, the guy isn’t hurting his wife, he dresses her in diamonds and furs, but he is banging their 7 year old daughter…
Need an amendment banning women from initiating divorces first!!!!!!!!
Or else no man will end up eligible to vote because women will collude to just divorce them all.
The proposed amendment is beneficial to any and all traditional, family-friendly religions, including the Islamic, Christian, and Judaic. Even atheists would benefit provided they are net producers with a stake in the future as demonstrated by producing future citizens in wedlock.
The division implied by the amendment is, rather, between the productive, civilization-creating class and a potentially destructive, whiny, entitled, victimizing, parasite class.
If the military enlistment and voting age is still kept to eighteen, I think the drinking age should be fixed at twenty-one. It is not unreasonable for the nation to demand a minimum three years of straight shooting and sober votes.
As for that “incontrollable sobbing,” I think that’s a politician’s hyperbole. I don’t think butter would melt in her mouth.
Fathers only? Hooya kidding? Mothers rule.
But the notion of limiting voting to PARENTS is a good one. The children are the future. The world will belong to them. People without children have no stake in the future, but parents do.
People without progeny mortgage the future and pile debt on the parents’ children to pay for their profligacy today. Parents, in contrast, care about their children’s future, economic and otherwise.
No Child, No Vote.
FYI: Calvin university has an archive of NAZI campaign materials – see: https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/
From which this: – on who’s vote should be counted:
“We have the right to demand that only Germans who build this state may speak, those whose fate is bound to the fate of their fatherland.”
Are you sure this is the company you want to keep?
A better idea (i.e. mine 😉 ) would be to use 100% electronic voting (see winface.com for an essay on how to make this work cheaply and effectively) and then count votes according to the voters score on a random subset of questions on current issues agreed to by both parties beforehand. That would instantly provide a permanent conservative majority, contribute to educational value, and disenfranchise no one.
As the only ones among our many siblings who were smart enough and independent enough to resist the relentless societal and family pressure to make babies, my wife and I are perfectly qualified to continue voting. Preventing her, in particular, would be preposterous, considering her exemplary ability to consider issues rationally and her contempt for overemotional, silly women (and men). As for eighteen-year-olds, I’m ambivalent. Sure, some of them go to war and get maimed or killed. How can someone like that be denied suffrage? On the other hand, most eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds today are college students–the most immature, ignorant, brainwashed class of people, who should have no access to important decision making.
Married cucks with children. So obviously not cucks.
Consider becoming one. That’ll show us!
Why did Michelle Obama claim to have “cried uncontrollably” after the inauguration?
Here’s a clue, for those who need one, in J.B. Shurk’s recent article in American Thinker:
“[Trump] ascended the dais with all of Washington’s illustrious Establishment Class seated directly behind him, and proceeded to rip them to shreds before the world:
“For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished — but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered — but the jobs left, and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land. That all changes — starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.”
“President Trump’s Hunger Games speech was an unprecedented attack on the Establishment authorities watching in amazement. While our compromised State media have spent years calling him an “authoritarian,” his policies were always glaringly anti-authoritarian. And that’s what terrifies D.C.’s nobility.”
Uncle Mike, yes, mothers rule, but fathers know best.
Any healthy society would prohibit drunken Irishmen from voting, or even posting on the internet.
that will be the 28th amendment that will be ignored.
I’m taking this as a not-so-subtle hint:
“Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator at firstname.lastname@example.org to inform them of the time this error occurred, and the actions you performed just before this error.”
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.”
Well, all of that aside, President Trump, in his CPAC 2024 speech, near the end of an excellent speech,
said, in words similar, “… and we can do this with the help of God and with your support.” Let reality
fill your heart and mind.
God bless, C-Marie
To further fortify democracy, a proposal:
Single adult functional taxpaying man = 1 vote.
Single adult man unable to pay taxes due to poverty/disability = 0 vote.
Single adult man or woman who develops mental impairment requiring institutionalization = 0 votes, pays no taxes.
Single adult functional woman = 0 vote, pays no taxes.
Adult Seminarian = 1 vote
Single consecrated woman religious = 0 vote, pays no taxes.
Married man with wife = 2 votes
Married woman with husband with/without children = Husband casts vote on her behalf, she pays no taxes.
Married man with wife and X number of biological or adopted children =
a) 2 + X votes.
b) If unable to vote due to impossible circumstances/absence/comatose condition, official exemption is provided to wife to cast his votes on his behalf.
Catholic parish Priest/bishop = 3 votes, pay no taxes.
Consecrated Male head of religious order with X number of members/ordinandi = 3 + (1 * X) votes on their behalf, order pays no taxes
Consecrated Female religious head with X number of novitiates = 3 + (1 * X) votes on their behalf, order pays no taxes.
Widower with X number of biological or adopted children = 1 + X votes. If unable to vote due to impossible circumstances/comatose condition, then votes are cast by:
a) Eldest adult son on his behalf
b) Biological father on his behalf
c) Father-in-law on his behalf
d) Eldest biological brother on his behalf
e) Husband of eldest biological sister on his behalf
f) Absent all of the above for support, 0 votes, children must be transferred to care facility.
Widow with X number of biological or adopted children = 1 + X votes cast by either:
a) Eldest adult son on her behalf
b) Biological father on her behalf
c) Father-in-law on her behalf
d) Eldest biological brother on her behalf
e) Husband of eldest biological sister on her behalf
f) Absent all of the above, 0 votes, pays no taxes.
g) In case of impaired circumstances/comatose condition, and no support from any of the above, 0 votes, children must be transferred to care facility.
Male or Female Head of orphanage/adoption agency with X number of children = 3 votes only, agency pays no taxes.
Male or Female Head of agency for care of adult disabled/impaired/impoverished = 3 votes only, agency pays no taxes.
– Adult is defined as aged 25+
– Non-citizen adults do not vote. Will be detained and sent back to nation of origin along with children under their care.
– Non-citizen orphan children under care of state or citizen families do not count towards X totals. May automatically be approved for immigration status upon becoming adults or sent back to nation of origin subject to history of behavior.
– Legal immigrant adults married or single do not vote, males and females will both pay reduced taxes, be more severely subjected to the repercussions of the law.
– Children of immigrants, natural or not, upon becoming adults, remain under immigration status, do not vote, males will pay full taxes. Females exempted from taxes. Laws will be applied as with citizens.
– Natural born children of natural or non-natural children of immigrants are automatic citizens and may gain voting rights upon adulthood, subject to regular sex/status.
– A male citizen who marries a female immigrant does not gain a vote from his wife, but does gain X number of votes per natural born children from her.
– A male immigrant who marries a female citizen does not vote. However, if there are children/dependents, he pays further reduced taxes.
– Natural born children of citizen/immigrant couples are not counted towards X totals, but are recognized immideately as citizens upon adulthood.
– Immigrant status widowers and widows, may not be represented in votes by citizen adult children. In cases of widows with dependent children, she pays no taxes.
– Widows, immigrant or citizen, are encouraged to remarry.
– Religious vocations are barred from widowers or widows while they still have non-adult children or dependents.
– Immigrants who enter religious vocations do not gain voting rights, and are not counted towards X totals, but will be exempted from taxes.
Candidates voted for, are installed in office for life, subject to referendums for recall, resignation, physical or mental impairment, criminal prosecution, or death.
I’m a white American who traces his lineage back several generations. I’m straight, conservative, hunter, fisherman. I’ve had a job of some sort or another for going on 50 years. Paid plenty of taxes too. I keep my lawn mowed and my bills paid. I’ve raised three fine boys of whom I’m immensely proud.
And my wife left me. She “wasn’t happy”. She doesn’t seem much happier now btw.
And so now according to you I no longer can vote?
F**k right off with that noise, psycho.
As long as you don’t “remarry”, you can vote.
Anyway, you won’t be able to complain. It will be Constitutional.
Tony: “And so now according to you I no longer can vote?
F**k right off with that noise, psycho.”
What’s more important, a government that delivers the results you desire, or voting?
Gonna be a lot of taxation without representation. Do I, as a childless immigrant who has paid taxes for forty years, get my money back? If you want to make this stick you better repeal the second amendment too.
PolybiusII: “Gonna be a lot of taxation without representation. Do I, as a childless immigrant who has paid taxes for forty years, get my money back? If you want to make this stick you better repeal the second amendment too.”
For much of the first century of the US, not all adults, even White males, were allowed to vote. The guys who wrote “no taxation without representation” understood that this meant regional representation, not individual representation.
Gonna be tough to get anyone to vote to end their right to vote, just sayin’…
At one time it was only landowners who had enough vested interest to be considered a meaningful vote. That is not as practical today but seriously, if you are not a net taxpayer, you should lose the right to vote.
And you really still have to count women as citizens with a vested interest. But requiring age 21 is very reasonable.
‘Restoring Voting Sanity’ is not going to help. They had those rules in 1780, which led to what we have today. You’re taking a Microsoft Windows approach: don’t fix the bug, just reboot it and experience the bug over and over forever.
“Also, you need to include sexual abuse as grounds. Hey, the guy isn’t hurting his wife, he dresses her in diamonds and furs, but he is banging their 7 year old daughter…”
She won’t need to divorce him after he is executed for incest and rape. And while he’s in prison, he’s not supporting her and has willfully (he committed the crime, so must expect the punishment) abandoned her.
It is logically impossible for a man to rape his wife. He has a right and she has a duty to have sex with each other. It is, of course, logically possible for a man to abuse his wife in many different ways, some of which may be criminal violations of the law.
@cloudbuster: “For much of the first century of the US, not all adults, even White males, were allowed to vote. The guys who wrote “no taxation without representation” understood that this meant regional representation, not individual representation.”
Irrelevant. Ths is 2023 CE not 1773 AD. It’s what it means today that signifies.
PolybiusII: “Irrelevant. Ths is 2023 CE not 1773 AD. It’s what it means today that signifies.”
Who says it means something different today?
No. It’s all part of your initiation ceremony, just like standing for the anthem and saluting the flag. You must get used to paying for the services rendered just as much as you pay for groceries. If you don’t like it now, you still won’t like it when you become an actual citizen, and then like every other full fledge citizen bask in the realization that realize that voting they way you want to continue doing now achieves nothing! So consider if you want to continue on as citizen of said land of the free*!
*Applicable taxes still apply.>/i>
Also if it is all to much for those of you too attached to the current paradigm… Might I suggest only one baby criteria… One small step with a significant leap!
Get rid of anonymous voting.
No more secret ballots.
All votes are to be tallied in public, on camera, with each person stepping up one at a time onto a podium at their local station, identifying themselves, and SAYING who they are voting for with arm raised.
Broadcast it all -AFTER- the results are announced. See if they add up. If necessary, voting periods can be run for a week, given it can be transparentally verified afterwards.
Camera problems? Run the local election again without announcing results.
Too scared? Don’t show up. And it’s nobody’s business why.
You may show up to say, “Present! But not voting.” If you don’t like anyone. If a majority state this, no candidate wins that locality, and residents must sort this out.
Any broad gross incompetency to run any local election efficiently by administrators, unable to conduct or solve what should be simple, will be PUNISHABLE BY DEATH.
Time to take this seriously.
Only those men, who can trace their citizenship to at least two generations…”
My problem is with this section. I can only trace one generation of citizenship. My father, born in Germany and left it in 1936 to avoid being conscripted into the military came to the US, served in WW2 in the Pacific. I served in the Army just after the Vietnam era, and have been a productive citizen since then, and I don’t get to vote? And if my father were alive he couldn’t vote?
cf. the so-called “Blanshard Amendments” (1953)