WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE: COULTER'S NOT THE ONLY WINGNUT WHO THINKS IT'S A BAD IDEA
So is Ann Coulter the only right-winger who dreams of taking away women's right to vote? Nope. Here's Neal Boortz:
... Coulter is exactly right. Don't take her word for it, just read "Freedomnomics" by John Lott. Here we have a renowned economist going all the way back to the late 1980s to see what happens when women get the vote. His findings? In every single case, when women were given the right to vote the cost of government immediately began to rise as women, particularly single women, started voting for the candidates who would create more government spending programs designed to provide women with security. That magic word ... security.
Lott found that young single women overwhelmingly vote liberal. When they marry and start a family they start voting more conservatively. That would be because their sense of security is provided by their family, and they don't want government to interfere in their accumulation of wealth. Then, if that very same woman starts to feel that her marriage is threatened ... or if she becomes divorced ... she right back there voting for liberals again. Why? Security .. this time from the government instead of her husband.
Coulter is right. Deal with it ...
Boortz has conferred with Bush at the White House. Next time he's there for a confab, maybe they'll discuss repealing the 19th Amendment.
(And I won't even get into the fact that his source is serial fabricator John Lott.)
1 comment:
Women are wired differently than men. Not better or worse,just different. Give a woman a choice and she will most likely choose safety and security over freedom every time. I believe women feel this way because subconsciously every woman knows that at some point she must endure a gestation period.
During pregnancy, a woman's physical abilities are impaired and for most of the 4.4 million years human like beings have lived on earth,she would have been vulnerable to physical attack by other animals that wanted to eat her. I believe this subconscious feeling still exists today in modern women and drives them to nest, or otherwise prepare save places to conceive and raise children. Also, in pre-historic times, women looked to a strong alpha male to protect them during this vulnerable time. This instinct worked well for "cave women," but it doesn't work so well when voting on modern public policy.
I believe this explains why polls show women overwhelmingly support Barack Obama. In our modern society, "social security" is more important the security from physical harm, women see Barack Obama as an alpha male in the best position to offer them the safety and security they secretly crave. Why else would otherwise rational women, vote for a man that has borrowed and spent more money then every other President in U.S. history combined. They must know it's unsustainable, but they can't help themselves.
This is not a new phenomenon. Since 1920, the year the 19th amendment was rectified, the U.S. has been drifting toward socialism. Before 1920, those who would promise safety and security could only count on public workers, civil servants, socialists, and a small segment of liberally minded males for support. After 1920, with the addition of women to the electorate, the game changed forever. At first wives followed their husband's voting habits. But during WWII, as women entered the work force and began to think "independently," voting habits changed. The late forties, fifties and sixties brought enormous social changes driven predominantly by this new liberal voting block. Socialist policies such as FDR's "New Deal" and LBJ's "Great Society" could never have happened before 1920 - before woman's suffrage.
Both parties have become extremely adept at pandering to this majority coalition of socialists, public workers, civil servants, unions, and woman. Today, safety and security sell with regard to the vote. Those politicians that scream security the loudest, get the vote, regardless of whether or not they have a workable, sustainable, plan.
And the problem is getting vary serious. Billion dollar yearly spending deficits are fast becoming the norm. This year's Presidential election is nothing less then a referendum on social spending.
The irony of this is not lost on Austrian economists. What the government gives, it takes twice - once to give, and once to administer. Americans already work half the year to pay taxes and if they really had to pay the full amount (including the borrowed money), they'ed be working all year. Americans are slaves and don't know it. Where is the security in that?
I don't know what the answer is. Taking the vote away from women at this point is out of the question, but how can our free society survive? Will women evolve into modern creatures that eschew social spending and deny prehistoric emotion? I don't see any hope of that on the horizon. I'm afraid we're heading for the dark ages.
www.blanejackson.com
Post a Comment