Creech’s Staggeringly Stupid Take on Church and State »« Wingnuts: Obama Building Black Army

National Review Writer: Repeal Women’s Suffrage

Joining Vox Day and Jesse Lee Patterson, Michael Walsh at the National Review Online thinks we should take the right to vote away from women. Mario Loyola wrote a column calling that referred to alcohol prohibition, but mistakenly said that was the 19th amendment (it was the 18th, repealed by the 21st). But Walsh says we should repeal the 19th, which gave women the right to vote, as well:

…you’re obviously thinking of the 18th Amendment, which was repealed by the 21st. Nevertheless, you’re on to something I’ve been advocating for years now. And that is the repeal of all four of the so-called “Progressive Era” amendments, including the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th, which were passed between 1911 and 1920…

Direct elections of senators has given us, among other wonders, the elevation of John F. Kerry to, now, secretary of state. Prohibition was directly responsible for the rise of organized crime and its unholy alliance with the big-city Democratic machines. And women’s suffrage . . . well, let’s just observe that without it Barack Obama could never have become president. Time for the ladies to take one for the team.

This was too much even for the readers of the NRO, who read him the riot act over it. Well, some of them. Others…

Modernity is doing a pretty good job of repealing itself, through debt and multiculturalism. Not being able to vote will be the least of the hens’ worries in a few years…

If liberals weren’t all pedophiles, they wouldn’t be trying to disarm parents…

I don’t know what Walsh thinks, but I certainly believe that women shouldn’t be able to vote. They have observably made their lives worse, and thrown away their actual rights (and everyone else’s), in favor of their “right” (actually just a privilege) to vote.

But I like this one:

This isn’t an opinion column. It’s the drunken rant that your uncle wouldn’t shut up about the last time someone made the mistake of inviting him to a wedding.

Yep, pretty much that. When did the National Review turn into the Free Republic?

Comments

  1. JustaTech says

    Yes, Prohibition did lead to the rise in organized crime. And then it was repealed. By women! This guy is somewhere between bloody idiot and henious failure of humanity.

  2. says

    And women’s suffrage . . . well, let’s just observe that without it Barack Obama could never have become president. Time for the ladies to take one for the team.

    Sure, right after you take mens’ vote away for every objectionable person they’ve put into power.

  3. imrryr says

    If liberals weren’t all pedophiles, they wouldn’t be trying to disarm parents…

    “If it wasn’t for my horse, I’d never have spent that year in college.”

  4. glodson says

    Going through the comments, a few of the Walsh apologist seem to be suggesting he is joking. Like doing parody.

    I hate that defense. It is the laziest one. What’s the joke? What is the parody of? What’s the point?

    Oh, he really wants to make sure that the Democrats don’t win, and women will just be taking one for the greater good of the US at the cost of their voice in government.

  5. raven says

    Why stop at taking the vote from women?

    There is nothing magic about retreating to the early 20th century.

    Take it from the nonwhites while you’re at it.

    And from whites who don’t own property. It was a huge mistake to let nonproperty owners vote, after all.

    And finally from white males who don’t have hereditary, aristocratic titles. The ones obtained by their warrior ancestors who simply conquered one place or another and issued their own by waving a sword around and threatening to cut off (a few more) heads.

  6. erichoug says

    These sort of moves towards dis-enfranchisement are always popular with the more reactionary regressives.

    I had a friend at my office that liked to promote the idea that only (real) property owners should be allowed to vote. Since I lived in an apartment at the time this would have dis-enfranchised me. I thought about it for a minute and then said, “That’s fine, but since ‘No Taxation Without Representation’ was one of the rallying cries of the American Revolution, I will also expect to be exempt from any and all, local, state and federal taxes or duties.

    Not being a complete idiot, he immediately abandoned his idea to re-instate the property requirement for voting.

  7. says

    and women will just be taking one for the greater good of the US at the cost of their voice in government.

    Well yeah, because women caused this problem in the first place!

    What’s that, you say? Only some women did, and other women voted for someone else? Doesn’t matter. Anything some women are responsible for, all women are responsible for.

  8. says

    It’s ironic that the same people promoting this also tend to be pro-gun, because few things call for armed insurrection quite like taking away someone’s right to vote.

  9. glodson says

    @7

    And I’m pretty sure those in charge won’t continue to force asinine laws through effectively reducing reproductive rights for women, and other dangerous measures. They can be trusted to not abuse their power in anyway, just trust them on this.

    They know what is best for women.

    [Just in case this isn't clear, that was sarcasm. However, having just read the piece at the National Review, I am more comfortable making this explicit as people do seem to really believe this nonsense.]

  10. says

    They should know better than retreating from an elected Senate. Just look at the country to the north, Canada. No elections for Senate, and a lot further down the road to Fascisocianazicommunism.(As in even a right wing government has to tread careful in dealing with things like single payer health care, lest they incur the wraith of the electorate.)

  11. jnorris says

    Gotta love Bill Buckley’s monument to the American conservative, wealthy, landed gentry. The National Review Online is everything the World News Daily would be if the WND owned a thesaurus.

  12. says

    Joining Vox Day and Jesse Lee Patterson

    Minor correction, Ed. I believe you’re referring to Jesse Lee Peterson. I expect Icthyic will follow this up with a comment about how I’m missing the point of your post. :-)

  13. DaveL says

    When I saw the headline, I thought this was going to be about one of those prank pollsters, who come out from time to time with polls showing broad support for “banning dihydrogen monoxide” or “ending women’s suffrage.”

  14. Ichthyic says

    Direct elections of senators has given us, among other wonders, the elevation of John F. Kerry to, now, secretary of state.

    wtf?

    How about the election of Rand Paul to… well, anything at all being a wonder.

  15. Ichthyic says

    I expect Icthyic will follow this up with a comment about how I’m missing the point of your post. :-)

    no, because correcting a minor spelling error did not relate in this case to dismissing the point of his post due to a technicality, like you did previously.

    carry on.

  16. Ichthyic says

    It’s ironic that the same people promoting this also tend to be pro-gun, because few things call for armed insurrection quite like taking away someone’s right to vote.

    ironic, or intentional?

    I’ve met some of these jokers, and a lot of them would do ANYTHING to create a condition of chaos and discontent that would enable them to pull out their arsenal and use it on anyone they don’t like without repercussions.

    It’s very much like the rapture ready types that would be happy to see the end of the world, and would do just about anything to speed that along.

  17. Ichthyic says

    The National Review Online is everything the World News Daily would be if the WND owned a thesaurus.

    added to my quotebook.

  18. Ichthyic says

    Going through the comments, a few of the Walsh apologist seem to be suggesting he is joking. Like doing parody.

    nope. he wasn’t.

    I’ve seen Vox Day make the exact same arguments, and be proud of them. Nobody was excusing them as parody at that time.

  19. Ichthyic says

    When did the National Review turn into the Free Republic?

    right around the time they decided that they would recruit most of their columnists from the Heritage Foundation.

    not a joke, look it up.

  20. dave says

    And that is the repeal of all four of the so-called “Progressive Era” amendments, including the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th,

    Heh. Im always amused by people who want to repeal the 16th Amendment. Very few of them realize that even without it, its is still Constitutional for the Feds to tax income on personal services such as wages/salary. The 16th was only necessary to make income tax “fair” by taxing income from rent, interest and dividends, as well as wages.

  21. Phillip IV says

    If liberals weren’t all pedophiles, they wouldn’t be trying to disarm parents…

    Is it just me, or do we seem to have a different hidden agenda behind the “Great, Unconstitutional Gun-Grab” (aka the dead-in-the-water attempt to restrict the availability of certain paramilitary weapons) every other week? I think I need to go to more of the liberal conspiracy meetings, I definitely wasn’t consulted on this newest plan…

    Seriously, though, things like this column should put paid to the idea that “partisans on both sides are doing it”. I know of no liberal commenter who suggested men should lose the right to vote just because it would currently benefit the Democrats.The worst of the left are bad enough, but they’re still not in the same league as the worst of the right by far.

  22. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    “If it wasn’t for my horse, I’d never have spent that year in college.”

    <3 that's exactly it.

  23. dingojack says

    imrryr & Illuminata – So that’s what Richard III meant!
    ;) Dingo
    ———-
    PS: Screw that! Go the whole hog (so to speak) rejoin the UK!

  24. baal says

    And the Republicans wonder why they are accused of having a war against women? Collective punishment (more election rigging?) for voting the wrong way sounds like the caricature of a bad guy dictator from a 1940′s war movie.

  25. says

    You liberals don’t get it! It’s satire. Because, you know, liberals like rights, which is why they’re always whining about gayhomo so-called “marriage” and black so-called “voters”. And since everything liberals like is bad, it must be conservative to put a stop to it. Which pisses off liberals. Which is good.

  26. Ben P says

    They should know better than retreating from an elected Senate. Just look at the country to the north, Canada. No elections for Senate, and a lot further down the road to Fascisocianazicommunism.(As in even a right wing government has to tread careful in dealing with things like single payer health care, lest they incur the wraith of the electorate.)

    I think you’re attributing far too much foresight.

    I rather suspect the thinking on the direct election of Senators is that the US senate currently has 53+2 democrats and 45 republicans. However, Republicans control 27 state legislatures and 5 more are split, with democrats controlling only 17 state legislatures.

    They’re thinking that if we went back to state legislature’s choosing senators, they’d have somewhere between 54 and 59 senators, and a relatively permanent advantage in numbers given the large number of reliably republican “red states.”

  27. says

    It’s ironic that the same people promoting this also tend to be pro-gun, because few things call for armed insurrection quite like taking away someone’s right to vote.

    Trust me, that’s what they’re hoping for. First, they believe that too many of the ‘wrong” people have the right to vote. So, if they trigger an armed insurrection among the non-male white Christians fundjelicals, it will give them the chance they’ve been itching for to put those “stand your ground” laws into practice.

    Yee-haw!

  28. iknklast says

    Collective punishment (more election rigging?) for voting the wrong way

    Can’t we at least acknowledge that ths is only voting the wrong way to those who happen to think the wrong candidate won? The way we’re wording this in our comments appears that we agree that women “voted the wrong way” and elected Obama. I don’t think most people here believe this (though some possibly do).

    (just for clarification: I do not have my feelings hurt as an Obama supporter. I am not an Obama supporter. I think there was no right way to vote in this election, at least not in the major party candidates).

  29. says

    Direct elections of senators has given us, among other wonders, the elevation of John F. Kerry to, now, secretary of state.

    Say whut? I’ve tried to parse this every which way, and it simply doesn’t make sense.

    Of course, the conservative hatred for the 17th amendment makes no sense to begin with, so I’m not sure what I should have expected.

  30. Opera Arches says

    the great theatre of ruin

    arrogantatheist.com/forum/index.php?p=/discussion/3164/the-mayan-skeptic-apocalypse

  31. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Er, Ed, surely this :

    Modernity is doing a pretty good job of repealing itself, through debt and multiculturalism. Not being able to vote will be the least of the hens’ worries in a few years…
    If liberals weren’t all pedophiles, they wouldn’t be trying to disarm parents…
    I don’t know what Walsh thinks, but I certainly believe that women shouldn’t be able to vote. They have observably made their lives worse, and thrown away their actual rights (and everyone else’s), in favor of their “right” (actually just a privilege) to vote.

    Has to be the ‘Dumbass Quote of the Day’ – maybe even the year or century so far!

  32. says

    Area Man @ 32

    Direct elections of senators has given us, among other wonders, the elevation of John F. Kerry to, now, secretary of state.

    Say whut? I’ve tried to parse this every which way, and it simply doesn’t make sense.

    Grammar and Swiftboat hangover aside, it reads: “Too much power is given to people who are not my class, skin color and gender. I long for the days when my people had all the power.”

    To be clear, Michael Walsh is probably deluded if he thinks that he would have been one of the ‘favored few’ in his “Golden Age” but delusion is no great disability in right wing punditry.

  33. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Also :

    “I certainly believe that women shouldn’t be able to vote. They have observably made their lives worse, and thrown away their actual rights ..”

    I’d love to see him even begin to explain *how* and give evidence as to why that’s supposed to be the case.

  34. Ichthyic says

    steve @35.

    aren’t those actually 3 separate quotes?

    each one of which might qualify for bottom of the barrel status, but still.

  35. =8)-DX says

    >>”we should take the right to vote away from women” (cough)
    I know that’s not your idea, Ed, but let me rephrase that for you:
    You meant: “women should give up the right to vote”.
    In a democratic system a 50% voting block can’t have suffrage removed from them unless they agree.
    Unless these people were actually seriously pushing for some kind of violent takeover in which case it would be “women should let us pry their voting rights from their cold dead fingers”.
    Or something. Women? Would you just let us “take your vote away” if all men agreed to do so? I don’t think so.

  36. Michael Heath says

    NRO commenter:

    [U.S. women] have observably made their lives worse, and thrown away their actual rights (and everyone else’s), in favor of their “right” (actually just a privilege) to vote.

    The existence of our right to vote was perhaps the most contentious issue in the John Roberts confirmation hearings. Sen. Ted Kennedy laudably went after Mr. Roberts on whether our right to vote was fundamental or not. Roberts tried to duck the question and Kennedy just got more vociferous until Roberts reluctantly conceded voting was a fundamental right.*

    Now I don’t like the idea of declaring some rights fundamental and some not since it causes the courts to put the onus on individuals to prove the exercise of their right is worthy of government protection rather than properly putting the burden on the state to prove to they have sufficient powers to infringe upon the subject right. But given how the courts actually decide who has the burden to prove their case, the people whose rights are infringed or the government entity that’s infringing on the right, it’s laudable to see a legislator fiercely fighting to increase the set of acknowledged fundamental rights.

    * This comes from memory and goes uncited, which is why I endnote it: IIRC the context for Kennedy’s haranguing Roberts was Roberts’ advocacy in the courts against broad protections of our voting rights when serving in the Reagan Administration as one of their lawyers. Again IIRC, this was an issue where Reagan’s administration went beyond their President’s position where he eventually cut his own lawyers off at the knees.

  37. eric says

    @39:

    In a democratic system a 50% voting block can’t have suffrage removed from them unless they agree.

    Maybe for a direct democracy, but ours is representative. To propose an appeal, 2/3 of both House and Senate must approve it. You can easily do that with all men. Then to ratify it, 3/4 of State legislatures must approve it. I’m not so sure about that one but I’d bet good money you could do that with all male representatives too.

    Not that I think there is any chance in hell of any of that happening. But speaking hypothetically, because of the demographics of our federal and state representatives, the 19th amendment could probably be repealed without the consent of even one woman.

  38. plutosdad says

    Actually I was pretty surprised watching Mo Rocca’s Electoral Disfunction that we don’t actually have a right to vote, at least for the President. The constitution pretty much says the states have authority on how to send their electors. (Though equal opportunity clauses etc limit the states).

    Ah, the good ole days when we could not elect Senators directly, and our betters elected them for us. You know, looking back at history it seems Democracy does indeed devolve into Tyranny, probably a result of trying to keep the voters happy. But that happened in Greece even when the common shlubs were not able to vote on anything. So limiting who can vote won’t stop that, only a strong judicial branch can.

    Of course, after reading study after study on how judges’ backgrounds and prejudices influence their decisions, I start to wonder why we have humans decide anything. We might be better off with a bayesian AI running the judiciary. Of course it might enslave us all too, but at least it will treat us all equally.

  39. says

    “The worst of the left are bad enough, but they’re still not in the same league as the worst of the right by far.”

    That is correct. However, what is conveniently overlooked by many people is that the worst of the far-right are STILL shouting from street corners, figuratively. There is no Leftwingmoonbat equivalent to FuckTheNews’Corpse, WND or the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page.

    “I’d love to see him even begin to explain *how* and give evidence as to why that’s supposed to be the case.”

    I’d love to see him try to explain it to some women I know. They could mail his balls back to him in an envelope.

    “Unless these people were actually seriously pushing for some kind of violent takeover in which case it would be “women should let us pry their voting rights from their cold dead fingers”.”

    Then they might have to deal with their worst nightmare; GAYblack, atheomuslicommies–ARMED GAYblack, atheomuslicommies.

    * Which recently published an editorial decrying “Headstart” programs as a waste of money, the reactionary fucks.

  40. The Lorax says

    Let’s put it to a vote. We’ll ask our congresscritters to vote to repeal the 19th Amendment and post the results online; certainly a vote to do anything with the Constitution is newsworthy, so I’m sure other reporters will take it up.

    So, the real question is, with all these people harping on about all this shit… who wants to keep their job?

  41. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    You know, looking back at history it seems Democracy does indeed devolve into Tyranny – plutosdad

    Really? I think you need to learn some more history. Ancient Greek democracy (which of course was far from democratic by modern standards, as women and slaves were excluded from it) ended through conquest by the Roman Empire. Cases of modern democracies “devolving” into tyranny are rare: where modern democracies have been overthrown, it’s generally been through a military coup – i.e., an imposition of tyranny, not a “devolution” into it – I can’t currently think of tyrannies other than Nazi Germany which came into being through the tyrant being elected, although there may be a few.

  42. caseloweraz says

    “If liberals weren’t all pedophiles, they wouldn’t be trying to disarm parents…”

    Yes, and if Cadillacs weren’t all white in color, they wouldn’t be absorbing so much sunlight and heating up like darker colors of cars.

    In other words, here’s an untrue premise that purports to support an untrue conclusion. As logic, it fails utterly. But as demonization…

  43. =8)-DX says

    To propose an appeal, 2/3 of both House and Senate must approve it. You can easily do that with all men. Then to ratify it, 3/4 of State legislatures must approve it. I’m not so sure about that one but I’d bet good money you could do that with all male representatives too.

    Touche… although if such an issue came up on the agenda you could expect voters to react using all other means possible to insure candidates in support of such didn’t get their votes. My point was that as an active political voting demographic, women aren’t some passive entity that you can just take voting rights from like candy from a kid (and even that’s bloody difficult).

  44. says

    “My point was that as an active political voting demographic, women aren’t some passive entity that you can just take voting rights from like candy from a kid (and even that’s bloody difficult).”

    UR doin’itrong.

    Tell the kids that JESUS hates seeing them eat candy and gives them cavities as his way of showing his LOVE and, btw, eating candy causes teh GAY and CANCER!!

  45. lpetrich says

    The Nazi Party never got a majority vote when it had to compete with other parties. Germany’s Weimar Parliament, the Reichstag, was elected by proportional representation, meaning that the Nazi Party got plenty of seats in 1932 — just not a majority of them. To form a government, the Nazis had to make deals with other parties — more mainstream conservative parties.

    Then early in 1933, the Reichstag fire happened. Nazi leaders howled that the Commies were on the march, and they demanded, and got, emergency powers. They ended up outlawing all other parties, and their coalition partners meekly shut themselves down.

    So it’s something of a coup from within.

  46. stever says

    The franchise is becoming irrelevant anyway. I remember a piece of science fiction set in a country that had no legislature. Everyone had to vote on every issue. Abstaining was a crime. Sounds like perfect democracy? That country was ruled by a tiny oligarchy called the Question Framers.

    Come 2016, whether the vote goes to Tweedledum or Tweedledee (Tweedledum or Tweedledumber?), the result will be more laws, more new regulatory agencies, a bigger fraction of the gross national product funneled into the government payroll, and another step toward the day when nobody can live without some kind of government subsidy. Any candidate who opposes this trend will not even make it onto the primary ballot.

Leave a Reply