__________
Hey there, reader.
Alright, I think I need to say it: In my case, there really should be fewer people voting. Or, I should clarify: fewer people should have the right to vote.
Let’s dive in.
A FAIRER WORLD = 150 MILLION FEWER VOTERS
I don’t want to go off on a tangent, but it’s obvious that Republicans are struggling to wield power effectively for the good of the Republic. On the other hand, Democrats seem to take that power and run with it, often disregarding the consequences.
When it comes to getting into Columbia University, race has proven to be the biggest factor, no matter what has happened politically. This isn’t just random; it’s a deliberate choice that has been made with overwhelming support.
Forget legality; the attitude is: If we can do it, why not just do it?
I’ve mentioned this a lot already, and I’m sure my loyal readers know this well by now. But this highlights a broader issue about the country’s trajectory.
It feels like the crazies are in charge. The ones who could implement change are hesitant and stuck in their own principles.
As we often hear from globalist liberals invoking “international law,” I ask Republicans: Where are those principles when you need them? Can you even show them to the jury?
This party that once touted issues like preventing men from using women’s spaces now faces a critical challenge—they have the means to make a significant change but lack the courage to rise above outdated dogmas.
The Save Act, for example, is a popular measure. It enjoys about 80% support among the general public, including a solid majority among self-identified Democrats. This isn’t just a partisan issue; it has broad, cross-racial appeal.
And yet, Republicans who are in a position to act seem unwilling.
A big part of the issue, I suspect, is the Overton window. The discussions we have about universal suffrage are all skewed.
If left unchecked—and they’ve openly admitted this—Democrats are likely to try pushing for a voting system based on texting or the internet. It would be like an endless reality show where you could vote multiple times just for fun.
Republicans, particularly those who mingle at high-profile events, are wary of being labeled as “disenfranchisers.” The last thing they want is to incur the wrath of the liberal elite, even if being disliked is almost a certainty.
I think it’s time for a shift in that dialogue.
We need to go further than just requiring ID for voting. The Save Act is a starting point, but honestly, it’s just scratching the surface. We should consider a more rigorous approach. Fewer people should clearly be allowed to vote.
The founders of our Constitution realized this. Throughout history, the emphasis on who votes has been lost somehow, which is perplexing.
Figures like Madison, Adams, and Hamilton were in favor of a voting framework that ensured participants had a real stake in the system.
If people lack a true investment in society, they might misuse their voting power to siphon resources from the hardworking members of the community.
Sound familiar? Universal suffrage seems to have ignited a competition on who can give away the most benefits.
Easy welfare, free healthcare, and even luxurious accommodations for those who cross the border illegally—these are realities we face.
There’s a harsh solution to all of this.
When the political tide shifts—because it will—Republicans should push for new voting requirements.
To cast a vote, Americans would need to meet two of three criteria:
- Be a net taxpayer
- Own property
- Be married with children
That, my friend, is what they mean by having “skin in the game.”
Historically, leaders in various states implemented similar requirements early on. In contemporary times, those with degrees from top universities, like Columbia, have labeled these restrictions as “racist” since they primarily affected freed black individuals.
But I want to propose another perspective: I consider it aspirational. Frankly, I don’t care how many people of any demographic would qualify. I’m not concerned if critics label this as racist.
The proportions of diverse communities that would or wouldn’t meet these criteria aren’t my main concern. Empowerment isn’t the goal for me.
When we require investment in the system, everything changes.
Some estimates suggest around 30-40% of the populace would qualify. Common sense tells us that at least a quarter of them wouldn’t even bother to prove their eligibility.
That would shrink the electorate down to approximately 75 million individuals. These would be the most engaged, responsible citizens—those with the most to lose and who think deeply about future generations.
Would this favor the GOP? Maybe, initially. But smart Democrats would catch on eventually. After all, they were once the party that supported slavery.
More critically, can anyone argue that catering to this crowd wouldn’t lead to more beneficial policies?
When it comes to pilots, do we want ones capable of flying, or is it all about other factors?
If we prioritize effective governance and competent policy, a major overhaul of who gets to vote is necessary.
Otherwise, we’re just heading for further decline.
FORBIDDEN TAKES
No one asked for gay Klingons.
Recently, Paramount+ canceled Starfleet Academy before it could even reach a third season, following an utterly disastrous reception for its first.
Yes, I have a soft spot for Trek. No, I’m not explaining the show’s faults in detail. You can imagine the wokeness that permeates it.
Gay Klingons who enjoy poetry, wear dresses, and aren’t interested in fighting? Enough said.
Radvinsky’s success has shown that the problem with traditional views of sex work isn’t about society pushing women into it; it’s about the friction involved.
OnlyFans created a simplified platform for countless women to monetize their bodies, and they took to it. Estimates suggest nearly 10% of young women have produced content for it.
And what’s he done with those earnings? Became a major contributor to AIPAC!
What is that if not a twist of irony?
Perhaps we could consider reintroducing literacy tests. It might be simpler.
