Posted On: Wednesday - April 11th 2018 9:01AM MST
In Topics:   US Police State  Pundits  Liberty/Libertarianism  Educational Stupidity  Socialism/Communism  Female Stupidity
This is the 2nd post* here on the Peak Stupidity blog in which we are bringing up a good article by Michelle Malkin as a result of something bad - female stupidity, and the egregious error made about a century ago of allowing women to vote in America (it should be up to the various States, anyway). Please, keep in mind that we LIKE Michelle Malkin and consider her number 2 woman pundit in all Americastan.
Mrs. Malkin's latest article, The Student Data-Mining Scandal Under Our Noses is about the usual Big Brother spying that goes on everyday, whether directly government implemented or indirectly government implemented via the Facebutts and Google's of the new information age. I won't get into Michelle's article here, as the ubiquitous spy network and apparatus has been good subject for a long-time-upcoming post, and that's not my point here.
The point is that, in this article, Mrs. Malkin writes about more egregiousness, this time involving "our kids" in the education system. (Peak Stupidity likes to call it a system of indoctrination centers, to be more truthful.) Yes, the women care about "our children", "our schools", and "our neighborhoods" a whole lot. Is it more than the men? Should only women be voting in local elections? See, this gets down to the problem. The women only see the small-term and local stuff. They do not think like men (at least lots of 'em) who understand the big picture and the root causes. Women like to think they have more compassion, but compassion combined with stupidity is only a recipe for creating more evil.
Let's look at just this educational stupidity example here. The gist of the article is that all these tablets and software systems being used in schools in a MANDATORY fashion have been set up to advertise to, and spy on the searchs of, THE CHILDREN. Hey, where were you when the US Feral Congress voted in an unconstitutional Department of Education, Mrs. Malkin? OK, in the womb, I! GET! THAT! No, seriously, where was the opposition to the Carter Administration supported Feral Dept of Ed., and the HEW (anyone remember that?) before that? All these major increases in BIG GOV authority are valiantly fought off by conservative MEN. The women, at least single ones, vote way more often for BIG DADDY STATE, as a replacement for a traditional husband. They do not think long term, to the time they may have children that may be harrassed by BIG GOV. It's just "let's have some compassion!" and "Give some money to these sorry-ass people here, and those sorry-ass people there.", with no thinking on the fact that that money is coming from the labor of many hard-working men, who now have less for their families.
It's been one Socialist scheme after another, none of which can be rolled back without a war or a Greater Depression. (Yeah, ole Ronnie promised to end the Dept. of Ed while campaigning in 1980, but I'll give him a pass, as the Democrats had big majority in the House of Reps., so it wasn't under his control.) The John Birchers, hard-core Libertarians and masses of conservative men have been trying to fight this stuff for > 8 freakin' decades, from the time of Roosevelt-the-Socialist, but they had women's vote against them. Now, Michelle Malkin suggests new laws to force BIG DATA to somehow keep things private. First of all, it's software/computers - what privacy? More importantly, this is just asking for new laws to complicate things to try to fix UNFORESEEN (by some) PROBLEMS that have come up since we allowed a Socialist Police State to form.
Regarding specifically the most important realm in which Socialism has run rampant in destroying our culture, our children in the Gov Indoctrination Camps (schools, that is), Michelle Malkin homeshcools, as Peak Stupidty has praised before (in a 3-part series, TWO, and THREE.) Why are we picking on her, of all pundits, for this example? I think the fact that she clearly sees the problems, yet I have not read squat-all of the words "US Constitution" in her writing, is the answer. Maybe I missed some her writing in the past in which she mentioned out lost liberties and the police state, but probably not.**
No, this trial period in women's suffarage has shown piss-poor results. We will have to end it, if we want a free country back. Guess who agrees with me on that - # 1 pundit, Miss Ann Coulter.
* Here is the first one, in which I said Part 2 may come "tonight". Ooops.
** If I am corrected, and find out Mrs. Malkin is an avowed Constitutionalist, then I'll strike out her name in these two post and replace it with "some women". (I guess!)