I was on vacation all last week and took Monday off as well, so most of the posts were repeats. But it’s Monday night, and I have a fresh post set for Tuesday morning. If you asked me what the biggest mistake of the Trump 2016 administration was, it was neglecting the state level changes to election policy in blue states that made it easier for voter fraud to happen.

Here is the latest story from Daily Signal:

The Republican National Committee is executing President Donald Trump’s election-integrity agenda ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

[…]Trump signed an executive order in March requiring states to use proof of U.S. citizenship for federal voter registration, setting Election Day as the uniform deadline for receiving ballots in federal elections, and conditioning federal election funding on compliance with those and other election-integrity rules.

The RNC is working to defend Trump’s executive order in states where practices prohibited by the directive continue. While the president is taking the national approach to election integrity, the RNC is coming alongside him with a state-by-state approach.

“We are challenging these things on a state-by-state basis to make sure that they are compliant with the statutory schemes as constructed now, and that they provide the most balanced security as we can have in those states,” the official said.

So what are the changes that the RNC is pushing for? They are going after states that have a universal mail-in ballot system, where election officials automatically send absentee ballots to all registered voters in the state, regardless of whether individuals have asked for one.

They are also going after states that don’t update their voter rolls to remove ineligible voters—such as those who have died, moved away, or become inactive. If you don’t remove ineligible voters, you make it easier to commit voter fraud by duplicate voting or fraudulent voting.

They are also going after states that have “ballot harvesting”, such that third parties (e.g., campaign workers, family members, or organizations) can gather and submit completed ballots from multiple voters without limits, deadlines, or strict tracking requirements.

Now, when I read all this, I was thinking of the Secretaries of State in blue states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. Can you really improve election integrity scores in blue states? Well the article talks about some of their wins in blue states, so yes – they really are doing it.

Here is a ranking of states for election integrity:

Notice how most of the red states have good election integrity, whereas most of the blue states have poor election integrity. That’s because most people who live in blue states like Washington cannot rationally ground objective moral values and objective moral duties, and so they just behave immorally.

My advice to people in blue states is to move out to red states, where you are sure your vote will count.

When terrible things happen to men in this society, you often get comments from people saying “well, it’s his fault, he chose a bad woman”. And I agree that men often make poor choices because they focus on attraction instead of on character. But what if a man is an innocent bystander, and is falsely accused by a woman he doesn’t even know? Is it still his fault then?

Here is the news story from Fox 2 Detroit.

Excerpt:

A Metro Detroit man cleared his name after Friend of the Court sent him a letter saying he had a baby with a woman he never met.

“She don’t know me, how do you just put my name down? How do you just put anybody’s name down?” DeAngelo Smith said. “I don’t know her. Never seen her. Still to this day, haven’t talked to her, and it just proves the baby has no ties to my name.”

Late last year, DeAngelo received a letter from Friend of the Court in Berrien County saying that he was the father of a baby girl.

His wife was the first to see the accusation:

His wife first spotted the letter in the mail from Friend of the Court.

“Let’s just set the record, I trust my husband,” Tyahvia Smith said. “I know his character, man of integrity.”

They contacted his employer:

While waiting for the child’s mother to take the baby for a DNA test, DeAngelo said the school where he teaches received an inquiry for possible garnishment in case the child was his.

“It made it something that is not being alleged, but now it’s something that’s being taken into action and no paternity has been established,” he said.

Finally, the woman had the DNA test done, and DeAngelo has since gotten a letter confirming he was not the father.

Legislation introduced by Republican Jim Runestad to prevent this from happening has been tied up for eight years… in a Republican-led legislature:

“It’s very unfortunate, but paternity fraud is not a unique, unusual situation in Michigan,” Sen. Jim Runestad (R-White Lake) said.

Runestad said he has been pushing for new legislation on the matter for the past eight years. Currently, there is no penalty for lying and a DNA test is not required before a person is contacted about the paternity of the child.

The fact that there are no consequences for doing this means that women are going to keep doing it again and again.

Does masculinity mean that a man should give a woman whatever she wants?

I sent this story to a conservative pro-marriage friend, and she said “So what? How many times does something like this happen?” Her only concern was that this story made women look bad. She had previously told me that “masculinity is when a man uses his strength to protect and provide for women”. So, then it is just “masculine” for this innocent man to pay for a child who isn’t his own. Why would he object to paying? Does he not like children?

Most people today like the changes that feminism has made for women. They like public schools run by women that discriminate against boys. They like women taking out huge student loans for useless non-STEM degrees, then demanding bailouts from taxpayers. They like women taking part in hook-up culture. They like women using no-commitment bad boys for validation. They like no-fault divorce laws. They like false accusations during divorce trials. They like biased domestic violence laws. They like paternity fraud. They like massive welfare spending designed to reward women who make reckless decisions. And they like feminist judges stripping fathers of parental rights for refusing to agree with the transing of their kids.

Men are expendable when it comes to creating greater happiness for women. So what’s wrong with sending a man a bill for a woman who needs some money for a child that isn’t his? It’s horrible to tell a woman that she can’t do what she feels like doing. It’s horrible to tell a woman that she has to pay the costs of her own actions. Just make a man pay for it. Men are big and strong, they can handle it. And besides, women never tell lies. We have to believe all women. We have to force men to make women happy. That’s “masculinity”.

Society pressures men to get married

This “believe all women” attitude that is shared by many Christians and conservatives becomes a problem for men when men are pressured to get married. This society makes marriage a risky enterprise for men. And men have to understand that this pressure to get married is often coming from people who see men as expendable in the cause of increasing women’s happiness. The person telling you to get married is often the same person who thinks that a DNA test shouldn’t be performed in a paternity case.

Men have to understand that the command to “get married” is coming from pro-marriage activists who think that men exist solely to make women happy. Who cares about the risks and costs of marriage for men? Who cares about men’s needs and desires? Who cares what reasons a man has for marrying? Who cares about a man’s standards for his wife? Who cares about a man’s plan for his marriage? He should just be pressured to get married. Just like the falsely accused paternity fraud victim should have to pay.

It’s not the purpose of men’s lives to get married and have kids

Always remember that according to the Bible, serving God is more honorable than getting married and having children. (Read 1 Cor 7:8-9 and 2 Tim 2:4) Many social conservatives try to guilt men into getting married and having children by denying the risks and costs of marriage for men. They think that Christianity’s main purpose is to force men to make women happy, regardless of what women offer to men in exchange. That’s the actual view of several of my social conservative Christian friends.

Men are designed to serve God first and foremost. And it’s much easier to serve God if you are not encumbered by alimony, child support, false accusations, denial of due process, paternity fraud, feminist judges, etc. Only women who honor that obligation, and want to help a man to meet that obligation, should be taken seriously for marriage and child-rearing.