Eric Swalwell sinks to new depths of dumb as he panders to women and PROVES he never read the Constitution

Recall when David Hogg recently asked how many AR-15s Jesus owned? It was a remarkably obtuse question, and one easily swatted with common sense. Well in short order someone managed to come up with even more mentally impacted comments, and it comes from a full grown adult who happens to be running for the Presidency.

Everyone’s favorite gun-nabber, Eric Swalwell managed to produce something even more stunted in thought, and more embarrassing…if that were something he was capable of feeling. Moving beyond guns for a refreshing change Duke Nuke’em himself is attempting to attract more women — voters. In doing so he uncorked this gem of factual obliviousness.

Do you know how many times the word "Woman" is mentioned in the Constitution?

Zero.

That is unacceptable. Women must be equally represented and equally protected. #ERANow

— Eric Swalwell (@ericswalwell) May 1, 2019

Now, moving beyond his #ERANow hashtag, in which this politician who claims to be “progressive” wants to ratify an amendment from the 1960s, let us look at the first part of his message. As you see he mentions the word “woman” does not appear in the Constitution.

On this particular fact, Eric is correct. However, there is one detail to completely send the impaired Congressman down a ravine of inconsequentiality.

I just searched the Constitution and "man" is mentioned the same amount of times as "woman".

— jimmy camp (@jimmycamp1) May 1, 2019

Cool. Now Tweet how many times the word "Man" is mentioned in the Constitution.

— RealSports&MovieGuru (@TheRealSportsG2) May 1, 2019

Hey, congressman. You may wanna familiarize yourself with this before you get too involved with running for President pic.twitter.com/HqE0EeKpdz

— (((Elliot))) (@ElliotE33) May 1, 2019

Well then by the looks of things if “Man” is not mentioned at all, then that means women are represented equally after all. So I guess there is no need to push for the ERA passage — and therefore no need for Swalwell, for that matter. Well done Congressman, you have just invalidated yourself!

Okay, now we could have a technicality on this matter of equal non-mentions by gender — if we count those items added later.

US Constitution number of mentions:
Woman or Women – 1 (Amendment 19 titled "Women's Suffrage"
Man or Men – 0
Person or Persons – 49

— Isabela (@IsabelaRM1) May 1, 2019

Oh now wait — this would make Swalwell even MORE incorrect, if that is at all possible. (Since this is Eric Swalwell, we all know this is possible.)

Furthermore, since Mr. Swalwell has not bothered reading this founding document, we should let him know women are actually covered.

Dearest Eric:
Can you count fingers how many times "The People" is mentioned in the Constitution?
It's OK if you need to have a parent help.

— Steve B (@Bolillo_SCZ) May 1, 2019

We are sure this detail will be lost on the Congressman. After all, he was making a deeply trenchant point that anything not in the Constitution is somehow negatively impacted today and rendered invalid.

By that measure, there are plenty of things which do not appear in the Constitution.

Same number of times as:
Gun control
Socialism
EPA
Income inequality
Fair share
Income tax
Free college
Free healthcare
Reparations
Medicare
Medicaid
Common core
Welfare (as in free food)
Student loans

And the list goes on….

— grandriver1968 (@grandriver1968) May 1, 2019

You know how many times "health care" is mentioned?

— Dent In The World (@dentintheworld) May 1, 2019

And how about “abortion”? We can assume then that is now considered illegal, or something.

That moment when you heard 2 hipsters at a coffee shop say what you thought was a legitimate fact and it turns out its not..

Fun fact… The word Allosaurus isn't in the Constitution…

— Banners (@bannersquest) May 1, 2019

It doesn't mention pop tarts either…

— Sarah Jane ☕??*thought u were a build a bear* (@pinktastic615) May 1, 2019

Maybe, if they had made the sandwiches a little faster the writers of the Constitution would have wrote them in.

— John S (@JFSullivan22) May 1, 2019

C’mon, now you are just being ridiculous…which in any discussion of Swalwell is completely appropriate.

Meanwhile, in discussing food–