Too Stupid for Words: NBC News Op-ed Claims Voting for Trump Not Only Racist But Unconstitutional

Legal Insurrection

"Has the dumbest article of 2020 already been written?"

. . . "The author, Noah Berlatsky, seems to be serious about this if you can believe it:

Trump voters motivated by racism may be violating the Constitution. Can they be stopped?

If the Trump era has taught us anything, it’s that large numbers of white people in the United States are motivated at least in part by racism in the voting booth. Donald Trump ran an openly racist campaign for president, calling Mexicans rapists and criminals, regularly retweeting white supremacists and at least initially balking at repudiating former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Trump made it clear in his campaign that “Make America Great Again” meant that America was greater when white people’s power was more sweeping and more secure. White voters approved of that message by a whopping 58 percent to 37 percent.

Some politicians deny the evidence, no doubt because they don’t want to alienate white voters, including prejudiced ones. Other commentators try to parse whether Trump’s racism will be a winning strategy in 2020. Terry Smith, a visiting professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, offers a different response in his new book, “Whitelash: Unmasking White Grievance at the Ballot Box.” Rather than excuse racist voters or try to figure out how to live with their choices, he argues that racist voting is not just immoral, but illegal. The government, Smith says, has the ability, and the responsibility, to address it.

This sounds radical. But Smith argues that it’s in line with the Constitution and with years of court rulings. For example, Smith points out that racist appeals in union elections are illegal and that an election in which one side uses racist appeals can be invalidated by the National Labor Relations Board.

. . .
Ace Of Spades HQ:  
"NBC Agitates for the Last Step Before Violent Civil War: Voting for Trump Is Illegal, and the Government Should Act to Forbid It"

. . . Say, are there any Democrats motivated by racism or antisemtism, I wonder?I know Obama met with and posed for pictures with antisemitic cult leader Louis Farrakhan.Should we deploy the police around polling stations in Democrat cities?

Conservatives Need to Stop Playing Defense

Simon de Hundehutte  "The problem for conservatives debating progressives and leftists is that those on the far left always choose the playing field.  Using a sports analogy, progressives wisely choose a baseball field for a confrontation, putting conservatives at a decisive disadvantage.  Conservatives need to stop playing progressives in baseball and start playing them in football. 

"Think about it:  In football, your opponent can start out with the ball on offense, but suddenly have it taken away by a pass interception or by recovering a fumble.  Now, your team is on offense and in a position to score.  In fact, in all major team sports -- football, basketball, hockey, soccer -- in all of them, you can actually score on defense -- by taking the ball (or puck) away from the other team and going in for a goal (or basket).  Baseball is the only sport where you can only score on offense.  One team gets to bat, score as many runs as possible before making three outs, then the other team gets to bat and score.  I mean, a player in the field can't suddenly knock over a runner who's rounding third base and then run down the line himself, cross home plate, and score a run for his team, right?

"So, how does this sports' analogy carry over into debating and, in a larger sense, effecting changes in the culture?

"What seems to be happening in every matchup between conservatives and progressives is that Progressives are always up at bat and conservatives are always playing the field.

. . . 

"By way of example, here again is that progressive question heard quite a bit these days:

" 'How can a Christian support Trump?"

"Notice, the question immediately assumes there is something wrong with supporting Trump, so the person who is asked it must assume a defensive position.

"But how do you turn things around, go on offense, and score?

"Shouldn't a conservative (and especially a Christian) be taking a page out of Jesus' playbook and turning the tables on Progressives?

"A conservative/Christian could respond: "I will answer that question after you answer mine -- How could a Christian have supported Obama?' "  . . .

The Windsors Blackmailed by their Daughter-in-Law

A California Hollywood liberal enters the British Monarchy; what could go wrong?

Deborah C. Tyler  . . . "The roadside bomb in the royal family named Meghan Markle exploded not because of immoral conduct in the conventional sense.  Markle is the first duchess who hails from the American left-wing, post-Christian, anti-moral belief system that worships the journey of self-directed personal actualization.  Her justification after only a few months of marriage for urging hubby away from his family?  "It is not enough to survive, you have to thrive."  Apparently, Harry's fulfilling his role as prince prevents her thriving.  For Meghan, thriving entails doing what you want, no matter if it hurts others or depreciates the generosity that has been heaped upon you.
. . . 

"Meghan Markle enjoys absolute melanin immunity from criticism.  Any challenge, however gentle, is racist!  The duchess of York was publicly pulverized for her appearance for years on end, but she's white so it was OK.  A critique of Meghan's nail polish is racism!

"Racism! is a justification for the elite globalist kleptocracy to loot their nation state, because that is where the money is.  The E.U. didn't fix up Frogmore "Cottage" for Meghan and Harry; the British people did.  Such super-rich transnational lifestylers cling to a patina of virtue in their lack of loyalty to homeland, because the British, like all white people, are racist!" . . .

Iranian politician announces $3 million reward for 'whoever kills Trump'

Several Hollywood actors began a Go-Fund-Me campaign to help out with this. TD

Daily Mail  "An Iranian politician has announced a $3 million 'cash prize' for anyone who kills President Donald Trump.
"Ahmad Hamzeh, parliamentary speaker from central Kerman province, told lawmakers: 'We will pay a three million dollar award in cash to whoever kills Trump.' 
"Kerman is the home province of Qassem Soleimani, the Iranian Quds leader who was killed in a drone strike by Trump, and whose death the regime has sworn to avenge. "

Republicans offer commemorative impeachment pens

Ethel C. Fenig  "The first grandmother to become speaker of the House, Rep Nancy Pelosi (D-homeless capital San Francisco, naturally), oh, so laboriously signed the so-called articles of the so-called impeachment using platters full of commemorative pens.  Republicans quickly offered "I Support Trump!" souvenir pens as a reward for donating to their party.  

"In this electronic era, when documents are signed by tapping a device, it is somewhat reassuring for this over-30 individual that pens are still available.  And used.  Even at the perverted event overseen by Pelosi.  And celebrating the Republicans' cleverness capitalizing on it. 
 "Ah, the pleasures of free-market capitalism, which offers choices.  Which pen would you rather have? "
This?

Or this?

'Jarring': CNN Chides Pelosi for Her Actions During Articles of Impeachment Signing

. . . "Things had to look pretty bad when even a CNN panel found Pelosi's actions to be strange. Remember: Pelosi has continually said this is a sad, somber moment for the country. If it was such a somber occasion why was she smiling, taking pictures and handing out mementos? If this was truly a sad time she wouldn't be acting the way she did. 

" 'We are used to seeing signing ceremonies, handing out pens, at moments of celebration, when a president is signing legislation, even sometimes on a rare occasion when the House sends over a landmark piece of legislation," CNN's Chief Political Correspondent Dana Bash explained. "It was unusual to see that kind of ceremony and making, you know, handing out the pens and smiling for a picture, in this kind of situation where the House Speaker has bent over backwards to say publicly and privately this is somber, this is not a time for a celebration.' " . . .

Mainstream media’s blatant hatred of Christians may boost Trump’s chances of re-election

As one Christian commentator recently noted: All they have to do is not hate us, and they can’t even do that. 

As shown by this liberal cartoon: 

Lifesite News  "January 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – I wish the mainstream media and the Democratic politicians realized that one of the primary reasons Donald Trump has a decent shot at getting re-elected despite the nonstop snarl of scandals that have plagued his presidency is that they cannot stop showing their utter contempt for millions of Christian Americans. 

"As one Christian commentator recently noted: All they have to do is not hate us, and they can’t even do that. 

Consider a recent headline over at the Associated Press: “Tennessee governor says he will sign anti-gay adoption bill.” It seems that Tennessee Governor Bill Lee announced earlier this week that he will be signing a bill affirming tax-payer funding for faith-based adoption agencies and foster care “even if they exclude LGBT families and others based on religious beliefs.” 

"Translation: Tennessee is passing a bill preventing the LGBT movement from shutting down Christian organizations that seek to operate according to the tenets of their faith and wish to place children in homes with both a mother and a father. While the LGBT movement has made it a heresy to claim children need both a mom and a dad, reasonable people should be able to agree that children are obviously best off with both a mother and father if at all possible.

"An alternative headline could be this: “Tennessee governor will sign law protecting the right of Christian organizations to abide by tenets of their faith.” Or: “Tennessee governor affirms right of religious organizations to place children in homes with both a mother and a father.” 

"But no: The headline, of course, has to refer to this bill as an “anti-gay adoption bill,”  . . .

Newsletters Romney loses GOP support in Utah after challenging Trump on impeachment

The Utah Republican senator, however, did gain among Democrats in his state.

Washington Examiner  "Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney lost support from Republicans and independents in his home state during the weeks after he called for witnesses in President Trump's Senate impeachment trial, a new poll shows.
"The Morning Consult survey found support for Romney, 72, going down after he called for former national security adviser John Bolton to testify at Trump’s impeachment trial, which began on Thursday.
"The poll shows the senator’s approval rating falling among Utah Republicans from September through December 2019, and independents also shifted to disapproving of Romney over the quarter.
"In the prior quarter, 65% of Utah Republicans supported Romney, and while a majority still do presently, that number sank to 57%.
"The numbers are particularly striking for Utah, one of the most Republican states in the country. Romney romped to victory in his 2018 Senate bid and has been considered a local hero of sorts among his fellow Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints constituents and others.

Steven F. Hayward tweeted, "So, the New York Times is trying to put the Babylon Bee out of business."

Don Surber

"One of the running gags is that the New York Times runs stories on things it sees as pending disasters from the angle of how it may affect certain groups. "World ends, woman and minorities hardest hit."

"Surely its headline writers know this. Its editors should but their abandonment of all appearance of objectivity in the Donald John Trump era is proof they are clueless.

"And so it headlined a story by its gender reporter, Alisha Haridasani Gupta, "With Brexit Looming, Experts Worry Women May Be Hit Hardest."

"Maybe the copy desk hates her. Maybe the copy desk is run by racists and misogynists. Maybe the copy desk wanted to get back at her for cutting an office donut in half and abandoning one half. Whatever the reason, "women may be hit hardest" is a dog whistle for "this column is stupid." And they labeled it.

"("Hit hardest" instead of "hardest hit" maybe a dodge around a computer program that automatically rejects any headline that ends with "hardest hit.")

"So what did she write? Exactly what a normal person would expect from a gender reporter." . . .

Thus far, Brexit has cost only one woman her job: former Prime Minister Theresa May.

 THE NEW YORK TIMES NEVER DISAPPOINTS!  . . . It’s like they’re trying to put the Babylon Bee out of business or something.

"Meanwhile, the Times has announced its endorsement for president. Big surprise: they have endorsed a Democrat. As they have for the last 50+ years. But wait—they’ve actually endorsed two Democrats: Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren. The Times is calling it a “break with convention,” but it is exactly the opposite: clearly they cannot endorse a white male, no matter how experienced or qualified. Nothing is more conventional for liberalism today than the default to identity politics.
"The Times endorsement essay offers some wonderful comedy writing, such as: “Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller.” Did no one at the Times pause for a moment to ponder how true this is?
"And this passage about Klobuchar is fun: “Reports of how Senator Klobuchar treats her staff give us pause. They raise serious questions about her ability to attract and hire talented people.” Well, New York Times editorial writers obviously don’t have to worry about finding out first hand."

Who Adam Schiff Is? No One on Jeopardy! Knows

Got this info from Rush Limbaugh today.
Youtube

Watch Adam Schiff Tell Three Laughable Impeachment Whoppers in Less Than 90 Seconds  . . . "If the efforts to undo a presidential election, flout the Constitution and subvert the will of the American people using politically weaponized illegal surveillance and phony charges weren't so serious – and welcomed by so many many Democrats – it would be laughable.

"For the "laughable" part of this pathetic scenario we turn to Adam Schiff. The primary House Manager for impeachment, who should be a material witness in the case for his dealings with the amazing, disappearing "whistleblower," worshiped at the altar of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on ABC News on Sunday. Schiff gamely reacted to the Trump legal team's first assertion that the House impeachment charges are facially unconstitutional.

"Harvard Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, who will argue the unconstitutionality of the charges before the U.S. Senate impeachment trial, told Stephanopoulos why: . . ."

The ultimate conflict of interest: Democrat presidential candidates as impeachment jurors

Lynne Lechter  . . . "In the Senate trial, there is no voir dire! 

"The jurors are automatically preselected — comprising the elected 100 senators of the United States of America.  The chief justice of the United States Supreme Court is the presiding judge. 

"Three United States senators are currently running as Democrat potential nominees for president.  How can Senators Sanders, Warren, and Klobachar, with understandable but blatant self-interest and prejudice as potential Democrat presidential contenders, give Republican President Donald J. Trump a fair and unbiased trial?  The very notion is oxymoronic and risible. 

"Instead of opining that it is a sacred constitutional duty, or proclaiming as Bernie Sanders has that he would rather be in Iowa, it is shameful and a huge blot on their collective base character and lack of candor that the trio have not already recused themselves. 

"One can only hope that one, if not all, of the illustrious legal defense team that President Trump has assembled to defend him will quickly raise the issue of conflict of interest.  Even if such a motion fails, it should be duly noted for the record. 

"The Democrats are relentless, craven, and totally lacking in elementary standards of fair legal conduct that apply throughout our national legal system.  Why should the president of the United States be denied the same basic legal protection afforded every other citizen involved in a trial?"

Lynne Lechter is an elected member of the State Republican Committee of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and a practicing attorney in Philadelphia. 

MUST SEE LIST of President Trump’s Historical and Miraculous Accomplishments Three Years Into His Presidency

The Gateway Pundit

"President Donald J. Trump is celebrating arguably the best first three years for any President in US history since Washington.  And this is despite the fact that no President since Lincoln has faced the massive attacks from his adversaries that this President has faced.

"Below is a list of President Trump’s many major accomplishments in his first three years in office."  Full article

Charles Schumer’s 1999 letter about impeachment comes back to bite him

NY Post

"On Feb. 11, 1999 — one day before President Bill Clinton was acquitted in his impeachment trial before the Senate — Sen. Charles Schumer penned a passionate letter, outlining why the process had taken an unfair toll on the nation. He noted that the president believed he had not crossed a line, and praised the large threshold needed to get a conviction in the Senate. He also cheered the American people for opposing impeachment. A Gallup poll in December 1998 found that 35 percent of Americans were pro-impeachment, with 73 percent of Republicans and only 12 percent of Democrats in favor. Meanwhile, a Quinnipiac poll this month found that 51 percent of Americans approve of President Donald Trump’s impeachment, with 46 percent disapproving, but the partisan divide is even starker with just 7 percent of Republicans and a whopping 91 percent of Democrats in favor. Though the individual details are different, many of the same points crafted by Schumer more than 20 years ago echo Republican arguments against the impeachment of President Trump. Here is Sen. Schumer’s original letter in full, with some of the more prescient sections bolded by The Post . . .

Statement for the Record of Senator Charles E. Schumer The Trial of the President February 11, 1999Mr. President, this is a day of solemnity and awe. I rise humbled that we are participating in a process that was mapped out more than 200 years ago by the Founding Fathers and that the words we say today will be looked upon by historians and future Congresses for guidance. That is quite a responsibility.I began this process in the House where it degenerated quickly into bitter acrimony. I would like to say to Majority Leader [Trent] Lott and Minority Leader [Tom] Daschle, and to my new colleagues who have wrestled with this case, that I deeply appreciate your fairness and patience and the way this has been handled with such dignity in the Senate.Growing up, our country and its government seemed like a mighty oak — strong, rooted, permanent, and grand.It has shaken me that we stand at the brink of removing a President — not because of a popular groundswell to remove him and not because of the magnitude of the wrongs he’s committed — but because conditions in late 20th century America has made it possible for a small group of people who hate Bill Clinton and hate his policies to very cleverly and very doggedly exploit the institutions of freedom that we hold dear and almost succeed in undoing him.Most troubling to me are the conditions that allowed this to happen, than the small group who precipitated them. . . .

Schumer argues for a no vote on the first article of impeachment in 1999.