![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/The-Good-Idea-Fairy-3.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Now I\u2019ve never heard of this bozo, and it took a while to find anything about him on the innerwebtubes. It seems he\u2019s \u201cfamous\u201d for writing something called Wonder Woman: Bondage and Feminism, whatever the Hell that is. I also found some pictures of him. Yeah, I wouldn\u2019t let him anywhere near small children or puppies.<\/p>\n
He wrote a piece titled \u201cTrump voters motivated by racism may be violating the Constitution. Can they be stopped?\u201d where, basically, he accuses anyone who is of northern European decent and voted for President Trump to be racists and that they should be prevented from voting. Here are the details from NBC News<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n If the Trump era has taught us anything, it’s that large numbers of white people in the United States are<\/a> motivated<\/a> at least in part by<\/a> racism<\/a> in the voting booth. Donald Trump ran an openly racist campaign for president, calling Mexicans rapists and criminals<\/a>, regularly retweeting white supremacists<\/a> and at least initially balking<\/a> 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<\/a> 58 percent to 37 percent. <\/b><\/p>\n Oh this guy is a real prize winner. It seems that since President Trump wants to secure the borders, stop illegal immigration and deport illegal aliens, he\u2019s a racist, and anyone who agrees with this is also a white racist. I wonder how this moonbat is going to explain all the Trump voters of recent African decent? My guess is he\u2019s going to ignore them.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>.” 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.<\/b><\/p>\n I followed the link above and it led to Cambridge Press. The \u201cReviews\u201d are a who\u2019s who of some of the most racist liberals you ever saw. I also looked up the \u201cBook\u201d on Amazon and it\u2019s not due out for a few more days. Needless to say, I\u2019m not linking to this waste of bytes under our Amazon associates account. Still, it should be fun fisking these nitwits.<\/p>\n 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<\/a> and that an election in which one side uses racist appeals can be invalidated by the National Labor Relations Board. Similarly, in the 2016 case Pe\u00f1a v. Rodriguez<\/a>, the Supreme Court ruled that when a juror expresses overt bigotry, the jury’s verdict should be invalidated. <\/b><\/p>\n I won\u2019t bother going into my feelings towards Unions and the NLRB. I loathe them both. However, union racism is a problem with regards to workers who aren\u2019t of northern European decent, and in some cases, preventing someone who has dark skin or eyes with Epicanthic folds from joining and being able to earn a living needs to be squashed hard.<\/p>\n As for dealing with a juror who is a stupid bigot? That comes under the heading of being an impartial juror. If you are predisposed to rule against someone, either in a criminal case or a civil case due to their skin color, you need to be dismissed. However, the two idiots here aren\u2019t talking about this. What they want to do is prevent people who they decide are racists from voting in elections.<\/p>\n “When voters go to the booth, they’re not expressing a mere personal preference,” Smith told me. According to Smith, voters who pull the levers to harm black people are violating the Constitution. If the Constitution means that overt racist appeals undermine the legality of union elections, it stands to reason that they undermine the legality of other elections, as well. <\/b><\/p>\n Uh no. You can vote for someone for any reason. That is the hallmark of a free and open election process. But please, continue with your overt totalitarianism.<\/p>\n So how can you tell when voters are acting out of prejudice? Again, Smith says, employment discrimination law provides a useful analogy. <\/b><\/p>\n In discrimination cases, courts look for pretexts. If someone gives a reason for a hiring decision that is obviously false or makes little sense in context, the court has good reason to believe that prejudice or bias may have influenced the hiring decision.<\/b><\/p>\n And how is this to be used to punish those who don\u2019t think the way you do? (If what goes on in those empty heads of yours can be called thinking)<\/p>\n Trump’s unprecedented, compulsive, easily documented lying<\/a> during the 2016 campaign made him an irrational choice.<\/b><\/p>\n And here it comes! By the way, the link leads to the British paper, the Guardian, which is slightly to the left of the old Soviet periodical, Pravda.<\/p>\n It’s reasonable to conclude that voters were willing to swallow the falsehoods because they liked what they heard: overt racist appeals and incessant lies about rising crime rates<\/a>. <\/b><\/p>\n Again with the Guardian. If you\u2019re going to manufacture statistics, why not use an American source of misinformation, such as CNN, ABC, MSNBC or The New York Slimes? Frankly the crime rates in certain areas are going up. Oh, by the way, those are areas that are run by the Democrats.<\/p>\n Research has since suggested that plenty of Trump voters were indeed strongly motivated by racist resentment<\/a> and anti-immigrant animus. <\/b><\/p>\n Wrong again Moonbat. People such as myself were motivated by a number of things. People crossing the border illegally for one. It doesn\u2019t matter what their country of origin was, you don\u2019t have a visa and cross in without permission, we don\u2019t want you here and we want to ship you out asap. Now for those who jumped through all the hoops and came here legally? Welcome! Come on in. But that goes against what you believe so you ignore it like the good progressive totalitarian moonbat that you are. In any case, what is your cunning, Baldrick like plan for dealing with people who you\u2019ve decided are racists?<\/p>\n The usual remedy for racial discrimination is censure or fines.<\/b><\/p>\n Actually, no, not unless there is actual harm done. Even then, some of these \u201cRemedies\u201d are constitutionally questionable.<\/p>\n It’s more difficult to censure voters who have violated their constitutional duties.<\/b><\/p>\n Excuse me? How does a voter violate their constitutional duty? Americans do not have constitutional duties, we have rights. Oh wait, I forgot. You are a moonbat and believe that people are granted privileges, and that voting is a privilege. Now we do have this thing called \u201cCivic duty, such as serving on a jury.<\/p>\n Nullifying elections would be essentially impossible.<\/b><\/p>\n If it were possible, you would have done it and we would be suffering under the tender ministrations of Felonia von Pantsuit. Of course, the Progressive Liberal Elite has been working to nullify the election since about 9am Eastern time November 9th<\/sup> 2016.<\/p>\n But Smith argues that there are other options.<\/b><\/p>\n This should be interesting.<\/p>\n “I think we can dismantle some of the features of the electoral system that encourage racialized decision-making,” he says. “For instance, you only get a partisan gerrymander by moving people in and out of districts on the basis of their race.” Ending this practice at the state and federal levels would be a big step toward reducing the power of racism at the ballot box, as would ending the use of Voter IDs intended to disenfranchise black voters<\/a>. <\/b><\/p>\n Ah! I see, you want to continue the Progressive practice of voter fraud. This is why people want to have you produce an ID when you vote. This crap about it disenfranchising people, specifically those of recent African decent is just that. Crap. We have to produce ID\u2019s if we buy booze, smokes, get on a plane or enter certain government buildings. Getting an ID is simplicity itself. You have to be a complete loser not to be able to get one. Of course, most progressive elitists such as you to are complete losers, so yeah, I can see why you would feel put out getting an ID.<\/p>\n Even more ambitiously, Smith suggests expanding the Voting Rights Act to address the racist patterns of voting in Senate elections in the South. <\/b><\/p>\n And how the Hell are you going to do that? Oh, let me guess? If a Democrat loses, especially if he or she happens to be a black liberal progressive Democrat, (Yeah I know, repeating myself), then he or she lost because the voters are racist. It doesn\u2019t have anything to do with the candidate being a total closet case.<\/p>\n Because the majority of white voters in the South vote Republican, and because they outnumber black voters, there isn’t a single Democratic senator from the Deep South other than Doug Jones in Alabama, who may well lose his seat in 2020<\/a>. <\/b><\/p>\n I notice you aren\u2019t considering Black Republican office holders here. Interesting.<\/p>\n Smith argues that we could remedy these disparate, racially motivated outcomes by creating Senate <\/b>districts<\/b><\/em>. Presumably, that would make it at least possible for black voters to elect a senator who would support their interests. <\/b><\/p>\n So much for the Constitution then. In case you never learned this in school, the Senators are supposed to represent their states. The representatives elected to the house represent the voters and their districts. Congratulations, you failed civics again.<\/p>\n This is clearly a very controversial proposal, and its constitutionality has been debated in the past<\/a>. But given obvious disparities in representation in the South, it seems worth considering again. <\/b><\/p>\n I think we\u2019re beginning to see what Smith\u2019s \u201cCunning Plan\u201d actually is. It\u2019s returning the South to the Progressive Liberal Democrat camp, and he has no problem torching the Constitution to get his way. He\u2019s all on board for packing the courts with \u201cRight thinking judges\u201d that will ignore the Constitution.<\/p>\n Democrats could also expand the number of seats on lower courts or even on the Supreme Court \u2014 another controversial proposal known as court-packing<\/a>. If Democrats decide that responding to racist voting is a vital priority, they could, in time, take steps to do something about it. <\/b><\/p>\n Oh that\u2019s rich. Let me guess what you two think should be done. Anyone who doesn\u2019t vote Democrat, and happens to be white, should be stripped of their constitutional rights and sent to a reeducation center. If needed, they can also be \u201cDisappeared.\u201d As for court packing, that was first suggested by that great democrat president, (Sarcasm assumed), Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the first true American dictator.<\/p>\n Because the Supreme court kept overturning his New Deal laws, (Which were blatantly unconstitutional), FDR decided he was going to \u201cPack the court\u201d with justices who would ignore the constitution and uphold his New Deal laws. The Democrats proposing this now have the same idea. Destroy the Rule of Law and install judges who will support the Democrat Agenda.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n