via bizpacreview
Believe it or not, but there’s an opinion piece that was published at NBC News last week which essentially argues that voters who allegedly harbor “racist” feelings/prejudices (i.e. Trump voters) should be reprimanded and held accountable for their wrongthink.
How? Via government intervention, of course.
Noah Berlatsky, a radical left-winger whose Twitter profile contains his “pronouns” and whose credentials include editing a comics blog, makes the case in the piece that Democrats keep losing elections because white people are racist. How else would President Donald Trump have won the 2016 presidential election, after all?
“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,” he concludes, ignoring the myriads of non-white blacks, Hispanics, Native American Indians, Southeast Asian Indians, etc., who support the president.
And this, Berlatsky continues, must be rectified via executive fiat. As justification for this authoritarian idea, he points to the musings of an obscure University of Baltimore School of Law visiting professor named Terry Smith.
I talked to Terry Smith about his wonderful book Whitelash, in which he argues that the 14th amendment makes it unconstitutional for people to vote based on racist animus. t.co/us3DDbKaym
— Noah Berlatsky (@nberlat) January 17, 2020
“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 …,” Berlatsky writes of Smith’s radical ideas.
He adds that according to Smith, “voters who pull the levers to harm black people are violating the Constitution” …
But how would the government determine whether a voter is racist?
Through Berlatsky’s brand of logic, of course.
“Trump’s unprecedented, compulsive, easily documented lying during the 2016 campaign made him an irrational choice. 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,” he explains.
Then-GOP nominee Trump warned during the 2016 election that the Democrats’ lax attitude toward illegal immigration was endangering communities throughout the nation. Despite propaganda from the left, it turns out he was right.
Thanks to Democrat-approved “sanctuary city” policies, for instance, multitudes of Americans have been raped, killed, or raped and killed by illegal aliens who shouldn’t have even been free to roam the streets in the first place.
Speaking at a presser just last Friday, acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Matthew Albence pointed to the recent case of Maria Fuertes, a 92-year-old Queens resident who was allegedly raped and killed by an illegal alien who’d been arrested by New York City authorities late last year for another crime but then released back onto the streets.
“Make no mistake. It is this city’s sanctuary policies that are the sole reason this criminal was allowed to roam the streets freely and end an innocent woman’s life,” he bluntly said at the presser.
“All you need to do is call us before you release them. A phone call, one simple phone call, and Maria Fuertes would be alive today. These are preventable crimes people, and most importantly preventable victims.”
Listen:
But to far-left radicals like Berlatsky, people such as Fuertes apparently don’t matter. Neither do deceased California police officer and legal immigrant Ronil Singh, deceased black Alabama woman Sonya Jones and deceased New York mother of three Marie “Rosie” Osai.
So what happens next after elites like Berlatsky and Smith determine who’s a racist? While it’s possible to issue censure or fines, a more optimal solution would be to “dismantle some of the features of the electoral system that encourage racialized decision-making,” Berlatsky writes, quoting from Smith.
As an example, he points to “ending the use of Voter IDs intended to disenfranchise black voters” …
Except that the belief that voter IDs disenfranchise black voters is not only factually incorrect but also patently racist, as the following report demonstrates:
There’s also the option of “expanding the Voting Rights Act to address the racist patterns of voting in Senate elections in the South.”
According to Berlatsky, “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,” and that’s unacceptable.
Thus, the Senate needs to be broken up into districts — in direct violation of how the Founding Fathers designed the legislative body to function — so that more Democrats can earn seats in the Deep South and black voters (forget Asians, Latinos and everybody else) can be granted an opportunity “to elect a senator who would support their interests.”
(FYI, that opportunity already exists …)
“This is clearly a very controversial proposal, and its constitutionality has been debated in the past. But given obvious disparities in representation in the South, it seems worth considering again,” Berlatsky concludes.
The belief that racial disparities are invariably attributable to racism and discrimination is a canard — one that’s been debunked time and time again by renowned conservative intellectual Thomas Sowell, who unlike Berlatsky happens to be black, not white.
Listen:
…
…