GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

© 2021. all rights reserved.

WaPo’s Teeny Torquemada Has Thoughts

April 5, 2021
by: Jay Collinwood

The Washington Post’s Philip Bump is a zealot masquerading as a journalist. In today’s “news analysis” he continues to pump the narrative that Georgia’s new voting law is obviously bad because…well because republicans are just bad. That’s why.

“There’s always a reason that legislation is introduced, always some problem that lawmakers say needs to be addressed in the moment. In Georgia, there is no rational motivation for the passage of its new election law other than demonstrating fealty to the false claims elevated by Trump. Why did Raffensperger need to be replaced on the elections board now? Why did the rules governing absentee applications need to be tightened now, only a few months after an election in which repeated review and extensive scrutiny showed no improprieties had occurred?”

The answer is: COVID is (almost) over and the legislature is smart enough to know that the COVID-era loosey-goosey, let’s-mail-a-ballot-to-anyone-even-dead-people policies are generally unpopular and make elections less safe.

Keeping but reducing the number drop boxes, which didn’t exist before COVID is not a restriction, it’s the opposite. In a post-COVID world why would we need drop boxes anyway? Likewise, requiring ID for absentee ballots is exactly the same as states like Washington, Connecticut, and Joe Biden’s home state of Delaware. Since the legislature is making drop boxes permanent, they want to ensure the ballots are secure. That’s as rational a motivation as there can be for a healthy democracy.

But Teeny Torquemada doesn’t see it that way. Any and all relaxing of voting security (even the unlawful kind) must be upheld in the new world order that seeks to ensure republicans never win another election. After the President himself was awarded four Pinocchios for claiming the Georgia law is “Jim Crow in the 21st Century” the zealots need something to justify their their inquisition.

 

 

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Filed Under: 2020 Presidential Election, 2024 Presidential Election, Media Bias, Misrepresenting the Right

House Democrats and the “Goldfinger” Exception

February 8, 2021
by: Jay Collinwood

 

You expect me to talk? No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!

The trial of the 45th President begins tomorrow and the Trump legal team has put out a spirited, sometimes fiery, but well-reasoned defense. One matter that they vigorously push back on is the House’s assertion that a government official, in this case the President, is not afforded the same First Amendment protections of ordinary citizens.  I call this the Goldfinger Exception after the famous scene in the classic Bond film. And just like in that film, a Mr. Bond saves the day! The House Managers say:

“Most fundamentally, the First Amendment protects private citizens from the government; it does not protect government officials from accountability for their own abuses in office…Regardless, even if the First Amendment were applicable here, private citizens and government officials stand on very different footing when it comes to being held responsible for their statements.”

This is a breathtaking assertion. It is also directly contradicted by Supreme Court precedent, which the defense brilliantly points out. Indeed, Trump’s lawyers note that the House doesn’t even bother to quote court opinions — they instead rely on blog posts to back this mangling of our most cherished freedom. One of the relevant cases is Bond v. Floyd, which involved the GA state legislature voting to prohibit the seating of Julian Bond because he spoke out against the war in Vietnam. Bond sued in federal court, and won. As the Trump legal team explains:

“When the state argued ‘that even though such a citizen [Bond, elected to GA’s House] might be protected by his First Amendment rights, the State may nonetheless apply a stricter standard to its legislators[,]’ the Supreme Court responded tersely, ‘We do not agree[,]'”

And citing the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan case, Justice Brennan (of all people) went on to conclude:

“The manifest function of the First Amendment in a representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude toexpress their views on issues of policy. The central commitment of the First Amendment…is that ‘debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.’”

So there we have it. Bond, Julian Bond, shows us just how the House’s assertions are “malarkey.”

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Filed Under: 2020 Presidential Election, Democratic demagoguery, Democratic Dirty Tricks, Democrats & Double Standards, Dishonest Democrats, Donald Trump

A Carnival of Corruption

February 4, 2021
by: Jay Collinwood

CarnivalLast month, Steven Nelson at The New York Post detailed the alarming number of Big Tech executives who are staffing the Biden transition and White House.

At least 14 current and former senior executives at major tech firms are in positions of tremendous influence and minimal oversight with access to the highest levels of our federal bureaucracy. That includes at least four from Facebook and the head of Amazon Web Services, best known for shutting down Parler.

It reminds me a bit of the Grant Administration — called the “Carnival of Corruption” in its day. Although everyone around Grant was taking bribes (including his VP, members of Congress, and nearly the entire cabinet) even Grant wasn’t corrupt enough to bring the likes of James Fiske and Jay Gould onto the government payroll!

Now, I’m not suggesting that anyone is bribing our leaders. Why would they have to? They’re getting all the power without spending a dime. The fusion of government and big tech is happening before our eyes. Are you scared? I am.

I’ll say much more about this in future posts. 

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Filed Under: 2020 Presidential Election, Biden Watch, Post 9-11 America, Technology, Where's the Scrutiny?

Categories

Archives