Poyer/Bush Love Trump And So Must You

Bills player Jordan Poyer and his wife, Rachel Bush, are very vocal pro-Trump conservatives, and they are completely free to be exactly that. Literally no one in the world is trying to take away from them their right to be as right-wing and pro-Trump as they wish.

This being a free country, anyone has the right to adhere to just about any other political ideology or faction, and possesses a concomitant right to think that Donald Trump is a proto-fascist idiot buffoon who has done more to divide America and to stoke its most base and disgusting hatreds than any other contemporary mainstream political figure.

Poyer and Bush have the right to give Trump and his family as many of their dollars as they wish.

Others have the right to boycott Trump completely.

This isn’t hard stuff to grasp.

This means that anyone has the right to condemn and to not associate with Trump any more than a Trumper can be compelled to love Hunter Biden. The woke are also free.

Yet Trumpers like Poyer and Bush demand to foist their adherence to that cult on others. When they are confronted with the fact that not everyone thinks in lockstep with them, they throw a predictable tantrum on social media. Like your aunt, who thinks that she has taken away Facebook’s right to use her images by posting some spam she found.

Poyer was set to host at a Trump country club a celebrity golf tournament to benefit the ECMC Foundation – a charity set up to raise funds that benefit the hospital and enable donors to offset some of their tax burden by taking a deduction against their donation.

If the intent was purely charitable – to raise money for an ECMC charitable initiative – then Poyer could have had the self-awareness to recognize (or react to the fact) that many people do not want to in any way be associated with the Trump name – directly or otherwise. For the uninitiated, Trump is currently under arrest and indictment in New York and the federal courts for various and sundry crimes.

Poyer and Bush demand to hurl their Trump support in your face, whether you like it or not, and then to complain wildly when you do not. Poyer took to Instagram to take his ball and go home, and then make-believe he doesn’t get it.

“Am I stressed about it? Not even the slightest bit,” he said. “Am I upset about it? A little, but I’m not even upset about the tournament being canceled. I’m upset about this is where we are in America.”

You’re not upset that you canceled the tournament? Then why the hell are you holding the tournament? Is it about ECMC or about your ego, or your ideology, or your obeisance to Trump? His wife, Rachel Bush, famously maintains an especially aggressively hostile pro-Trump Twitter feed so this feigned ignorance about “where we are in America” is a bit rich.

If raising money for ECMC was the primacy concern, Poyer could have – and certainly would have – been more thoughtful about where he chose to host his tournament. If the aim was purely charitable in nature, then he’d have chosen a course that does not come with obvious political baggage.

People have a right to object to participating in something involving the Trump name. A more cynical person might suggest that the whole point of this being scheduled at a Trump course was specifically to bring about the sort of poor me victimhood we’re seeing. “See, the woke Soros libs did it again.” Yeah, well, the libs detest Trump and don’t want to give him any money or anything else. It’s especially ridiculous, given the ECMC mission, vision, and values, many of which are in complete opposition to everything for which Trump and Trumpism stand. How do Poyer and Bush reconcile their devotion to Trump with their support for a hospital that is a “top performer in LGBTQ health equity“? Geez, who knew these two were so woke?

Poyer complains, seemingly without irony,

“I believe in the universal law that the energy you put out is the energy you get back and we’re not doing that right now. All we do is fight with each other all day. Fight with each other about politics, about religion, about race. The issues that come up are the issues we create. … It blows my mind that we sit here in America today with these issues.”

Yes, Mr. Poyer – it blows my mind, too.

Poyer/Bush Love Trump And So Must You 1

The issues that come up are the issues we create.

Poyer/Bush Love Trump And So Must You 2

The energy you put out is the energy you get back.

Poyer/Bush Love Trump And So Must You 3

It’s helping others. It’s sharing those experiences and about being open about we’re not perfect. Nobody is perfect…. The thing is we need each other. We are we arguing over (stuff) that does not matter?

Poyer/Bush Love Trump And So Must You 4
Poyer/Bush Love Trump And So Must You 5

“It seems like our egos get in the way of being a good human being. (Not) sharing love, sharing conversations, sharing laughter with people who may not believe in the same things that you do, it’s a huge problem in America right now. 

Poyer/Bush Love Trump And So Must You 6

Our egos taking over the majority of our lives. A lot of us don’t even know who we are anymore. We’re run by that ego self, run by the materialistic side, run by the things that don’t really matter.

Poyer/Bush Love Trump And So Must You 7

Are Poyer and Bush ignorant, or do they know exactly what they’re doing? Do they really think it is ridiculous that people would object to participating in something involving Trump? Do they think that they are the only people who are permitted publicly to have political beliefs? A charitable person would want to maximize participation and go out of his way to avoid controversy.

But ego and arrogance win. It’s not about the right to love Trump or be a conservative – you have to, too. It’s now a matter of principle for them that next year they will try to do the same thing, having not learned anything from this or listened to anyone about it. For just one second if Poyer and Bush could set their colossal egos aside and consider for just a nanosecond why people object to Trump, maybe their “can’t we all just get along” wouldn’t ring so hollow. Maybe they could learn something and choose a less obviously controversial venue. That is, if they really care about being uniters rather than dividers.

They will frame this as an issue about their rights rather than an issue about public relations, respect, and inclusivity, (lol). Maybe they get a few seconds of airtime on Jesse Watters’ show. Or the Five. Or Gateway Pundit.

But ECMC – whom they misidentify as a sponsor, rather than a grantee – is really only an afterthought, in the end.

Related articles

Trump SUFFERS all ALONE as HIS LIFE COLLAPSES

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Donald...

Trump SHUTS DOWN CBS over STORY HE FEARED

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Donald...

Trump Supreme Court battle could be dismantled by Congress members’ own history



New evidence is emerging that could deal a major blow to President Donald Trump's case for stripping birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.

The president has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restore “the original meaning” of the 14th Amendment, which his lawyers argued in a brief meant that “children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth," but new research raises questions about what lawmakers intended the amendment to do, reported the New York Times.

"One important tool has been overlooked in determining the meaning of this amendment: the actions that were taken — and not taken — to challenge the qualifications of members of Congress, who must be citizens, around the time the amendment was ratified," wrote Times correspondent Adam Liptak.

A new study will be published next month in The Georgetown Law Journal Online examining the backgrounds of the 584 members who served in Congress from 1865 to 1871. That research found more than a dozen of them might not have been citizens under Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but no one challenged their qualifications.

"That is, said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia and an author of the study, the constitutional equivalent of the dog that did not bark, which provided a crucial clue in a Sherlock Holmes story," Liptak wrote.

The 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," while the Constitution requires members of the House of Representatives to have been citizens for at least seven years, and senators for at least nine.

“If there had been an original understanding that tracked the Trump administration’s executive order,” Frost told Liptak, “at least some of these people would have been challenged.”

Only one of the nine challenges filed against a senator's qualifications in the period around the 14th Amendment's ratification involved the citizenship issue related to Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship, and that case doesn't support his position.

"Several Democratic senators claimed in 1870 that their new colleague from Mississippi, Hiram Rhodes Revels, the first Black man to serve in Congress, had not been a citizen for the required nine years," Liptak wrote. "They reasoned that the 14th Amendment had overturned Dred Scott, the 1857 Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship to the descendants of enslaved African Americans, just two years earlier and that therefore he would not be eligible for another seven."

"That argument failed," the correspondent added. "No one thought to challenge any other members on the ground that they were born to parents who were not citizens and who had not, under the law in place at the time, filed a declaration of intent to be naturalized."

"The consensus on the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause has long been that everyone born in the United States automatically becomes a citizen with exceptions for those not subject to its jurisdiction, like diplomats and enemy troops," Liptak added.

Frost's research found there were many members of Congress around the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment who wouldn't have met Trump's definition of a citizen, and she said that fact undercuts the president's arguments.

“If the executive order reflected the original public meaning, which is what the originalists say is relevant,” Frost said, “then somebody — a member of Congress, the opposing party, the losing candidate, a member of the public who had just listened to the ratification debates on the 14th Amendment, somebody — would have raised this.”