RSS

Tag Archives: voting

The New Jim Crow at the DOJ

There is a particularly virulent and dangerous type of white-right racist out there, who plays the white-victim game.

This type of racist is set to destroy much of Civil Rights in the country and further establish the New Jim Crow under chief racist Jeff Sessions.

The white-victim game works like this. The biggest kid in elementary school is the schoolyard bully. A Martial Arts studio opens up in the town, and some of the other kids, tired of being beat up, begin to take classes. Afraid some of his victims might be able to defend themselves, he goes to his Dad, who sits on the City Council, and convinces him to pass a law making Martial Arts studios illegal in the town because “they encourage violence”.

The white-right racist victimrat plays this game. During the Bush administration these people were put in charge of destroying the DOJ’s Civil Rights division. They spent 8 years searching for that elusive instance where a white person had been discriminated against by a minority, nearly ignoring the more than 20,000 cases a year referred to them. In years, they found exactly 1 case. During this entire time denying the existence of racism against blacks and minorities.

The DOJ under Sessions may as well be the KKK. They are becoming the enemy of the entire country.

Image result for KKK

The new DOJ “Civil Rights” Division under Putin’s Bitch and Sessions

How Trump Will Dismantle Civil Rights Protections in America

The same way Bush did: by politicizing the DOJ.

If you talk to people who worked in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division during the George W. Bush administration about their old jobs, you might hear one of two stories. Each can be viewed as a possible prelude to what the DOJ’s “crown jewel” division is poised to go through now that Donald Trump is president and Jeff Sessions is attorney general.

The first story takes place in Ohio during the lead-up to the 2004 election, when local officials were sued over a Republican plan to send thousands of “voter challengers” to polling places in predominantly black districts. The practice, putatively aimed at identifying ineligible voters, stemmed from a controversial Ohio law that civil rights advocates considered a vestige of Jim Crow.

One person who didn’t see it that way was Alex Acosta, the head of the Civil Rights Division at the time and now Trump’s nominee for secretary of labor. Less than a week before Election Day, Acosta wrote a letter to the judge overseeing the Ohio case to express his support for the “challenger” law and to argue that its purpose was to create a “balance between ballot access and ballot integrity”—not to intimidate voters.

The surprising thing about Acosta’s letter was that no one had asked for the DOJ’s opinion. The federal government was not party to the Ohio case, and Acosta was under no obligation to comment on it; in fact, he was defying a long-standing Civil Rights Division norm by taking action on a voting issue so close to an upcoming election. The “challengers” were ultimately allowed to go to the polls. Among liberals, the episode went down as a defining example of how zealous and brazen Bush-era political appointees could be in pursuing a partisan agenda.

The second story you might hear from alumni of Bush’s Civil Rights Division concerns a litigator named David Becker, who had been working in the voting section since the tail end of the Clinton administration. In 2005, Becker decided to quit—but not before getting involved in a DOJ lawsuit that accused the city of Boston of “improperly influencing, coercing, or ignoring the ballot choices of limited-English-proficient Hispanic or Asian-American voters.”

Becker, who had years of experience helping jurisdictions make their elections accessible to minority language–speakers, believed that Republicans in the Justice Department were pursuing the lawsuit for political reasons. In a series of letters to Boston officials, Becker asserted that the case was “largely without legal merit” and was being brought, in part, because Boston had voted Democratic in the 2004 election. Though he was still working for DOJ when he first reached out to city officials, Becker offered to help them fight against the government when he left.

The Becker story is not particularly well-known. But for some conservatives, it remains a galling example of the kind of treachery that Bush’s team encountered from career civil rights staff when Republicans took over the division in 2001. Bradley Schlozman, who worked in the “front office” of Civil Rights from 2003 until 2006 and was despised by many of the former career lawyers I spoke with, recently brought it up to illustrate what he called the “extraordinary unprofessionalism” he encountered in the division as a Bush appointee.“In my opinion, these were extremely partisan attorneys who had difficulty separating their political views from their obligations to their client: the United States,” Schlozman told me.

These two stories—both of them, as it happens, about letters that probably shouldn’t have been sent—serve as a reminder of the destructive, politically polarized rancor that plagued the Bush-era Civil Rights Division. Remembered by many DOJ alums as a traumatic and humiliating low point in the division’s history, the period was marked by an unprecedented level of hostility and mutual distrust between career attorneys and the “politicals” who supervised them.

“As time went on, it became more and more abrasive and overbearing,” said Albert Moskowitz, who oversaw the criminal section of the Civil Rights Division between 1999 and 2005. Particularly during Bush’s second term, he said, “People were abused and treated terribly, and there was just no one to tell and no place to go.”

At the heart of the rift was a fundamental misalignment of goals. As one lawyer hired into the Civil Rights Division under Bush, J. Christian Adams,described it in his 2011 polemic on the Obama-era DOJ, the conflict was part of “a larger war between two camps”: “militant leftists” who believed “civil rights laws do not protect everyone equally, but only certain ‘oppressed’ minorities,” and conservatives “who support a race-blind future.”

To frame it in a slightly less bellicose way, most attorneys who joined the Civil Rights Division before the Bush administration did so because they wanted to help the federal government challenge policies that discriminated against historically marginalized groups. The conservatives in charge under Bush, by contrast, were generally skeptical of federal intervention and believed in devoting more of the division’s resources to investigating things like voter fraud and human trafficking. In applying what they called a “race-neutral” approach to enforcement, they also made a point of bringing civil rights cases on behalf of white victims.

“Even attorneys who had served the division through the Reagan years and the [George H.W.] Bush years found it unbearable,” said Kristen Clarke, who started in the division a few months before Bush took office and now leads the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Nearly a decade since Bush left office, Trump and Sessions have started making their own moves to transform the DOJ and reorient the Civil Rights Division in particular to fit with their agenda. As we look for clues about how far they’ll go, the turbulent 2000s are a reminder of just how bad it can get, and how a new political team might go about pushing the division’s long-serving career attorneys out of the way.

So far, those attorneys haven’t even been told who their new boss will be, as Trump has not yet nominated anyone to the post. In the meantime, looking back on the Bush years is a way of putting down markers—an exercise in bracing oneself and establishing a worst-case precedent against which to measure the next four years.

If they deny you your legal right to vote…Its time to “Stand Your Ground”. The Ballot…Or the bullet.

 

Advertisements
 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 21, 2017 in The New Jim Crow

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Majority of Voting Machines Broke in Detroit on Election Day

Fresh on the heels of a Wisconsin recount awarding the Chump a victory…A majority of voting machines, especially those in majority-minority precincts were broken on election day in Michigan.

Michigan officials admit majority of Detroit vote counting machines broke on Election Day

Was it merely old equipment which incompetent officials had failed to bother getting serviced, or was there something intentionally sinister going on? That’s the question now coming out of Michigan, where just as the statewide recount is getting underway, officials are finally admitting that the majority of vote counting machines in Detroit broke on election day. The stunning admission, which is getting virtually no national news coverage despite appearing in a major Detroit newspaper, casts doubt on the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s supposed narrow win in the state.

Even now, elections director Daniel Baxter appears to only be making the admission as part of a convoluted argument for why the ballots in those Detroit precincts can’t be recounted. He’s acknowledging that eighty-seven optical scanners in Detroit simply “broke” on the same day. But he and other Michigan officials are now making the argument that, because the broken machines resulted in different vote totals on the machines than on the precinct log books, state law means those ballots can’t be recounted.

The paradoxical argument, which is on full display in the Detroit News today, seems unlikely to pass the scrutiny of the federal judge who ruled on Sunday night that every county and precinct must immediately recount its votes by hand. But third party candidate Jill Stein, who initiated the recount and is paying for it, would need to take the matter back to the judge.

Meanwhile, the mere fact that fifty-nine percent of the vote counting machines in Michigan’s biggest city all broke on the same day is standing out as a stunning development. It calls into question why officials failed to publicly disclose this information until they needed it for their convoluted argument against recounting the majority of Detroit’s votes. With Detroit being 82% African-American and thus demographically likely to have heavily favored Hillary Clinton, it directly calls into question whether Donald Trump won Michigan.

Records: Too many votes in 37% of Detroit’s precincts

Voting machines in more than one-third of all Detroit precincts registered more votes than they should have during last month’s presidential election, according to Wayne County records prepared at the request of The Detroit News.

Detailed reports from the office of Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett show optical scanners at 248 of the city’s 662 precincts, or 37 percent, tabulated more ballots than the number of voters tallied by workers in the poll books. Voting irregularities in Detroit have spurred plans for an audit by Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s office, Elections Director Chris Thomas said Monday.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 13, 2016 in Second American Revolution

 

Tags: , , , ,

Voting Race Instead of Sex – The Failure of Feminism

Learned this lesson a long time ago in supporting the promotion of white women in the corporate environment. Racism trumps (literally in this case) both feminism and any partnership with any other oppressed group. That is the reason why Obama beat Hillary in ’08 – that many folks didn’t see any difference in electing a racist white man versus a white woman who would ignore everyone else.

Feminism is a zero sum game for black folks, as well as for black women.

Image result for hillary black women

Fooled…Again

The colorblind sisterhood fantasy: Black women voted for white women — and white women voted for themselves

A Clinton victory would have been most symbolic for white women. Why did so many not vote for her?

From the time she officially announced her candidacy, I had been adamant that I would not vote for Hillary Clinton. Whatever common experiences we shared because of our womanhood were not enough to make me overlook my legitimate concerns over her political positions and history. That admission was usually met with berating hostility, as her supporters assumed that my disdain for Clinton meant I supported the racism, sexism and xenophobia embraced by her strongest competitor. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

I’m a black woman. There was no amount of resentment for Clinton that would have made me vote for Donald Trump. No, I was not with her, but I wasn’t even on the same planet as him.

Still, I was positive that she’d win. White women had been championing Clinton since the start of election season, and after a failed bid eight years ago, I believed they were determined to use their political power to redeem her. So as I sat watching the results of the election, stunned doesn’t begin to describe my reaction.

That Donald Trump, with no prior political experience, was elected to the highest office of the most powerful country on earth was shocking. What exit poll data revealed was utterly astounding. More than half of the white women who voted — 53 percent — had voted for Donald Trump.

Yes, just over four in 10 (43 percent) of those who were the de facto face of #ImWithHer had championed a female president in the voting booth. Conversely, black female voters, many of whom had declared #GirlIguessImWithHer, stayed true to that unenthusiastic declaration and voted at a nearly exclusive 94 percent for Clinton. How were white women, for whom a Clinton victory would have been most symbolic, Trump’s second-strongest supporting demographic?

That question is best answered by what black women and other women of color have been saying for years: White women can be, and too often are, just as racist as their male counterparts, rendering colorblind sisterhood nothing more than a fantasy.

This elephant didn’t just enter the room. More than 120 years ago, in the last decade of the 19th century, pioneering black journalist Ida B. Wells took on suffragette Frances E. Willard who, in her capacity as a leading activist for women’s rights, freely employed the violent racist rhetoric of the time. Wells declared that after the 15th Amendment giving all men the right to vote was ratified, Willard had “unhesitatingly slandered the entire Negro race in order to gain favor with those who are hanging, shooting and burning Negroes alive.” More plainly, Willard, like many of her colleagues, was content to manipulate the racism at the core of this country’s existence to win rights for white women who were still denied the vote black men were guaranteed on paper, saying in a speech, “It is not fair that a plantation Negro who can neither read or write should be entrusted with the ballot.”

Much of the white feminist struggle since has taken the same strategy with the same goal. For many women of color, white feminism feels less like a unified fight for the liberation of all women, and more like a campaign to ensure white women have the same status, rights and privileges as white men, and thus the corresponding power to oppress black and brown people. This election was a painful reminder, and statistical illustration, of that.

White women had everything to gain, or at least maintain, by electing Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Beyond the historical significance of electing the first woman — a white woman — president of the United States, Clinton’s policies would have no doubt been more female-friendly than Trump’s, who has said he would appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices in a signal of support for overturning Roe v. Wade, and has even argued that women should suffer punishment for having abortions. Trump has an unabashedly misogynist constituency to appease. That appeasement will most likely come at the cost of women’s rights.

But beyond the low-hanging fruit, white women are still viewed by our culture at large as the embodiment of womanhood. Much of the vile sexism peddled and promoted by Trump was inflicted upon white female bodies. When Trump retweeted a tweet calling Fox News personality Megyn Kelly a “bimbo,” that was not a blow to black women like me. “Bimbo” is an insult reserved almost exclusively for white women. When Trump bragged about grabbing women “by the pussy,” it was safe to assume those women had been white, given his three wives and the descriptions of the woman he admitted he “did try to fuck.” Trump didn’t interrupt a black or Asian woman dozens of times during the debates — he talked over a white woman indisputably more qualified to lead this country than he is.

Yes, his campaign fostered a real climate for racist attacks on women of color. Absolutely, his “birther” campaign aimed at Barack Obama helped further embolden racists to lob misogynoir at Michelle Obama. No question his Islamophobia bred more contempt for Arab Muslim women in hijab, thus placing them at greater danger for violence in this country. But the harm inflicted upon melanated women has been more proxy than direct. Trump himself caused harm directly to white women instead.

People look at Megyn Kelly and see a white woman. They look at Hillary Clinton and see a white woman. They think of Trump groping white women.

But still, white women, across borders of income and education, supported him. It’s Frances Willard for 2016. Racist white women held firm to the fact that they may be women — oppressed, marginalized and preyed upon — but at least they’re still white. Trump, in coded language, promised to preserve that whiteness. He promised them that even fighting for the right to make choices for their own bodies and paid less, they’d still have the power of their whiteness.

And as has been the case for more than a century; the majority decided that their comfort was in the arms of white men rather than in locking arms with black and brown women. Black women did their part. They kept up their end of the bargain, however begrudgingly, voting for a white woman who would benefit them at most marginally with trickle-downs, as white women cut off their own noses to spite their own faces.

 
5 Comments

Posted by on November 27, 2016 in The Definition of Racism, The Post-Racial Life

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Voted

Voted this morning. Big crowd, but the line moved very fast. Even though I am a new voter in this county, there were no problems.

Odd thing…The Democrats were out in force manning a table in the area reserved.

There was no Republican table. No Trump signs. And no signs for the Republican candidates.

How did your voting go?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 8, 2016 in General

 

Tags: , , ,

The End of White Christian America

Turn out the lights… The Chumph represents the end of the dominance of white Christian America. An America of the 50’s, where the white middle class, enabled by generous government funding in terms of FHA home loans built whitetopias in the suburbs surrounding cities. White Christian dominance really wasn’t good for anyone except whites, and demographic changes in the number of people walking away from organized religion, and non-whites immigrating to the country has killed it.

Ending it once and for all is going to be messy.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Homer Simpson Exposes Putin As a Trump Voter

Funny!

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 15, 2016 in Chumph Butt Kicking

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Republicans Deserting the Rotten Sinking Chumpf Scow

It seems almost hourly now, former loyal Republicans are jumping off the Chumph scow. Some are announcing they are voting for Hillary.

The list now includes…Both former Republican Presidents, the former Republican Presidential candidate, and several dozen Republican talking heads.

Current/former GOP officials

Mitt Romney

George W. Bush

George H.W. Bush

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez

Michigan Rep. Justin Amash

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker

Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan

Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse

Rep. Carlos Curbelo

Former Sen. Norm Coleman

Former George W. Bush administration official Tony Fratto

Rep. Reid Ribble

Iowa State Sen. David Johnson

Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk

Operatives/Groups

Tim Miller

Katie Packer

Kevin Madden

Patrick Ruffini

Stuart Stevens

Rick Wilson

Liz Mair

Club for Growth

Journalists/Pundits

Megyn Kelly

Glenn Beck

Erick Erickson

Guy Benson

David Brooks

Brent Bozell

Jonah Goldberg

Stephen Hayes

Mark Levin

Matt Lewis

Katie Pavlich

Jennifer Rubin

Ben Shapiro

Bill Kristol

George Will

Mona Charen

Ben Domenech

Dana Loesch

Michael Medved

John Podhoretz

Charlie Sykes

David Frum

Jamie Weinstein

Hugh Hewitt

The Hill’s list includes –

Republicans who won’t back Trump

Eliot Cohen, former George W. Bush official

Rep. Carlos Curbelo (Fla.)

Steve Deace, conservative radio host

Rep. Bob Dold (Ill.)

Rep. Richard Hanna (N.Y.)

Doug Heye, former RNC communications director

Former Rep. Bob Inglis (S.C.)

 

Kevin Madden, former Mitt Romney aide

Former RNC Chairman Mel Martínez (Fla.)

Former Gov. George Pataki (N.Y.)

Former Rep. Ron Paul (Texas)

Rep. Reid Ribble (Wis.)

Former Gov. Tom Ridge (Pa.)

Rep. Scott Rigell (Va.)

Rep. Mark Sanford (S.C.)

Former Rep. J.C. Watts (Okla.)

Peter Wehner, conservative New York Times contributor

Former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman (N.J.)

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 15, 2016 in The Clown Bus

 

Tags: , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: