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.

 

 
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: , , , , ,

In Baltimore Ex-Felons Rock the Vote

Not sure there are enough ex-felons in the City of Baltimore to change the traditional political fault lines, but it at least is a beginning in restoring the rights to a group of folks who may be able to build the foundations of a new life after incarceration.

Tearing another piece of that New Jim Crow down so beloved by Republicans as a means to suppress voters of color.

In Baltimore, ex-felons cherish newfound right to vote

On the November night in 2008 when the nation elected its first black president, wild celebrations broke out in west Baltimore. But when Perry Hopkins jumped up from the steps of the Chinese takeout where he was sitting and tried to join the party, he was quickly put in his place.

“Somebody looked at me and said: You got a record, you can’t vote. You ain’t got nothing to do with this, you can’t claim this,” Hopkins recalled. “And it hurt.”

A wiry, intense 54-year-old, Hopkins has been barred from voting thanks to an extensive criminal history that he attributes to a past addiction problem. “I’ve done five years three times, and four years once, so I’ve got roughly 20 years on the installment plan,” he said. “I’m not proud of it, but it’s the truth.”

Of being disenfranchised, Hopkins said: “I felt like my hands were tied behind my back and I was being beaten.”

Now that feeling is gone. On Thursday, Hopkins cast his first votes ever in Maryland’s presidential and mayoral primaries. (He won’t say for whom he voted.) And as an organizer for Communities United, a local community group, he rounded up scores of his neighbors — many of them also former felons — and drove them in a van to the polls, too. “Hey, come vote!” Hopkins was shouting to anyone who would listen Thursday as he stood at a busy intersection, loading up another van with people.

In February, prodded by a grassroots campaign by Communities United and other voting rights and civil rights groups, Maryland restored voting rights to people with felony convictions as soon as they’re released from prison — re-enfranchising an estimated 40,000 predominantly African-American Marylanders. Previously, they’d had to wait until they had completed probation or parole. Democratic lawmakers overrode a veto by Maryland’s Republican governor to push the measure into law. Communities United says it’s registered about 1300 new voters since the law passed.

The move was perhaps the biggest victory yet for a nationwide movement to scrap or weaken felon disenfranchisement laws, which shut nearly 6 million Americans, disproportionately non-white, out of the political process.

Reginald Smith, who was in prison for 14 years after voting at an early voting site for the first time “in a long time.”

On Friday, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffeannounced an executive order that re-enfranchises more than 200,000 felons, a move that could boost Democrats in the crucial swing state this November. Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin last week signed a law that softens that state’s felon voting ban. And a ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court, expected imminently, could dramatically reduce the number of crimes that lead to disenfranchisement there.

In Maryland, opponents of the change argued that it makes sense to require former felons to complete their full sentence — meaning probation or parole — before getting their rights back. But several of the newly re-enfranchised who Hopkins ferried to the polls Thursday said emphatically that the right to vote was itself a powerful spur toward reintegrating back into society.

“Not being able to vote was hindering me from actually being considered as a full citizen, and it was hindering my whole rehabilitation process,” said Reginald Smith, moments after voting for the first time in decades. “Because I was still being punished for something that I already served time for.”

“Being able to vote, it just makes me feel that much more positive about myself,” said Robert Mackin, 54, shortly before he cast the first ballot of his life. (Who did Mackin plan to vote for? “I sure know it ain’t gonna be no Trump.”)…Read the Rest Here…

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Black Voters and the Democrat Party

The following article attempts to make the case that the mass exodus from the Republican Party in the late 60’s due to Goldwater’s anti Civil Rights stance was counterproductive. That somehow, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 failed because while it made the legal structure of Jim Crow in America…It didn’t go far enough in eliminating the structure of White Privilege which remained. Never mind that it was the Republicans, led by Goldwater who gutted the legal and criminal enforcement section of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act leveling criminal and civil sanctions against violators, and protecting the continuation of discrimination to this day.

I mean, what if the folks who constructed the predatory mortgage loan were looking at 5-10 years in Gen pop, instead of a financial slap on the wrist during the 2006 meltdown? The simple fact is, since Goldwater it has always been a “conservative principle” to protect the racists, and the institutions which benefit them. Things like propping up the racist Southern Myth that the Civil War wasn’t necessary because the kindly slave owners would have freed the slaves.

The reason that now, near 97% of black voters support Democrats is really simple…Nixon, Reagan, and Bush. It’s a perverse argument, made in one form or another by the right, and has the logic of the Jews joining the Nazi Party in 1930’s Germany, because eventually Hitler would have seen the light.

The other fiction presented by the author is that Jim Crow only lived in the South. That isn’t quite true.

When Black Voters Exited Left

What African Americans lost by aligning with the Democratic Party

Days before the 1960 election, Coretta Scott King received a call from then-candidate John F. Kennedy while her husband was in a Georgia jail, charged with trespassing after leading a sit-in demonstration against segregation in Atlanta. “This must be pretty hard on you, and I want to let you both know that I’m thinking about you and will do all I can to help,” Kennedy told her. The Democratic nominee’s brother and campaign manager, Robert Kennedy, called a DeKalb County Judge and successfully lobbied for Martin Luther King Jr.’s release.

The personal call and the timely intervention significantly bolstered Kennedy’s standing among black voters. They also strengthened the political alliance between the Democratic Party and African Americans. After his release, King praised Kennedy for exhibiting “moral courage of a high order.” His father, the influential Baptist pastor Martin Luther King Sr., said, “Kennedy can be my president, Catholic or whatever he is. I’ve got all my votes and I’ve got a suitcase and I’m going to take them up there and dump them in his lap.” Kennedy earned 68 percent of the black vote, which was the decisive factor in key states like Illinois, Michigan, and South Carolina.

Once in the White House, Kennedy faced pressure from civil-rights activists to make good on what King called a “huge promissory note” to pass meaningful civil-rights legislation. When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, he cemented a political alliance between African Americans and the Democratic Party that continues to this day. But celebrating these landmark pieces of legislation makes it easy to overlook what black people in the United States lost when civil rights and equality for blacks were hitched to the Democratic Party.

While the passage of the Civil Rights Act helped Johnson earn support from 94 percent of black voters in 1964, there is a gulf between what black Americans hoped the legislation would achieve and what Democratic politicians actually delivered. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 helped end apartheid conditions in the South, a critical objective for which grassroots black Southern activists fought and died, the legislation did little to address the structures of racism that shaped black lives in cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. This was an intentional consequence of how the bill’s sponsors, largely liberals from the North, Midwest, and West, crafted the legislation.

As King understood, Democratic politicians acted more boldly on race issues in Alabama and Mississippi than in New York and Massachusetts. “There is a pressing need for a liberalism in the North which is truly liberal, a liberalism that firmly believes in integration in its own community as well as in the Deep South,”King told the New York Urban League in September 1960. As the Urban League’s executive director Whitney Young put it a few years later, “liberalism seems to be related to the distance people are from the problem.”

After the 1964 election, where Republican candidate Barry Goldwater described the Civil Rights Act as unconstitutional, black voters essentially found themselves in a one-party system for presidential elections. Republicans turned their attention to white voters in the South and suburbs and have made few serious attempts in subsequent campaigns to appeal to the African American electorate. Richard Nixon in 1960 is the last Republican candidate to earn more than 15 percent of black votes.

Voting by Union or former confederate States

This is a problem for black voters, because the Democratic Party’s vision of racial justice is also extremely limited. Northern liberals pioneered what scholars now call “colorblind racism.” That’s when racially neutral language makes extreme racial inequalities appear to be the natural outcome of innocent private choices or free-market forces rather than intentional public policies like housing covenants, federal mortgage redlining, public housing segregation, and school zoning.

Democratic lawmakers drafted civil-rights legislation that would challenge Jim Crow laws in the South while leaving de facto segregation in the North intact. When NBC News asked the civil-rights organizer Bayard Rustin why many African American communities rioted the summer after the bill passed, he said, “People have to understand that although the civil-rights bill was good and something for which I worked arduously, there was nothing in it that had any effect whatsoever on the three major problems Negroes face in the North: housing, jobs, and integrated schools…the civil-rights bill, because of this failure, has caused an even deeper frustration in the North.” Today’s protest movements against second-class citizenship in Baltimore, Ferguson, Oakland, and elsewhere are in part a legacy of the unresolved failures of civil-rights legislation.

Unfortunately for black voters, most white politicians and voters assume that the civil-rights revolution not only leveled the playing field, but also tilted it in favor of African Americans. The white backlash to civil rights helped resurrect the Republican Party after the disastrous Goldwater campaign in 1964, and, over the last five decades, the Democratic Party has followed the electorate to the right.  …Read the Rest Here

One of the prophetical things Goldwater said that has come to be is –

 

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Latino Citizenship Applications Flood In…So They Can Vote Against Trump

Hispanics and Latinos are flooding the Immigration offices to register to become American Citizens, a process which takes about 5 months currently for folks meeting all the requirements. Until this election cycle it has been pretty safe for politicians to ignore the Latino vote – because they have historically had a low voter participation rate –

With the vile comments by Donald Trump about Latinos…That may be about to change.

More Latinos Seek Citizenship to Vote Against Trump

Donald J. Trump’s harsh campaign rhetoric against Mexican immigrants has helped him win a substantial delegate lead in the Republican primary, but it is also mobilizing a different set of likely voters — six of them alone in the family of Hortensia Villegas.

A legal immigrant from Mexico, Ms. Villegas is a mother of two who has been living in the United States for nearly a decade but never felt compelled to become a citizen. But as Mr. Trump has surged toward the Republican nomination, Ms. Villegas — along with her sister, her parents and her husband’s parents — has joined a rush by many Latino immigrants to naturalize in time to vote in November.

“I want to vote so Donald Trump won’t win,” said Ms. Villegas, 32, one of several hundred legal residents, mostly Mexicans, who crowded one recent Saturday into a Denver union hall. Volunteers helped them fill out applications for citizenship, which this year are taking about five months for federal officials to approve. “He doesn’t like us,” she said.

Over all, naturalization applications increased by 11 percent in the 2015 fiscal year over the year before, and jumped 14 percent during the six months ending in January, according to federal figures. The pace is picking up by the week, advocates say, and they estimate applications could approach 1 million in 2016, about 200,000 more than the average in recent years.

While naturalizations generally rise during presidential election years, Mr. Trump provided an extra boost this year. He kicked off his campaign in June describing Mexicans as drug-traffickers and rapists. His pledge to build a border wall and make Mexico pay for it has been a regular applause line. He has vowed to create a deportation force to expel the estimated 11 million immigrants here illegally, evoking mass roundups of the 1950s.

Among 8.8 million legal residents eligible to naturalize, about 2.7 million are Mexicans, the largest national group, federal figures show. But after decades of low naturalization rates, only 36 percent of eligible Mexicans have become citizens, while 68 percent of all other immigrants have done so, according to the Pew Research Center.

“A lot of people are opening their eyes because of all the negative stuff Donald Trump has brought,” said Ms. Villegas’s husband, Miguel Garfío, 30, who was born and raised in Colorado and came to the workshop here to help his wife and other family members become citizens this year. His parents came from Mexico in the 1980s and worked hard all their lives, he said, helping him create a construction company in Denver that now employs 18 people. Contrary to Mr. Trump’s depiction, he said, none of his relatives have criminal records.

This year immigrants seeking to become citizens can find extra help from nonprofit groups and even from the White House. Last September, President Obama launched a national campaign to galvanize legal residents to take the step. They can now pay the fee, $680, with a credit card, and practice the civics test online. They can get applications at “citizenship corners” in public libraries in many states.

The White House recruited Fernando Valenzuela, the legendary Mexican-born pitcher who naturalized only last year, and José Andrés, the Spanish-American chef, to make encouraging advertisements and to turn up at swearing-in ceremonies. On Presidents’ Day, administration officials swore in more than 20,000 new citizens. On Wednesday the administration announced $10 million in grants to groups guiding immigrants through the process.

The majority of Latinos are Democrats, and some Republicans accuse the White House of leading a thinly veiled effort to expand the ranks of the president’s party. But administration officials argue the campaign is nonpartisan, noting that immigrants who become citizens improve their incomes and chances for homeownership.

“I certainly don’t care what party they register with, I just want them to become citizens,” said Leon Rodriguez, director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the federal agency in charge of naturalizations.

Aside from Colorado, naturalization drives are taking place in Nevada and Florida, states likely to be fiercely contested in November where Latino voters could provide a crucial margin. One nonprofit group, the New Americans Campaign, plans to complete 1,500 applications at a session in Marlins Park baseball stadium in Miami on March 19….Read More Here

…in a poll of Latino voters on Feb. 25 by the Washington Post and Univision, the Spanish language television network, 80 percent had an unfavorable view of Mr. Trump, including 72 percent with a very unfavorable view, far more than for other Republican candidates. In the poll, 74 percent of the voters said Mr. Trump’s views on immigration were “offensive.”

 
1 Comment

Posted by on March 7, 2016 in The Post-Racial Life

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Black Voter Suppression in Alabama

What’s interesting about the discussion of Republicans and black voters…

Is even if Republicans did something to earn the black vote…

They have disenfranchised the voters.

Alabama, Where ID Is Required to Vote, Closes DMVs in Most “Black Belt” Counties

On Wednesday, the state of Alabama announced that it was shutting 31 driver’s license offices because of budget cuts. Two columns on Al.com subsequently noted that the cuts—which come on the heels of a 2011 law that requires voters to show government-issued IDs—will disproportionately affect counties in the state’s largely Democratic “black belt” region.

Columnist Kyle Whitmire writes that 29 of the state’s 67 counties will now lack a driver’s license office—and, depending on whether you define the “black belt” as constituting 18 or 24 counties, either 12 or 15 of those newly office-less counties will be in the historically black area. Two-thirds of counties in the narrowly defined “black belt” will lack now a driver’s license office (12 of 18); only one-third (17 of 49) of other counties will lack one.

Columnist John Archibald, meanwhile, observes that no Alabama counties in which more than 75 percent of registered voters are nonwhite will now have a driver’s license office. Another way of framing the issue: Offices will be shuttered in the five counties whose voters most strongly supported Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley is Republican, and the state’s Senate and House of Representatives are both GOP-controlled.

 
5 Comments

Posted by on October 2, 2015 in The New Jim Crow

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Strange Justice in Mississippi – Black Judge Fired For Not Convicting Enough People

The strange case of Judge Ricky Thompson, and the Mississippi Judicial system…

It would seem the New Jim Crow System of a carceral state functioning to deprive minorities of their voting and other rights, and to keep them in their place is in full force in Mississippi.whether in Ferguson, Mo, or Harris County, Texas – the forces of supposed “Law and Order” have become nothing more than the instruments of the Modern Jim Crow. This system functions to suppress minority voting, having the same effect as the Old Jm Crow era Poll Tax through disenfranchisement.

 

Judge Thomson, center at rally to support his judgeship

Whites Quit Working With Black Mississippi Judge, Then He Got Sacked

Rickey Thompson started a drug court to start treating offenders and stop imprisoning them. Then he says officials quit sending him offenders altogether.

A black judge in Mississippi claims he was removed from office following years of resistance from a mostly white legal system to his push to treat drug offenders instead of imprisoning them.

Justice Court Judge Rickey Thompson of Lee County—named for Confederate general Robert E. Lee—is the first and only black judge in the county’s 149-year history. In May, the Mississippi Supreme Court removed him from the post that he’s held since 2004 over a slew of misconduct allegations.

“It came to the point where they couldn’t beat me at the ballot, so they had to find another direction,” he said. 

Thompson said the sheriff quit sending him suspects and fellow judges quit sending the accused to his drug court. Warrants he signed for the sheriff’s department went unserved. A bailiff even once refused to open his court. 

Officially, Thompson was found by Mississippi’s highest court to have violated several rules, including what amounts to making clerical errors like using the wrong form when filing paperwork. That should not be surprising given Mississippi requires only a high school diploma to be a justice court judge. (Thompson, a registered nurse with an associate degree, has more education than that of his fellow justice court magistrates.) 

Thompson’s crimes include speaking up for a bail bondsman who had been previously suspended from operating by the sheriff; preventing a drug court defendant from choosing her own attorney over one he advocated for; keeping some people in drug court longer than the two years allowed by state law; wrongly incarcerating four people.

The last charge is the most important: When a handful of offenders violated the drug court’s rules, Thompson found them in contempt of court and sent them to jail. The longest sentence was six months.

If Thompson hadn’t created his drug court in the first place, the four people he locked up for contempt would have almost surely been in prison longer than they would have been for their drug offenses. That means Thompson was kicked off the bench, in part, for not locking up drug offenders for longer than he did.

The judge was popular with blacks in the county, and he kept quite a few of them out of jail for minor offenses like marijuana possession. The sheriff evidently wanted to see them in his jail or prison.

“When I first started, obviously there was a learning curve, but you see some of the bad things that are going on,” Thompson said. “And as people got to know me and know that I was going to be fair, that I wasn’t going to be a rubber stamp, that’s when the trouble started.”…More on the story here…

 
1 Comment

Posted by on August 31, 2015 in The New Jim Crow

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

The New Southern Myth

The new version of the Southern Myth goes something like this –

Whitewashing the Democratic Party’s History

The Democrats have been sedulously rewriting history for decades. Their preferred version pretends that all of the Democratic racists and segregationists left their party and became Republicans starting in the 1960s. How convenient. If it were true that the South began to turn Republican due to Lyndon Johnson’s passage of the Civil Rights Act, you would expect that the Deep South, the states most associated with racism, would have been the first to move. That’s not what happened. The first southern states to trend Republican were on the periphery: North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Tennessee and Florida. (George Wallace lost these voters in his 1968 bid.) The voters who first migrated to the Republican Party were suburban, prosperous “New South” types. The more Republican the South has become the less racist…

Speaking of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, let’s review (since they don’t teach this in schools): The percentage of House Democrats who supported the legislation? 61 percent. House Republicans? 80 percent. In the Senate, 69 percent of Democrats voted yes, compared with 82 percent of Republicans. (Barry Goldwater, a supporter of the NAACP, voted no because he thought it was unconstitutional.)…

Amusing. But, if you control for region on voting for the Civil Rights Act, you get

281 out of 313 Representatives from Union States voted yes (90%)

8 of 102 from former confederate states voted yes (8%)

72 of 78 Senators from Union States voted yes (92%)

1 of 22 Senators from former confederate states voted yea (5%)

http://www.theguardian.com/com…

Which is the Party of the South now?

Here is a hint…

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 27, 2015 in The Post-Racial Life

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Bulletproof Vests for Black Children

Forget the PS-4 – Get the kid something which, quite literally may save his life this Christmas!

 

‘Bulletproof Vest For Boys’: Florida Billboards Put A Twist On Police Brutality

Mocking an advertisement for a clothing line, a billboard by Dream Defenders in Tallahassee, Fla. depicted a sale event with a young black boy modeling body armor, WCTV reported.

The billboard, along with a video featuring the same theme, was part of the group’s “Vest or Vote” campaign. The ads urged pressure on police departments after the high-profile killings of Michael Brown by a police officer in Missouri and Trayvon Martin by an armed vigilante in Florida.

The campaign doesn’t appear to be advocating for or against any specific ballot measure but is more broadly about voting and voter registration.

“No one wants to live in a world where bulletproof vests are the norm,” read a description on the group’s website. “Vote on November 4th (and earlier, in Florida and most states), and let’s together take a stand on laws, like Stand Your Ground, that create fear and insecurity in our communities.”

Now BTx3 persoanlly has a different approach…

No Picture ID? Vote…Or Stand Your Ground

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 17, 2014 in American Genocide

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Our Future President?

Check this 12 year old out! She has formed a coalition to repeal the onerous voting restrictions implemented by Tea Bagged Republicans in North Carolina, and to get young folks to vote. Her name is Madison Kimrey, an she does one heck of a speech.

The Rethugs in North Carolina have voted to eliminate the ability of teens to pre-register to vote, while getting a Driver’s License at 16, so they can vote when they turn 18. By doing this and raising the bar to College Students voting, they eliminate one of the groups which tends to vote Democrat, or at least anti-Tea Party. This is part of the Rethugly Voter Suppression effort, which includes Voter ID Laws.

Go Madison!

 
2 Comments

Posted by on November 9, 2013 in The New Jim Crow, The Post-Racial Life

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: