Fighting back on voting rights – Because voter ID’s are racist?

E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post and MSNBC commentator.

This morning I came across an article written by E.J. Dionne, a long time op-ed contributor for The Washington Post and a NPR, PBS and MSNBC commentator, about fighting back on voting rights. I knew it was going to be skewed to the left, I just didn’t realize how much so.

By E.J. Dionne Jr., Guest Columnist
WASHINGTON —
Attorney General Eric Holder has opened what will be an epic battle over whether our country will remain committed to equal rights at the ballot box. In a display of egregious judicial activism in late June, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Holder made clear last week he intends to fight back.

The struggle will begin in Texas, but it won’t end there. “We cannot allow the slow unraveling of the progress that so many, throughout history, have sacrificed so much to achieve,” Holder told the National Urban League’s annual conference.
He wasn’t exaggerating the stakes. From the moment the Supreme Court threw out Section 4 of the act, which subjected the voting laws in states and jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to Justice Department scrutiny, conservative legislators in those places gleefully signaled their intention to pass laws to make it harder to vote. In addition, Texas re-imposed a redistricting map that a federal court had already ruled was discriminatory.

These hasty moves were unseemly but entirely predictable, proving that Chief Justice John Robert’s opinion in the case will become a Magna Carta for voter suppression. Without having to worry about “preclearance” from the Justice Department, legislators can go about their business of making it more difficult for voters who would throw them out of office to reach the polls — and of drawing racially gerrymandered districts that prolong their tenure. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg understood a logic here that escaped Roberts. “A governing political coalition,” she wrote in her dissent, “has an incentive to prevent changes in the existing balance of voting power.”
This in turn means that when a political party fares badly with minority voters, it will try to turn them away from the polling booths. That’s what segregationist Southern Democrats did in the past. Many Republican-controlled legislatures are doing it now.

Holder announced he was using Section 3, a different part of the Voting Rights Act that was left standing, to ask a federal court to re-subject Texas to preclearance. It is a less efficient way to achieve what the pre-gutted act allowed automatically, but it is the best that can be done for now. It would be better still if Congress reinstated a revised version of Section 4. In the meantime, the hope is to limit the damage of the high court’s folly — and perhaps also give other states pause before they rush into new discriminatory schemes.
“This is the department’s first action to protect voting rights following the [Supreme Court] decision, but it will not be our last,” Holder declared. His department is likely to move this week against the Texas voter-identification law, and to go to court eventually against other states that pass comparable statutes.

To get a sense of how bad these laws are, consider the bill Republicans rushed through both houses of North Carolina’s Legislature that should be called the Omnibus Voter Suppression Act of 2013. It reads like a parody written for Stephen Colbert’s show with its cornucopia of provisions that would make it as hard as possible for African-Americans, Latinos and young people to vote.

As the Charlotte Observer reported, it shortens the early-voting period, eliminates the opportunity to register and vote on the same day during that time, and ends pre-registration for teenagers 16 to 17. The bill also prevents counties from extending voting hours when lines are long — which they will be with the cutback on early voting days. It not only requires photo identification, but also narrows the list of what’s acceptable, eliminating college IDs, for example.

Oh, yes, and remember the old civic tradition of using all avenues to encourage people to register to vote, a favorite cause of that famously revolutionary group, the League of Women Voters? This bill would ban paid voter registration drives.

… Read More
E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne@washpost.com

Expecting more from a man who penned the book, “They Only Look Dead: Why Progressives Will Dominate the Next Political Era” , was kind of naive, but thinking that being a print journalist he would have been more scrupulous – even just a bit impartial. Lesson learned.

Of course I have an opinion on his op-ed piece, but I wanted to make sure he was aware of it. I emailed him this morning –

Mr.Dionne,
I noticed in your article, Fighting Back On Voting Rights, a few omissions. I’m sure this was unintended.
For example, you wrote, “This in turn means that when a political party fares badly with minority voters, it will try to turn them away from the polling booths.” You mean like the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation in Philly that was later dismissed by Holder? I’m sure you mean just like that.

New Black Panthers intimidating voters at the polls in Philadelphia

Then there was that little rant on banning paid voter drives. You must have been distracted during the last election. Unless you were living under a rock, you would know that paid voter drives breed voter registration fraud. If you need examples, I’d be more than happy to supply them. Perhaps it was just an oversight on your part. It’s inconceivable that some people think voter fraud is a myth, they must be part of the low information voters. Ask me how I could have voted twice when I was handed the ballot of another voter because of the same last name and similar address. I suppose if someone had asked to see my ID the situation could have been avoided. Not everyone is as honest as I am.

That got me thinking about photo identification – either a driver’s license or a state ID for non-drivers. I noticed some pertinent data was missing from your article. There are so many instances besides voting where showing/having an ID is necessary.
For instance, one would need an ID to apply for/receive Medicare and Medicaid, purchase cigarettes and alcohol, buy Sudafed, rent a car, get a hotel room, check out a library book, any bank transactions, register yourself or a child in school, board an airplane, get certain medications at the pharmacy, apply for store credit, set up a utilities account (water, lights, etc), buy a car, register a car, vote in a union, donate blood, use a credit card, Social Security services, buy train tickets, volunteer at non-profit organizations, buy a house, rent an apartment, and even at print shops.

I don’t think you were seriously suggesting that asking for an ID to vote is somehow racist or “right wing”, that would be ludicrous. I’m sure the groups you mentioned: blacks, latinos and young people, (I’ll even throw one in of my own – senior citizens) have used at least one or more of these services. To think otherwise would be absurd…. or intellectually dishonest. Wouldn’t you say?

I do hope Mr. Dionne gets sarcasm –

What are your thoughts…opinions on voter’s rights and voter ID?

Holder “Shooting was tragic and unecessary” – More Race baiting from the AG

Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday called the killing of Trayvon Martin a “tragic, unnecessary shooting,” and said the Justice Department will follow “the facts and the law” as it reviews evidence to see whether federal criminal charges are warranted.

In his first comments since the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the Martin case, the attorney general said the 17-year-old’s death provides an opportunity for the nation to speak honestly about complicated and emotionally charged issues.

He said the nation must not forgo an opportunity toward better understanding of one another.

On Sunday, the Justice Department said it is reviewing evidence in the case to determine whether criminal civil rights charges would be brought.

The department opened an investigation into Martin’s death last year but stepped aside to allow the state prosecution to proceed.

Holder said, “We are … mindful of the pain felt by our nation surrounding the tragic, unnecessary shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., last year.” The attorney general’s characterization of the killing drew strong applause from the audience at the 51st national convention of the Delta Sigma Theta, the nation’s largest African-American sorority.

“Independent of the legal determination that will be made, I believe that this tragedy provides yet another opportunity for our nation to speak honestly about the complicated and emotionally charged issues that this case has raised,” Holder said.

“We must not — as we have too often in the past — let this opportunity pass,” he added.

“I hope that we will approach this necessarily difficult dialogue with the same dignity that those who have lost the most, Trayvon’s parents, have demonstrated throughout the last year — and especially over the past few days,” said Holder. “They suffered a pain that no parent should have to endure — and one that I, as a father, cannot begin to conceive.”

The Justice Department says the criminal section of the agency’s civil rights division, along with the FBI and federal prosecutors in Florida, are all continuing to evaluate the evidence generated during the federal investigation, plus evidence and testimony from the state trial.

Also on Monday, the White House said President Barack Obama won’t involve himself in the Justice Department decision on whether to pursue civil rights charges against Zimmerman. White House spokesman Jay Carney said it would be inappropriate for Obama to express an opinion on how the department deals with Zimmerman.

I’m galled, yet not surprised. The White House resident, Barry Soetero, thinks it would be inappropriate to express his opinion – now? He was quick with an opinion without having all the facts during his, “If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon” speech.

Now we have AG Holder continuing the race baiting. Unbelievable.  Maybe someone needs to remind him that a report submitted by the FBI after their investigation has already stated that George Zimmerman’s actions were not based on race:

“Zimmerman’s actions were not based on Martin’s skin color [BUT]rather based on his attire, the total circumstances of the encounter and the previous burglary suspects in the community,” an FBI agent wrote in a report dated March 5, 2012

Sanford Florida Police Department’s lead investigator concluded: “George Zimmerman wasn’t a racist, but instead a bit “overzealous” and emboldened by a little hero complex.”

You can’t re-investigate something and expect magic to appear and new evidence to show up…unless you’re Eric Holder or Al Sharpton. So why do it? It’s very helpful when you’re pandering to a certain segment of society.

Here’s something for you to chew on:

A 2007 special report released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, reveals that approximately 8,000 — and, in certain years, as many as 9,000 blacks are murdered annually in the United States. This figure is accompanied by another equally sobering fact, that 93% of these murders are in fact perpetrated by other blacks. The analysis, supported by FBI records, finds that in 2005 alone, for example, blacks accounted for 49% of all homicide victims in the US — again, almost exclusively at the hands of other blacks.

No opinion on that, Barry? It’s not going to happen because race baiting and dividing a nation is much easier.
Wasn’t justice already served? I thought that’s what a jury trial is for, or does justice only count when you agree with the verdict?

h/t: AP

School Threatens to Ruin Valedictorian’s Naval Academy Appointment

Remington Reimer

A Texas high school principal threatened to sabotage a valedictorian’s appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy after the student delivered a speech that referenced God and the U.S. Constitution.

Hiram Sasser, director of litigation with the Liberty Institute, said Joshua High School principal Mick Cochran threatened to write a letter to the U.S. Naval Academy disparaging the character of Remington Reimer.

“It was intimidating having my high school principal threaten my future because I wanted to stand up for the Constitution and acknowledge my faith and not simply read a government approved speech, the teenager said.

Sasser is now representing the teenager and is calling for the Joshua Independent School District to issue a public statement exonerating him of any wrongdoing.

He said the speech was edited and reviewed by four different school officials – including an officer in the JROTC. Sasser said the censorship violated federal and state laws.

“All he did was simply follow state law and Joshua ISD policy,” he said.

Remington Reimer, a senior at Joshua High School, made national headlines on June 6 when officials cut off his microphone in mid-speech after he strayed from pre-approved remarks and began talking about his relationship with Jesus Christ. He received an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy, thanked God for “sending His only son to die for me and the rest of the world,” the Joshua Star reported.

The following day the principal met with Reimer’s father and informed him “that he intended to punish Remington for his perceived misdeed.”

Atty. Hiram Sasser said, “Specifically, he threatened to send a letter to the United States Naval Academy advising them that Remington has poor character or words to that effect.”

After consulting with a school attorney, the principal temporarily retracted the threat.

“The principal said he wanted to try to ruin him for what he did – for talking about the Constitution and his faith,” Sasser said. “I don’t know if he’s going to be able to continue to be the principal of that school.”

Reimer then talked about free speech and the Constitution and how “I was threatened with having the mic turned off.”

And that point – the audio feed was cut – leaving those in the audience confused. But Reimer kept on talking.

Following is a transcript of what the school district didn’t want graduates or their families to hear:

“We are all fortunate to live in a country where we can express our beliefs, where our mics won’t be turned off, as I have been threatened to be if I veer away from the school-censored speech I have just finished,” he said according to the Star. “Just as Jesus spoke out against the authority of the Pharisees and Sadducees, who tried to silence him, I will not have my freedom of speech taken away from me. And I urge you all to do the same. Do not let anyone take away your religious or Constitutional rights from you.”

What’s your reaction to Joshua High School principal Mick Cochran’s threat? Do you believe that Remington Reimer was illegally censored? 

Supreme Court Upholds Law Allowing DNA Samples Without Warrant

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in Maryland v. King, by a vote of 5-4, that it is constitutional for police to take DNA swabs of felony arrestees–who have not yet been convicted of anything–without a warrant. It’s not whether the government can take DNA from people convicted of a crime. All states require DNA collection from individuals convicted of a felony. Instead, the issue is whether it’s constitutional to take DNA samples from people prior to their trial. The Supreme Court ruled yes.
So much for innocent until proven guilty and our 4th Amendment rights.

So what’s the difference between taking a DNA sample and fingerprints?  One is actually used for identification and one is not. It’s falsely claimed by the majority om the Supreme Court that DNA swabbing is necessary to identify the suspect. As Justice Scalia notes in his dissent, “These DNA searches have nothing to do with identification.” By law, DNA testing only starts after arraignment and bail decisions are already made. At that time, the suspect has long been identified. 

Scalia says that DNA analysis can take months, while the “average response time for an electronic criminal fingerprint submission is about 27 minutes.” Clearly, it is unreasonable to wait several months before a suspect is identified.

What if DNA evidence is needed to help solve the case? As Senator Ted Cruz who opposes the ruling writes, “If the government has good cause for needing the DNA sample—such as trying to match DNA at a crime scene to a particular person where there is other corroborating evidence—then the government can ask a judge for a search warrant. That’s what our Framers intended—judicial checks on extensive government power to invade our personal lives.”

What part of this does SCOTUS not understand? Oh wait…never mind.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court that it’s necessary for identification before a conviction or do you believe that the Fourth Amendment was just trampled on? Let me know what you think.

 

DOJ: Social Media Posts Trashing Muslims May Violate Civil Rights

My free speech is not negotiable.

In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S. the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights.

via DOJ: Social Media Posts Trashing Muslims May Violate Civil Rights | Judicial Watch.

Are you scared yet? You should be. This isn’t islamophobia or fear mongering, this is a blatant infringement of  The Bill of Rights – YOUR First Amendment right to free speech and free press. We can not allow this to happen…ever.

First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.
When the public’s right to know is threatened, and when the rights of free speech and free press are at risk, all our other liberties are endangered.

We’re sliding down that slippery slope and fast.
As Americans, this shouldn’t even be open for debate.

We already have laws in place for extending protections-
As originally intended, freedom of speech never meant a perversion of polite society. You can’t disturb a religious service with impunity, for example, and of course deliberately creating a panic by falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater is not a freedom of speech issue, but an incitement to riot. Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech.

It’s already happened in the UK. – A 22-year-old man has been charged on suspicion of making malicious comments on Facebook following the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby. Benjamin Flatters, from Lincoln, was arrested last night after complaints were made to Lincolnshire Police about comments made on Facebook, which were allegedly of a racist or anti-religious nature. He was charged with an offense of malicious communications this afternoon in relation to the comments, a Lincolnshire Police spokesman said.

Two other men from the UK were released on bail by British authorities after anti-Islam/Muslim/Terrorist comments on Twitter. British Police had nothing to say to Muslims if they attempted any copycat terrorist attacks, but warned other people to be careful about what they write on twitter. Police say ‘consequences could be serious.’

Posting your opinion on Facebook, a Tweet or even a blog post and you can face criminal charges. Is that what you want here? It’s not such a big imaginary leap to being dragged out of your home in the middle of the night for being critical of our government.

An Iraqi citizen having his tongue cut out for verbal dissent.

UPDATE Saturday June 1st: Meeting on How the Feds Might Prosecute Those Who Post “Inflammatory Documents” About Muslims