Rashad Robinson, ColorOfChange.org: #Ferguson Says “Shut It Down For #MikeBrown!”


itisme

Screenshot (1070)

 

The tragic police killing of 18-year-old Mike Brown hit home for millions across the country. The horror of losing a loved one, to senseless, racially-motivated police violence is a daily threat in the lives of Black people in America. In a time when law enforcement kill Black Americans at nearly the same rate as Jim Crow era lynchings,1 discriminatory and violent policing is a national crisis.

 

National leaders are paying more attention to racial profiling and police brutality than they have in years, due to the hard work of Black youth and community leaders in Ferguson and across the country.2 In order to capture the momentum of this moment and secure long-term, systemic reforms that transform policing nationwide, we need the federal government to intervene and set a higher standard of policing.

 

Demand a strong and enforceable federal prohibition on police brutality, a nationwide investigation into police violence in every state, and defunding of federal grants that incentivize abusive and militarized policing.

 

While we continue to fight for justice for Mike Brown, Eric Garner, Ramarley Graham and so many others whose lives have been taken at the hands of racially-motivated and violent local law enforcement, the federal government has a clear role to play in overturning the conditions that led to these tragedies, and setting a higher standard of policing across the country.In key ways, the standards, policies, and practices of the executive branch set the tone and tactics of local and state law enforcement.

 

For decades, our communities have worked tirelessly to combat the wholesale criminalization of Black Americans and the unimaginable police violence that threatens our children, parents, and friends every day. A walk to the store or drive to the mall have long held the risk of an unwarranted search, false arrest, or death. But we are in a historic time and how we capture this time will impact generations to come — the kind of world our children live in, the types of freedoms they have to fight for.

 

With Attorney General Eric Holder’s resignation approaching, now is the time to push the Department of Justice to do much more.5Widespread public pressure can keep this issue at the top of the administration’s agenda, and push them to move forward before this major change in DOJ leadership. Next week, community members in Ferguson are organizing a Weekend of Resistance to build momentum for a nationwide movement to end police brutality.6 We need your support to move federal officials beyond symbolic actions to systemic reforms that protect the civil and human rights of all communities.

 

Join us in calling on the Obama administration, DOJ, and other federal agencies to take immediate action to strengthen police accountability and end discriminatory policing.

 

Thanks and Peace,

 

— Rashad, Matt, Arisha, Lyla, Jamar and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
October 18th, 2014

 

Help support our work. ColorOfChange.org is powered by YOU—your energy and dollars. We take no money from lobbyists or large corporations that don’t share our values, and our tiny staff ensures your contributions go a long way.

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11bottom !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!injustice !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!000000000000000000obama-forward3

The MilitantNegro SoapBox™: Why Are EX – Felons Denied The Right To Vote?


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!blogid1

Should-Convicted-Felons-Have-the-Right-to-Vote

 

Felony disenfranchisement

 

Ever wonder what the conselfishservative, Reich Wing, Gods Own Party, fools would say about felony disenfranchisement, which is a fancy way of saying ex-felons who can’t vote, if the prisons of AmeriKKKa were full of skin head, white supremacist, KKK members, instead of People Of Color….when it came to restoring ex-felons voting rights? I say this because AmeriKKKan prisons are chock full of People Of Color and they vote Democratic, when they bother to vote at all…..or if they could vote at all.

 

The TeaTardedRepubliCANT Pseudo-Freudian, Psycho-Sexual, Pro-caucasian, Pro-Racist, Anti-LGBTQA1, Anti-Feminist, Reich Wing GOPretender Conselfishservative, NRA-Gun Loving, Nut Bag, bottom feeding, racist, ass backwards, white supremacists, Koch Brothers & A.L.E.C. controlled morons, greedy, wealthy, caucasian, special interest groups, asshole Party Members realize most of the felons in AmeriKKKan prisons don’t or won’t vote for the TeaTardedRepubliCANT party. Keeping the nearly 5.8 MILLION locked up felons off the public voting rolls helps The GOPukes. If these 5.8 MILLION felons were RepubliCANT voters, there would be no such thing as…..

Felony disenfranchisement

 

Felon-Voting-Rand-Paul

 

Felony disenfranchisement is excluding people otherwise eligible to vote from voting (known as disfranchisement) due to conviction of a criminal offence. Jurisdictions vary in whether they make such disfranchisement permanent, or restore suffrage after a person has served a sentence, or completed parole or probation. Affected individuals suffer “collateral consequences” including loss of access to jobs, housing, and other facilities.

 

Opponents have argued that this disfranchisement restricts and conflicts with principles of universal suffrage. This can affect civic and communal participation in general.

 

History

In Western countries, felony disfranchisement can be traced back to ancient Greek and Roman traditions: disfranchisement was commonly imposed as part of the punishment on those convicted of “infamous” crimes as part of their “civil death“, whereby these persons would lose all rights and claim to property. Most medieval common law jurisdictions developed punishments that provided for some form of exclusion from the community for felons, ranging from execution on sight to exclusion from community processes.

FLandVAfelons-460

 

Contemporary practice by country

 

United States

The United States is among the strictest nations in the world when it comes to denying the vote to those who have felony convictions on their record.

 

In the US, the constitution implicitly permits the states to adopt rules about disenfranchisement “for participation in rebellion, or other crime”, by the fourteenth amendment, section 2. It is up to the states to decide which crimes could be ground for disenfranchisement, and they are not formally bound to restrict this to felonies; however, in most cases, they do.

 

In 2008 over 5.3 million people in the United States were denied the right to vote because of felony disenfranchisement. Approximately thirteen percent of the United States’ population is African American, yet African Americans make up thirty-eight percent of the American prison population. Slightly more than fifteen percent of the United States population is Hispanic, while twenty percent of the prison population is Hispanic. People who are felons are disproportionately people of color. In the United States, felony disenfranchisement laws disproportionately affect communities of color as “they are disproportionately arrested, convicted, and subsequently denied the right to vote”. Research has shown that as much as 10 percent of the population in some minority communities in the USA is unable to vote, as a result of felon disenfranchisement.

 

In the national elections 2012, all the various state felony disenfranchisement laws added together blocked an estimated record number of 5.85 million Americans from voting, up from 1.2 million in 1976. This comprised 2.5% of the potential voters in general; and included 8% of the potential African American voters. The state with the highest amount of disenfranchised people were Florida, with 1.5 million disenfranchised, including more than a fifth of potential African American voters.

 

Felony disenfranchisement was a topic of debate during the 2012 Republican presidential primary. Rick Santorum argued for the restoration of voting rights for ex-offenders. Santorum’s position was attacked and distorted by Mitt Romney, who alleged that Santorum supported voting rights for offenders while incarcerated rather than Santorum’s stated position of restoring voting rights only after the completion of sentence, probation and parole. President Barack Obama supports voting rights for ex-offenders.

 

In the years 1997 to 2008, there was a trend to lift the disenfranchisement restrictions, or simplify the procedures for applying for the restoration of civil rights for people who had fulfilled their punishments for felonies; and as a consequence, in 2008, more than a half million people had the right to vote, but would have been disenfranchised under the older rules.[10] As of 2010, only Kentucky and Virginia continued to impose a lifelong denial of the right to vote to all citizens with a felony record, absent some extraordinary intervention by the Governor or state legislature. However, in Kentucky, a felon’s rights can be restored after the completion of a restoration process to regain civil rights. Since then, more severe disenfranchise rules have came into effect in several states.

 

new-prisoner-voting-rights_medium-62040

 

In 2007 Florida moved to restore voting rights to convicted felons. In March 2011, however, Republican Governor Rick Scott reversed the 2007 reforms, making Florida the state with the most punitive law in terms of disenfranchising citizens with past felony convictions. In July 2005, Democratic Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack issued an executive order restoring the right to vote for all persons who have completed supervision. On October 31, 2005, Iowa’s Supreme Court upheld mass re-enfranchisement of convicted felons. However, on his inauguration day, January 14, 2011, Republican Iowa Governor Terry Branstad reversed Vilsack’s executive order. Nine other states disenfranchise felons for various lengths of time following their conviction. Except for Maine and Vermont, every state prohibits felons from voting while in prison.

 

Constitutionality

Unlike most laws that burden the right of citizens to vote based on some form of social status, felony disenfranchisement laws have been held to be constitutional. InRichardson v. Ramirez (1974), the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of felon disenfranchisement statutes, finding that the practice did not deny equal protection to disenfranchised voters. The Court looked to Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which proclaims that States which deny the vote to male citizens, except on the basis of “participation of rebellion, or other crime”, will suffer a reduction in representation. Based on this language, the Court found that this amounted to an “affirmative sanction” of the practice of felon disenfranchisement, and the 14th Amendment could not prohibit in one section that which is expressly authorized in another.

 

But, critics of the practice argue that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment allows, but does not represent an endorsement of, felony disenfranchisement statutes as constitutional in light of the equal protection clause and is limited only to the issue of reduced representation. The Court ruled in Hunter v. Underwood 471 U.S. 222, 232 (1985) that a state’s crime disenfranchisement provision will violate Equal Protection if it can be demonstrated that the provision, as enacted, had “both [an] impermissible racial motivation and racially discriminatory impact.” (The law in question also disenfranchised people convicted of vagrancy, adultery, and any misdemeanor “involving moral turpitude”; the test case were two people being disenfranchised for presenting invalid checks, which the state authorities had found to be morally turpit behavior.) A felony disenfranchisement law, which on its face is indiscriminate in nature, cannot be invalidated by the Supreme Court unless its enforcement is proven to racially discriminate and to have been enacted with racially discriminatory animus.

 

southern_states_2418981

 

Classifications

Restoration of voting rights for people who are ex-offenders varies across the United States. Primary classification of voting rights include:

Unrestricted

Maine and Vermont are the only states with unrestricted voting rights for people who are felons. Both states allow the person to vote during incarceration, via absentee ballot and after terms of conviction end.

 

Ends after release

In thirteen states and the District of Columbia, disenfranchisement ends after incarceration is complete.

Ends after parole

In four states, disenfranchisement ends after incarceration and parole (if any) is complete.

Ends after probation

Twenty states require not only that incarceration/parole if any are complete but also that
any probation sentence (which is often an alternative to incarceration) is complete.

 

voting-guide-to-election-day

 

Circumstantial

Eight states have laws that vary with the detail of the crime. These laws restore voting rights to some offenders on the completion of incarceration, parole, and probation. Other offenders must make an individual petition that could be denied.

 

  • Alabama – A person convicted of a felony loses the ability to vote if the felony involves moral turpitude. The state Attorney General and courts have decided this for individual crimes. If a convicted person loses the ability to vote, he can petition to have it restored by a pardon or by a certificate of eligibility. A certificate of eligibility cannot be issued to a person convicted of a number of crimes having to do with sexual assault or abuse, including sodomy.

 

  • Arizona. Rights are restored to first-time felony offenders. Others must petition.

 

  • Delaware – Depending on the crime, a convicted felon either regains the right to vote after completion of their sentence or cannot regain the right to vote except through a pardon.

 

  • Mississippi – A convicted person loses suffrage for numerous crimes identified in the state constitution, Section 241 (see note). The list is given below. Suffrage can be restored to an individual by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature. The crimes that disqualify a person from voting are given in Section 241 of the state constitution as:

 

  • Nevada- First time and non-violent offenders all others may, “petition a court of competent jurisdiction for an order granting the restoration of his or her civil rights”

 

  • Tennessee – A person who is convicted of certain felonies may not regain voting rights except through pardon. These include: murder, rape, treason, and voting fraud. For a person convicted of a lesser felony, disenfranchisement ends after terms of incarceration, completion of parole, and completion of probation. In addition, the person must pay “Any court order restitution paid; current in the payment of any child support obligations; and/or Any court ordered court costs paid”. The ex-offender must either obtain a court order restoring their right to vote or complete the certificate of restoration of voting rights.

 

  • Virginia– As of May 29, 2013, it is a policy of the governor that a person convicted of a non-violent felony regains voting rights after the end of incarceration, parole, and probation. Offenders with “violent/more serious” felonies must appeal to the governor five years after the end of completing the sentence. Before appealing, they must satisfy several conditions:
    • “Free from any sentence served or supervised probation and parole for a minimum of two years for a non-violent offense or five years for a violent felony or drug distribution, drug manufacturing offense, any crimes against a minor, or an election law offense.”
    • “Has paid all court costs, fines, penalties and restitution and have no felony or misdemeanor charges pending; not have had a DWI in the five years immediately preceding the application.”
    • Not have any misdemeanor convictions and/or pending criminal charges 2 years preceding the application for non-violent felonies or five years for a violent felony or drug distribution, drug manufacturing offense, any crimes against a minor, or an election law offense.

 

  • Wyoming – A person convicted of a felony can, after serving the full sentence including any probation and parole, apply to the state governor to have suffrage restored. Since July 1, 2003, first-time, non-violent offenders have to wait five years before applying to the state parole board for restoration of suffrage. The parole board has the discretion to decide whether to reinstate rights on an individual basis.

felons-01_1

Individual petitions require

Three states require individual petition for all offenses;

  • Florida – Voting rights are restored by the Florida Board of Executive Clemency. Less serious crimes do not require a hearing with the clemency board. In those cases, disenfranchisement ends after it has been five years after completion of terms of incarceration, completion of parole and completion of probation. An application must be submitted to the court. For those with serious crimes, after seven years, the Florida Executive Clemency Board will decide whether or not to restore voting rights after receiving an application from the ex-offender.[67][68]
  • Kentucky – Only the governor can reinstate Civil Rights. The ex-offender must complete “Application for Restoration of Civil Rights”. Then it is at the governor’s discretion to restore voting rights.

Felony conviction thresholds affected by inflation

Various property crimes can have absolute dollar amount thresholds. For example, in Massachusetts under penalties specified in MGL Chap. 266: Sec. 127,a prosecution for malicious destruction of property can result in a felony conviction if the dollar amount of damage exceeds $250.

 

no-vote-convict

 

 

Holder Urges 11 States To Restore Voting Rights Of Former Felons

 

Published on Feb 18, 2014

Holder Urges 11 States To Restore Voting Rights Of Former Felons

 

Attorney General Eric Holder called on a group of states Tuesday to restore voting rights to ex-felons, part of a push to fix what he sees as flaws in the criminal justice system that have a disparate impact on racial minorities.

 

“It is time to fundamentally rethink laws that permanently disenfranchise people who are no longer under federal or state supervision,” Holder said, targeting 11 states that he said continue to restrict voting rights for former inmates, even after they’ve finished their prison terms.

 

“Across this country today, an estimated 5.8 million Americans — 5.8 million of our fellow citizens — are prohibited from voting because of current or previous felony convictions,” Holder told a symposium on criminal justice at Georgetown University.

 

 

 

Holder pushes for restoring voting rights for individuals with prior felony convictions

 

Published on Feb 18, 2014

February 15, 2014: Co-Director of Advancement Project, Judith Browne Dianis talks to T.J. Holmes about restoring voting rights for individuals with prior felony convictions who have completed their sentences.

 

 

 

From POLITICO:

Holder: Restore felons’ voting rights

 

By JOSH GERSTEIN

 

People convicted of felonies should not forever lose their right to vote, according to Attorney General Eric Holder.

 

In remarks prepared for delivery at a criminal justice conference Tuesday, Holder takes aim at state laws which strip voting rights from those convicted of serious crimes.

 

“It is time to fundamentally rethink laws that permanently disenfranchise people who are no longer under federal or state supervision,” Holder is to tell the Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights Criminal Justice Forum at Georgetown law school. “These restrictions are not only unnecessary and unjust, they are also counterproductive.  By perpetuating the stigma and isolation imposed on formerly incarcerated individuals, these laws increase the likelihood they will commit future crimes.”

 

Holder also plans to note that felon-disenfranchisement laws ban almost one in 13 African Americans from voting and, in states like Florida, Kentucky and Virginia, as many as one in five black adults have been stripped of voting rights. The attorney general argues that these measures are relics of a bygone era.

 

“However well-intentioned current advocates of felony disenfranchisement may be – the reality is that these measures are, at best, profoundly outdated,” Holder is to say. “At worst, these laws, with their disparate impact on minority communities, echo policies enacted during a deeply troubled period in America’s past – a time of post-Civil War discrimination.  And they have their roots in centuries-old conceptions of justice that were too often based on exclusion, animus, and fear.”

 

Holder has been stepping up his public advocacy on various issues in recent months, including reform to the criminal justice system. He’s pressing to rein in the use of mandatory minimum sentences, particularly for drug crime, and is encouraging some federal inmates to apply for presidential commutations. Such actions would surely have caused a stir during the tough-on-crime 1990s, Holder’s recent moves have encountered little public or political resistance. In fact, some Republicans are supporting shorter sentences for some offenders—in part due to huge prison costs federal and state governments are incurring.

 

Holder’s speech Tuesday is also expected to include an unusual shout-out for a former Republican official now getting up up-close-and-personal experience with the criminal justice system thanks to prosecutors working for Holder: former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.

 

“Just last year, former Governor McDonnell adopted a policy that began to automatically restore the voting rights of former prisoners with non-violent felony convictions,” the attorney general’s prepared remarks say. “I applaud those who have already shown leadership in raising awareness and helping to address this issue.”

 

McDonnell and his wife Maureen were indicted in federal court in Richmond last month on fraud and corruption charges stemming from their relationship with a wealthy Virginia businessman. The McDonnells pled not guilty to their charges and are free pending trial.

 

Thank you POLITICO & JOSH GERSTEIN.

 

restorertv

 

Restoring Voting Rights

 

Nearly 6 million American citizens are unable vote because of a past criminal conviction. As many as 4.4 million of these citizens live, work, and raise families in our communities. But because of a conviction in their past they are still denied this fundamental democratic right. These laws, deeply rooted in our troubled racial history, have a disproportionate impact on minorities. Across the country, 13 percent of African-American men have lost their right to vote, which is seven times the national average.

 

For a map of current state felon disenfranchisement policies, click here.

 

Through litigation, legislative and administrative advocacy, and public education, the Brennan Center works nationwide to restore voting rights to people with past criminal convictions. See our state-by-state guide on felony disenfranchisement laws and our work in Congress on the Democracy Restoration Act.

 

felons_vote

 

Recent Research From:

 

 

In advance of this crucial midterm election, this report details new voting restrictions put in place over the past few years, laws in place for the first time in 2014, and major lawsuits that could affect this year’s elections. See all our 2014 voting resources.

 

 

Voices across the political spectrum are calling to repeal laws that stop Americans with a criminal conviction in their past from voting. States should take this opportunity to implement reform.

 

 

 

The Democracy Restoration Act is a crucial step forward in ensuring that we stay true to our promise to make this a nation that provides equality for all.

 

 

Recent Litigation

 

The Ninth Circuit held that Washington’s criminal disenfranchisement law violates the Voting Rights Act. The decision is the first in the country to find that, due to racial discrimination in the state’s criminal justice system, the felony disenfranchisement law results in the denial of the right to vote on account of race.

 

 

Simmons vs. Galvin was a challenge to the Massachusetts law which disenfranchises people with felony convictions from voting while they are incarcerated.In a 2-1 decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling and held that no claims can be brought against Massachusetts law under the Voting Rights Act.

 

Thank you Brennan Center For Justice.

 

Voting Rights Returning for Felons?

 

Published on Feb 20, 2014

Sen. Rand Paul and Attorney General Eric Holder are interested in restoring voting rights for felons and former prison inmates. The disenfranchisement of convicted felons, who number 5.85 million Americans, has been criticized as racist and unfairly targeting minorities, and we discuss how the prospective reform has created such strange bedfellows as Holder and Paul in this Buzzsaw news clip with Tyrel Ventura and Tabetha Wallace.

 

 

 

Is It Time To Give Felons Back Their Voting Rights?

 

Published on Feb 23, 2014

“Sen. Rand Paul brought his national crusade against the war on drugs back to his home state, giving testimony before the Kentucky state senate in favor of an amendment to restore voting rights to felons after they get out of prison.”

 

 

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Nitorioussoapbox

 

Why would an American who has served felony time for any crime, unless it’s directly related to voting, voter fraud, be denied the right to vote upon completing ALL court appointed duties related to his/her case? In other words if and when you walk out the gates of any prison and complete all parole duties, your Constitutional right to vote should and MUST be fully restored.

 

Unless you’re a RepubliCANT, or a TeaTardedRepubliCANT Pseudo-Freudian, Psycho-Sexual, Pro-caucasian, Pro-Racist, Anti-LGBTQA1, Anti-Feminist, Reich Wing GOPretender Conselfishservative, NRA-Gun Loving, Nut Bag, bottom feeding, racist, ass backwards, white supremacists, Koch Brothers & A.L.E.C. controlled morons, greedy, wealthy, caucasian, special interest groups, asshole Party Member…..and you realize that the majority of the 5.8 MILLION released ex-felons hate your party, and plan to vote for the other guy….THEN Felony Disenfranchisement makes perfect sense.

 

2014_sept_oct_images7

a026ez4ciaacbsh

blog_felon_disenfranchisement

e-voting

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!000000000000000000obama-forward3

The ObamaCrat Is Dead. Long Live The MilitantNegro™


itisme

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!000000000000000000obama-forward3

 

In case you didn’t notice, this blog has gone through a small renovation process the past 4 weeks. I had wrestled in the past with what I would rename my blog in 2016 when The President Of The United States Of America, Barack Hussein Obama, left office. Barack helped me with that decision when an UNARMED Michael Brown was slain in the street of Ferguson, Missouri. The President, unwittingly, made the decision for me, just a bit early….two years early.

 

I used to be an ObamaCrat and follow Barack blindly, but Ferguson Missouri and the murder of Michael Brown, changed my views of Barack Hussein Obama. The President’s total lack of attention, he didn’t pay, to a rash of incidents involving the systematic genocide of Black Americans right here at home by racist AmeriKKKan law enforcement, made me realize Barack didn’t deserve my blind commitment. AmeriKKKa can’t fix the world when freedoms and liberties are denied daily to America’s citizens.

 

Bowing to political pressure from Democratic politicians who are concerned about having a Democratic President speak out about a racial murder, weeks before the all important Mid Term elections, is NOT why I voted for Barack Hussein Obama, twice. Ignoring the hundreds of murders of Black Americans, mostly Black American males, whom were unarmed and in a position of surrender and submission, is unacceptable to me as a Black male. It’s disgusting when a caucasian President ignores that issue. It’s the worst feeling in the soul and heart when a President who is a person of color ignores it, who happened to campaign on “Hope & Change”, and allows that Black genocide to continue.

 

Many defend Barack’s lack of involvement and cite his assigning AG Holder and the DOJ to investigate Ferguson. I didn’t vote twice for AG Eric Holder. I voted for MY POTUSA to represent me and to be the “Comforter-In-Chief” to all people in America, not just Sandy Hook victims, Hurricane Sandy victims, Oso, Washington mud slide victims or Aurora shooting victims. The conflict, chaos and racism displayed against the citizens of Ferguson, Missouri by the state of Missouri and county of St. Louis, was despicable, evil, nasty and down right unAmerican. The handling of the American press in Ferguson was and is disgusting and a blatant violation of freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

 

Our 44th POTUSA was silent on both issues. And still is silent.

 

obama4_6673

 

President Obama Delivers a Statement on Airstrikes in Syria

 

Published on Sep 23, 2014

Speaking from the South Lawn at the White House, President Obama delivered an update on the U.S. military airstrikes on ISIL targets in Syria. September 23, 2014.

 

 

You can not ask Americans to march into foreign lands and fight for those humans rights & liberties, when right here at home in AmeriKKKa, people have their rights challenged daily. The LGBTQA1 community fights daily to live equally. People Of Color fight daily for freedom & liberty. Women have been fighting for centuries to think for themselves, work for a fair and equal paycheck, get maternity leave and the right to control their bodies and their healthcare. 

 

The right to vote is being removed for Americans. Benefits for Veterans and the poor are vanishing. Marrying whom you love regardless of gender is fought on every front. Guns kill 30,000 plus in AmeriKKKa annually. Oil and other fossil fuels are choking our planet. Dreamers are at risk. Sexual assault in our military and on our college campuses is rampant. YET our elected politicians are concerned with tax breaks for the wealthy. Killing humans in foreign nations. Giving billions in financial aid to Israel. Worrying about Sharia Islamic Law.

 

Dear Mom and Dad- get to work saving my life!

 

Published on Jul 20, 2014

If you have children you MUST watch and share this video! It’s time to stop the madness and protect our children from America’s epidemic of gun violence! To use this video in a commercial player or in broadcasts, please email licensing@storyful.com

 

 

 

AmeriKKKa can’t police the world while ignoring issues at home that keep Americans in poverty, issues that keep Americans under nourished, but mostly issues that keep America in 3rd world status.

 

If Barack Hussein Obama has concerns for freedoms and liberties being denied on this planet……start right here in The United States Of AmeriKKKa.

 

22f1859164124ddac16ad217d74cfe09185b865b862e4a6637269af7b634b25d

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!fight

peace5

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11bottom

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!000000000000000000obama-forward3

Militia Group Plans To Target African-American Democrats At Polling Places In Wisconsin…Illegally.


itisme

From PoliticusUSA:

 

Militia Group Plans To Target African-American Democrats At Polling Places In Wisconsin

 

A militia group in Wisconsin is planning to target African-American Democrats at polling places in order to suppress the vote and keep Republican governor Scott Walker in office.

 

Here is a Twitter exchange where the group details their plan:

 

 

A visit to the group’s Facebook page features makes it clear exactly who they are targeting. All of the pictures on the page feature African-Americans. The group is trying to get African-Americans who may have outstanding warrants arrested in order to keep them from voting. The group wants people to report those they suspect of having warrants out on them to the police on election day, “Do the community a favor and keep an eye out for people wanted on warrants and report them to the police on election day.”

The “poll watchers” also plan on harassing and following people who they suspect of being wanted on warrants to their homes. The plan seems to be to use the police to intimidate African-Americans into not voting in November’s election.

The group admits that they are targeting Democrats. They aren’t exactly subtle in making it clear that they are targeting African-American voters. The scheme is an attempt to intimidate African-American voters while getting around the Voting Rights Act. The point of this campaign isn’t to get felons off the streets. The “poll watchers” are trying to keep African-Americans away from the polls.

The fact that they are targeting a specific group of individuals based on race and perceived political affiliation means that their operation is a violation of the Voting Rights Act. According to theJustice Department, “The administration of elections is chiefly a function of state government. However, federal authorities may become involved where there are possible violations of federal law. In cases where intimidation, coercion, or threats are made or attempts to intimidate, threaten or coerce are made to any person for voting or attempting to vote, the Department of Justice can consider whether there is federal jurisdiction to bring civil claims or criminal charges under federal law. Depending on the nature of the allegations, they may fall into the jurisdiction of different parts of the Department. If you have information about allegations of intimidation, please contact us.”

Wisconsin Republicans are desperate to keep Scott Walker in office, Currently, Gov. Walker is tied with Democrat Mary Burke in the polls. A voter intimidation effort that could prevent African-Americans from voting might be enough to get Walker reelected. The right-wing Wisconsin poll watching group is planning on engaging in illegal activity. The group is just getting started, which is why it is a perfect time to send the message that these tactics will not be tolerated.

You can contact the Justice Department here, and request that the election be monitored.

The right to vote must be protected, and those who attempt to intimidate voters need to be held accountable.

Thank you PoliticusUSA.

Injustice_Logo_610

From The New York Times:

Voter Harassment, Circa 2012

 

This is how voter intimidation worked in 1966: White teenagers in Americus, Ga., harassed black citizens in line to vote, and the police refused to intervene. Black plantation workers in Mississippi had to vote in plantation stores, overseen by their bosses. Black voters in Choctaw County, Ala., had to hand their ballots directly to white election officials for inspection.

 

This is how it works today: In an ostensible hunt for voter fraud, a Tea Party group, True the Vote, descends on a largely minority precinct and combs the registration records for the slightest misspelling or address error. It uses this information to challenge voters at the polls, and though almost every challenge is baseless, the arguments and delays frustrate those in line and reduce turnout.

 

The thing that’s different from the days of overt discrimination is the phony pretext of combating voter fraud. Voter identity fraud is all but nonexistent, but the assertion that it might exist is used as an excuse to reduce the political rights of minorities, the poor, students, older Americans and other groups that tend to vote Democratic.

 

In The Times on Monday, Stephanie Saul described how the plan works. True the Vote grew out of a Tea Party group in Texas, the King Street Patriots, with the assistance of Americans for Prosperity, a group founded by the Koch brothers that works to elect conservative Republicans. It has developed its own software to check voter registration lists against driver’s license and property records. Those kinds of database matches are notoriously unreliable because names and addresses are often slightly different in various databases, but the group uses this technique to challenge more voters.

 

In 2009 and 2010, for example, the group focused on the Houston Congressional district represented by Sheila Jackson Lee, a black Democrat. After poring over the records for five months, True the Vote came up with a list of 500 names it considered suspicious and challenged them with election authorities. Officials put these voters on “suspense,” requiring additional proof of address, but in most cases voters had simply changed addresses. That didn’t stop the group from sending dozens of white “poll watchers” to precincts in the district during the 2010 elections, deliberately creating friction with black voters.

 

On the day of the recall election of Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, the group used inaccurate lists to slow down student voting at Lawrence University in Appleton with intrusive identity checks. Three election “observers,” including one from True the Vote, were so disruptive that a clerk gave them two warnings, but the ploy was effective: many students gave up waiting in line and didn’t vote.

 

True the Vote, now active in 30 states, hopes to train hundreds of thousands of poll watchers to make the experience of voting like “driving and seeing the police following you,” as one of the group’s leaders put it. (Not surprisingly, the group is also active in the voter ID movement, with similar goals.) These activities “present a real danger to the fair administration of elections and to the fundamental freedom to vote,” as a recent report by Common Cause and Demos put it.

 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits intimidation or interference in the act of voting, but the penalties are fairly light. Many states have tougher laws, but they won’t work unless law enforcement officials use them to crack down on the illegal activities — handed down from Jim Crow days — of True the Vote and similar groups.

 

Thank you The New York Times.

 

Injustice_Logo_610

 

BULLIES AT THE BALLOT BOX: PROTECTING THE FREEDOM TO VOTE AGAINST WRONGFUL CHALLENGES AND INTIMIDATION

 

By….

Protecting the freedom to vote for all eligible Americans is of fundamental importance in a democracy founded upon the consent of the governed. One of the most serious threats to the protection of that essential right is the increase in organized efforts, led by groups such as the Tea Party affiliated True the Vote and others, to challenge voters’ eligibility at the polls and through pre-election challenges. Eligible Americans have a civic duty to vote, and government at the federal, state, and local level has a responsibility to protect voters from illegal interference and intimidation.

 

As we approach the 2012 elections, every indication is that we will see an unprecedented use of voter challenges. Organizers of True the Vote claim their goal is to train one million poll watchers to challenge and confront other Americans as they go to the polls in November. They say they want to make the experience of voting “like driving and seeing the police following you.” There is a real danger that voters will face overzealous volunteers who take the law into their own hands to target voters they deem suspect. But there is no place for bullies at the ballot box.

 

Even in states with clear legal boundaries for challengers and poll watchers, too often these boundaries are crossed. Laws intended to ensure voting integrity are instead used to make it harder for eligible citizens to vote – particularly those in communities of color. Moreover, the laws of many states states fall short when it comes to preventing improper voter caging and challenges. This should concern anyone who wants a fair election with a legitimate result that reflects the choices of all eligible Americans.

 

Clear rules that protect voters from improper removal from the rolls by voter caging and challenging, as well as from intimidating behavior at the polls, can help prevent interference with voter rights. This report describes the threat posed by potential voter challenges in the 2012 elections, and assesses the extent to which ten key states — Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia — are prepared to protect the rights of eligible voters to cast a ballot in the face of such challenges. The ten states examined here include states where races are expected to be competitive, which makes voters in those states particularly vulnerable to challenges. We also survey states where a history of aggressive voter challenge programs in recent elections threatened to intimidate voters or interfere with their access to the ballot.

 

 

Overview

This report first provides background on the current threat of overly aggressive voter challenge tactics and the history of such efforts in previous elections. The report then details what is permissible and legal when it comes to challenging a voter’s eligibility, both before and on Election Day and inside and outside the polling place. We analyze laws in ten states governing:

 

  • The process for challenging a registered voter’s right to vote before Election Day and the use of voter caging lists;
  • The process for challenging a registered voter’s right to vote on Election Day;
  • The behavior of poll watchers or observers at the polls on Election Day; and
  • Protections for voters against intimidation, outside and inside the polls.

 

The report measures the extent to which each state’s laws protects voters’ rights in these areas, and assesses them in a set of comparative charts as satisfactory, mixed, or unsatisfactory. Each section includes recommendations for best practices in each of the areas we examine.

 

 

Findings

In examining the ten states’ laws governing challenges to voters’ right to vote before Election Day, including the use of voter lists created through caging or other unreliable practices, we find Colorado, Nevada, and Ohio are satisfactory, North Carolina and Texas are mixed, and Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia – five out of the ten states – unsatisfactory.

 

In assessing these states’ laws governing challenges to voter’s right to vote on Election Day, and procedures for determining those challenges, we find that while some of the ten states have practices that protect voters’ rights, other states need improvement.

 

  • Texas does not allow for any voter challenges on Election Day, and Ohio only allows challenges by election officials; Colorado, New Hampshire, and North Carolina also have satisfactory protections for voters from improper Election Day challenges.
  • Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia have laws that are mixed, with some provisions that protect voters’ rights but also room for improvement.
  • Florida and Pennsylvania have laws with unsatisfactory protections to guard against inappropriate Election Day challenges to voter eligibility.

 

Our analysis of these states’ laws governing poll watchers or observers and their conduct at the polls shows they are also mixed in the extent to which they protect voters’ rights. The laws of Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia are satisfactory; Florida, Missouri, and New Hampshire are mixed. However, Pennsylvania and Texas allow behavior by poll observers or poll watchers that could endanger voting rights.

 

We also summarize these states’ laws protecting voters from intimidation, both outside and inside the polls. State and federal laws barring intimidation of voters can be used to protect voters from harassment.6 However, the efficacy of these protections depends on robust enforcement by election administrators and law enforcement officials.

 

We call upon election administrators and officials with the Department of Justice to take steps in advance of and during the elections to protect voters from bullying at the ballot box. Our intent is to help minimize the level of activity that moves from positive civic engagement to voter intimidation and suppression. There must be zero tolerance for bullying behavior that stands between an eligible voter and her ballot.

Read the entire report here.

african-american-voting-485x356

18 U.S. Code § 594 – Intimidation of voters

 

Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

 

 

Wisconsin Poll Watcher Militia Facebook Page

 

CLEAR UP YOUR WARRANTS and you have nothing to fear.

DO NOT CLEAR UP YOUR WARRANTS and we will do our best to make sure you are hauled off in cuffs as soon as possible.

 

Please match up names on outstanding warrant lists to those people listed here:

http://www.putwisconsinfirst.com/

If you have a hit, please forward the name to us and we’ll get one of our members to check it out.

 

Douglas County, Wisconsin outstanding warrant list.

 

Wood County outstanding warrant list.

 

La Crosse County outstanding warrant list.

 

Dodge County outstanding warrant list.

 

Manitowoc County outstanding warrant list.

 

Jefferson County outstanding warrant list.

 

Attention all members: Militia training will be at HQ on September 20, 2014 at 0930. We will hand out updated watch lists, duty assignments, and discuss rules and regulations. Expect it to take around 2-3 hours. After our discussion we will be headed to the range for anyone who wants to participate.

 

!!!!Nitorious

 

Now if you stop and think about this for a few minutes, these backwoods ass, cousin fuckin, red neck, sister marrying, caucasians, Wisconsin Poll Watcher Militia members must be the epitome of stupid. What idiot thinks criminal with “Warrants” would show up to vote, AND SHOW Identification? Besides violating 18 U.S. Code § 594 – Intimidation of voters…..

 

§594. Intimidation of voters

Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 720; Pub. L. 91–405, title II, §204(d)(5), Sept. 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 853; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

These assholes in the Wisconsin Poll Watcher Militia think they can stop and detain voters in the state of Wisconsin…and the law prohibits such actions on election day in the vicinity of polling places.

I wish I lived in the neighborhoods these ignorant Kocksuckers were visiting in Wisconsin. I have been carrying a CCP (Concealed Carry Permit) since 1985, upon discharge from the United States Military, and I would welcome anyone from the Wisconsin Poll Watcher Militia approaching me on election day. Or ANY day for that matter.

 

I have a suggestion for the Wisconsin Poll Watcher Militia. Come to the Southside of Chicago, Harlem, Compton, South Philly, or any crime infested city in the ghetto, and try that bullshit. We’ll see how long you continue to breath after arrival. 

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

Bxi5Rm3IAAAvmN8

Bka7jhpCcAAw07N

BxOMi2TIIAASs5d

BxvvFtKIIAA6phr

The Twitter Storm™


 

heyitisme

!!!!!!!ooooooooooooooooooooooooooootwitter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 266,004 other followers

%d bloggers like this: