The Twitter Storm™


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

The Twitter Storm™

The Twitter Storm™

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!cobra

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

The Twitter Storm™


itisme

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!twitterstorm

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!twitter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Huffington Post: DOJ Gets Ferguson And St. Louis County Cops To Ban “I Am Darren Wilson” Wristbands.


itisme

Some police officers in the Ferguson area have been wearing "I Am Darren Wilson" bracelets while on duty. | Scott Olson via Getty Images

Some police officers in the Ferguson area have been wearing “I Am Darren Wilson” bracelets while on duty. | Scott Olson via Getty Images

Screenshot (649)

Ferguson Police Chief Sparks Fresh Round Of Protests

 

Published on Sep 26, 2014

Reverend Osagyefo Sekou talks about the causes of the root causes of new rounds of arrests and protests in Ferugon and explains why activists are calling for civil disobedience in October

 

 

From The Huffington Post:

 

DOJ Gets Ferguson, St. Louis County Cops To Ban ‘I Am Darren Wilson’ Wristbands

 

By 

 

WASHINGTON — Ferguson police officers who are on duty should not be wearing wristbands showing support for the cop who shot and killed an unarmed teenager last month, the Justice Department on Friday told police in St. Louis County. DOJ officials also said they personally had observed Ferguson police officers not wearing name plates, in direct conflict with Ferguson Police Department policy.

 

A photo posted on social media during demonstrations in Ferguson on Tuesday night appears to show an officer working crowd control wearing a wristband that reads “I am Darren Wilson.” That slogan is affiliated with a campaign in support of the Ferguson police officer who killed Michael Brown on Aug. 9, and whom protestors want to see arrested. A grand jury currently is weighing the evidence against Wilson, and the FBI has launched a separate civil rights investigation into the case.

 

Missouri State Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson said the wristbands were “not a statement of law enforcement” and that he would have conversations with law enforcement agencies about officers wearing the wristbands.

 

Christy Lopez, deputy chief of the special litigation section of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, sent a letter to Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson on Friday indicating that Jackson had agreed to prohibit Ferguson officers from wearing “I am Darren Wilson” bracelets while in uniform and on duty. The letter said Jackson had said he would make sure the other municipal agencies working in Ferguson would prohibit their officers from wearing the bracelets as well.

 

Lopez said St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar and Missouri Highway Patrol Ron Replogle had indicated to Justice Department officials they also would ban the bracelets.

 

“These bracelets reinforce the very ‘us versus them’ mentality that many residents of Ferguson believe exists,” Lopez wrote in the letter.

 

In a separate letter that DOJ sent to Jackson this week that was released on Friday, Civil Rights Division officials asked him to make sure his officers were wearing name tags while on duty. Lopez had mentioned that letter in a meeting with St. Louis County residents earlier this week, and Jackson reportedly assured federal officials that officers would wear name tags while on duty.

 

“Sometimes things are just so obvious that we feel like we can recommend a change right away,” Lopez said at the meeting. “In a democracy, people need to know who their police are.”

 

Some social media users have reported that officers from other police departments assisting police in Ferguson still were not wearing name badges at protests this week.

 

“Officers wearing name plates while in uniform is a basic component of transparency and accountability. It is a near-universal requirement of sound policing practices and required under some state laws,” the letter to Jackson states. “Allowing officers to remain anonymous when they interact with the public contributes to mistrust and undermines accountability. The failure to wear name plates conveys a message to community members that, through anonymity, officers may seek to act with impunity.”

 

Police officers regularly ditched their name tags during protests last month, allowing them to operate anonymously and making it more difficult for citizens to hold individual officers accountable for their actions. Asked about officers not wearing name tags last month, Johnson said people were harassing officers online, while Jackson said that protestors would use an officer’s name to taunt them. “It kind of reduces that personal taunt and allows us to be generic,” Jackson said at the time.

 

Protests have heated up in Ferguson this week, six weeks after Brown was killed after Wilson stopped him and a friend because they were walking in the middle of the street.

 

Jackson also apologized to the Brown family and protesters this week in a video released by a public relations firm working for the city. Jackson had been heavily criticized for releasing footage that showed Brown allegedly committing a strong-arm robbery at a convenience store shortly before he was killed.

 

Another component of the Justice Department, the Community Relations Service, also held meetings with Ferguson residents this week in an attempt to sooth tensions in the area.

 

Thank you The Huffington Post & 

 

Screenshot (651)

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Walmart Murder: Ohio Declines To Indict Two Police, Killers Of John Crawford III


itisme

John_Crawford_lll

 

Ohio Walmart Murder: Ohio Declines To Indict Two Police, Killers Of John Crawford III

 

 

By Urban Intellectuals Media Activist:

 

The black community has waited to find out what would happen in the case of John Crawford, the young father who was shot down inside of a Walmart Store holding a toy gun. The wait is over, but unfortunately, it isn’t the response we wanted to hear.

 

The Ohio grand jury met, deliberated and decided not to indict the two officers who shot and killed John Crawford. The event happened at the Beavercreek, Ohio, Walmart on August 5th, 2014, according to Special Prosecutor Mark Piepmeier.

 

 

 

 

The Walmart video has been released. you can see Mr. Crawford walking around the Walmart store with the toy rifle. Police were called as a store employee, who later admitted he lied, said Mr. Crawford was waving and pointing the gun at customers in the store. Police arrived tense to say the least.

 

The police walk into the video to encounter Mr. Crawford from behind. Before he could turn around, shots were fired and Mr. Crawford was down on the ground after to fatal shots.

 

The grand jury did see the video and hear the 911 call from the Walmart employee, along with testimony from 18 people regarding the case. They provided this statement after denying to pursue the case.

 

“The events of August 5th were tragic and we wish the outcome of that evening had been different. However, based on the information the responding officers had and Mr. Crawford’s failure to comply with the responding officers orders, the officers did what they were trained to do to protect the public. The officers followed accepted law enforcement training protocol in their response to the report of an active threat in the Wal-Mart store. The grand jury review of the evidence and subsequent no bill decision indicates the officers’ actions were not of a criminal nature and justified under Ohio law.”

 

The City will have no further comment pending the Department of Justice review.”

 

Source: Buzzfeed

 

Thank you Urban Intellectuals Media Activist.

 

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

 

From The Daily KOS:

 

Ohio grand jury: No indictments in John Crawford Walmart shooting

 

by Jen Hayden

 

Stunning news out of Ohio. Special prosecutor Mark Piepmeier has announced that after three days of grand jury testimony, there will be no indictments in the shooting death of John Crawford III, which took place inside an Ohio Walmart in August.

 

Video taken from Walmart surveillance cameras were released at the press conference and they still don’t seem to tell the whole story.

 

Based on the video they released, Crawford does not appear to be pointing the air rifle at anyone. Ronald Ritchie was the 911 caller who alerted police and claimed:

 

Ronald Ritchie said Crawford “was just waving [the gun] at children and people…I couldn’t hear anything that he was saying. I’m thinking that he is either going to rob the place or he’s there to shoot somebody.

“He didn’t really want to be looked at and when people did look at him, he was pointing the gun at them. He was pointing at people. Children walking by,” Ronald Ritchie said.

 

Unless there is additional video supporting Ritchie’s original claims, which he has since recanted, it is hard to imagine why charges haven’t been brought against Ronald Ritchie at a minimum.

 

Crawford’s family, who were on the phone with him at the time of the shooting, are disputing the police version of events, specifically that he ignored warnings to drop the “weapon.”

 

See the press conference and surveillance video below the fold.

 

10:25 AM PT: To clarify, the grand jury were only considering whether to indict the two police officers who fatally shot John Crawford III. No word on whether any action will be taken against Ronald Ritchie for the exaggerated and/or false claims he made to the 911 operator.

 

Thank you The Daily KOS & Jen Hayden.

 

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

 

Here’s some logic & common sense: When caucasian open carry AmeriKKKan citizens start to get shot on the spot, with no verbal warnings or verbal identification given by law enforcement, then and only then will WE THE PEOPLE start to see laws changed and indictments handed down by Grand Juries.

 

People are screaming for the arrest and indictment of the 911 caller, Ronald Ritchie, for the exaggerated and/or false claims he made to the 911 operator. It’s not at all logical to take a legal route with Ronald Ritchie, no matter how stupid, racist and untruthful his actions were, if you allow the very policemen who murdered John Crawford The III, in cold blood, to walk free.

 

peace5

Bv7flGNIMAALgCl

22f1859164124ddac16ad217d74cfe09185b865b862e4a6637269af7b634b25d

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

 

Injustice_Logo_610 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 254,928 other followers

%d bloggers like this: