A powerful group focused on “racial justice” – with leaders who have personally donated tens of thousands of dollars to the Obama campaign and the DNC – is leading the leftist-driven charge to weaken voter ID laws in key states before the November election.
The Advancement Project describes itself as a “multi-racial civil rights organization” that works “‘on the ground’ helping organized communities of color dismantle and reform the unjust and inequitable policies that undermine the promise of democracy.” The organization states, ” Simultaneously, we have aggressively sought and seized opportunities to promote this approach to racial justice.”
It was founded in 1999 and has offices in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.
Massive assault on voter ID laws
Just last week, a federal court struck down a Texas law requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID before casting a ballot. According to the organization website, “Advancement Project intervened as defendants in this federal litigation in support of the Department of Justice’s position that Texas’ Photo ID law is racially retrogressive and should be denied preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.”
Prior to the ruling, on Sept. 13, 2011, the Advancement Project sent a letter to the Justice Department, calling on the Civil Rights Division to reject the voter ID law. It also delivered a petition of 120,000 signatures demanding the department deny pre-clearance of Texas’ law.
And on Aug. 27, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley struck down Ohio’s “wrong precinct” law.
“In the lawsuit, brought on the behalf of several labor and community organizations, attorneys from Advancement Project and Service Employees International Union argued that Ohio’s law unconstitutionally penalizes thousands of voters for poll worker errors that disproportionately impacted African Americans,” the Advancement Project stated on its website.
Read more here.
While most Americans — those who believe they are not better off now than they were four years ago — would likely say that the most important issue to them this election season is the economy, others have different priorities in mind. During the Monday festivities at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, TheBlaze tracked down attendees to find out what concerns them most in campaign 2012. For one delegate, who claimed she has also served as a local precinct chair in Texas, that pressing matter is “voter freedom” and “voter equity,” which she asserts Americans are being stripped — even “raped” — of.
According to the delegate, being required to present a photo ID at the polling stations creates voter inequity and causes certain people to lose “part of their freedom” and their all-American, “constitutional right” to vote — that, to her, is akin to rape.
While being required to present an ID would not actually strip someone of his or her “right” to vote, the delegate pressed on.
“It’s like raping somebody,” she stated plainly before agreeing that a utility bill is more than sufficient proof of identification to present at the voting booth.
“It‘s the most awful thing I’ve ever seen.”
When TheBlaze reminded the delegate that attendees of the Democratic National Convention, particularly members of the press, are required to present their IDs not once, not twice, but three times in order to simply enter the convention hall, she seemed to change her tune.
Read more here.
In the wake of the “War on Women” controversy, a number of individuals have seemingly gotten it into their minds that Republicans, particularly Republican men, ought to be punished for their callousness.
In mid-March, a women’s organization held a week-long “sex strike” in an awareness campaign for their “reproductive rights” (presumably this means free birth control), and now author and Huffington Post blogger John Blumenthal is encouraging another such strike, but with a much wider reach.
What, exactly, does he propose? No sex until November, and if by then you are not 100% convinced he will vote Democrat, “Make him stay home on election day.”
Blumenthal explains in his article:
Maybe you haven’t heard the news lately ladies, but for reasons only they comprehend, Republican men are waging war on you. That’s right. Full-scale combat. A veritable crusade. We’re talking no contraception, no abortions, no Planned Parenthood, needless vaginal probing, and they’ve only just gotten started.
And what are you doing about it? Not much.
Here’s the scenario: If we elect Mitt Romney, and both houses of Congress end up being dominated by passengers from the clown bus, God only knows how far they’ll go. Will humorless federal agents in black suits, earpieces and reflecting sunglasses be stationed in your bedroom? Will your ovaries become the property of the state? Will women’s suffrage be repealed? Will you be required to wear chastity belts and/or burqas? Will burning witches at the stake return as a reality show?
They’re holding all the cards, ladies, and their self-righteous imaginations are limitless.
Republican imaginations are limitless, critics ask? Burning witches at the stake as a reality show, if Republicans are elected? Federal agents stationed in your bedroom? Is he joking?
But it does not end there:
Here’s the good news: It’s within your power to prevent all this from happening. How? Simple. Deny sex to your men folk if they plan to vote Republican. Of course, you probably like sex too, but sometimes people in a democratic society have to make sacrifices for freedom and equality.
Of course, you first have to determine whether your fella is a Republican, if he hasn’t already told you. This shouldn’t be too hard. Does he own a Glock, which he keeps in case a deer breaks into your house? Does he work for Goldman Sachs? Does he favor the missionary position because it sounds vaguely religious? Does he keep a Confederate flag in his sock drawer? When you go to Macy’s together, does he wander off while you’re in the cosmetics department and secretly fondle sweater vests?
Read more here.
In the end, free societies get the governments they deserve. So, if the American people wish to choose their chief executive on the basis of the “war on women,” the Republican theocrats’ confiscation of your contraceptives, or whatever other mangy and emaciated rabbit the Great Magician produces from his threadbare topper, they are free to do so, and they will live with the consequences. This week’s bit of ham-handed misdirection was “the Buffett Rule,” a not-so-disguised capital-gains-tax hike designed to ensure that Warren Buffett pays as much tax as his secretary. If the alleged Sage of Omaha is as exercised about this as his public effusions would suggest, I’d be in favor of repealing the prohibition on Bills of Attainder, and the old boy could sleep easy at night. But instead every other American “millionaire” will be subject to the new rule — because, as President Obama said this week, it “will help us close our deficit.”
Wow! Who knew it was that easy?
A-hem. According to the Congressional Budget Office (the same nonpartisan bean-counters who project that on Obama’s current spending proposals the entire U.S. economy will cease to exist in 2027) Obama’s Buffett Rule will raise — stand well back — $3.2 billion per year. Or what the United States government currently borrows every 17 hours. So in 514 years it will have raised enough additional revenue to pay off the 2011 federal budget deficit. If you want to mark it on your calendar, 514 years is the year 2526. There’s a sporting chance Joe Biden will have retired from public life by then, but other than that I’m not making any bets.
Let’s go back to that presidential sound bite:
“It will help us close our deficit.”
I’m beginning to suspect that the Oval Office teleprompter may be malfunctioning, or that perhaps that NBC News producer who “accidentally” edited George Zimmerman into sounding like a racist has now edited the smartest president of all time into sounding like an idiot. Either way, it appears the last seven words fell off the end of the sentence. What the president meant to say was:
“It will help us close our deficit . . . for 2011 . . . within a mere half millennium!” [Pause for deafening cheers and standing ovation.]
Sometimes societies become too stupid to survive. A nation that takes Barack Obama’s current rhetorical flourishes seriously is certainly well advanced along that dismal path. The current federal debt burden works out at about $140,000 per federal taxpayer, and President Obama is proposing to increase both debt and taxes. Are you one of those taxpayers? How much more do you want added to your $140,000 debt burden? As the Great Magician would say, pick a number, any number. Sorry, you’re wrong. Whatever you’re willing to bear, he’s got more lined up for you.
Even if you’re absolved from federal income tax, you too require enough people willing to keep the racket going, and America is already pushing forward into territory the rest of the developed world is steering well clear of. On April Fools’ Day, Japan and the United Kingdom both cut their corporate-tax rates, leaving the United States even more of an outlier, with the highest corporate-tax rate in the developed world: The top rate of federal corporate tax in the U.S. is 35 percent. It’s 15 percent in Canada. Which is next door.
Well, who cares about corporations? Only out of touch dilettante playboys like Mitt Romney who — hmm, let’s see what I can produce from the bottom of the top hat — put his dog on the roof of his car as recently as 1984! That’s where your gran’ma will be under the Republicans’ plan, while your contraceptiveless teenage daughter is giving birth on the hood. “Corporations are people, my friend,” said Mitt, in what’s generally regarded as a damaging sound bite by all the smart people who think Obama’s plan to use the Buffett Rule to “close the deficit” this side of the fourth millennium is a stroke of genius.
But Mitt’s not wrong. In the end, a corporation doesn’t pay tax. The marble atrium of Global MegaCorp’s corporate HQ is indifferent to the tax rate; the Articles of Incorporation in the bottom drawer of the chairman’s desk couldn’t care less. Every dollar of “corporate” tax has to be fished out the pocket of a real flesh-and-blood human being, whether shareholder, employee, or customer.
And that’s the problem. For what Obama’s spending, there aren’t enough of them, or us, or “the rich” — and there never will be. There is only one Warren Buffett. He is the third-wealthiest person on the planet. The first is a Mexican, and beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Buffett is worth $44 billion. If he donated the entire lot to the government of the United States, they would blow through it within four and a half days. Okay, so who’s the fourth-richest guy? He’s French. And the fifth guy’s a Spaniard. Number six is Larry Ellison. He’s American, but that loser is only worth $36 billion. So he and Buffett between them could keep the United States government going for a week. The next-richest American is Christy Walton of Walmart, and she’s barely a semi-Buffett. So her $25 billion will see you through a couple of days of the second week. There aren’t a lot of other semi-Buffetts, but, if you scrounge around, you can rustle up some hemi-demi-semi-Buffetts: If you confiscate the total wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it comes to $1.5 trillion, which is just a little less than the Obama budget deficit for a year.
Read more here.