All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Tami]

A black woman faces prison because of a Jim Crow-era plan to ‘protect white voters’

Lanisha Bratcher was finishing breakfast at home one morning at the end of July when there was a knock on her door. She had been discharged from the hospital the night before following a miscarriage that left her mourning the loss of her child.

Her partner opened the door – it was the police. They burst into their North Carolina home “like the Dukes of Hazzard”, Bratcher said. There was a warrant out for her arrest, they told her. Bratcher had no idea what for.

Her crime? Voting in the 2016 presidential election.

Bratcher faces up to 19 months in prison because she did not realize she had actually been stripped of the right to vote. Her lawyer says she’s being punished based on a Jim Crow-era law that was intended to disenfranchise African Americans.

Bratcher was on probation after being convicted of assault and North Carolina law mandates that people convicted of felonies can only vote once they complete their criminal sentences, including probation and parole, entirely.

Documents obtained by the Guardian show that a prosecutor brought charges against Bratcher even though state officials said she may have illegally voted unintentionally. The decision also came after a report in which state officials recognized there were serious problems in the system in place to inform convicted felons of their voting rights.

The state’s policy of banning people convicted of felonies from voting is rooted in a late 19th century effort by North Carolina Democrats to limit voting power of newly-enfranchised African Americans as whole. In 1898, the North Carolina Democratic party spoke of the need “to rescue the white people of the east from the curse of negro domination”.

Since then, North Carolina lawmakers have tweaked the law, but its core – stripping felons of their voting rights while they serve criminal sentences – remains in place.

John Carella, Bratcher’s lawyer, noted the vast majority of the people caught up in the law are African American. “A law that is intended to racially discriminate against a group is unconstitutional,” he said. “We also know it continues to work that way in its modern application to the 2016 election.”

[Tendrin]

If someone were to start a British version of WBE's work, a Crazy/Stupid Tory of the day, you could do worse than to start with Sally Ann Hart.

Hart had faced anger earlier this week when it was reported she shared a 2017 blog post claiming that extremists are secretly pushing a “Muslim agenda” by promoting LGBT rights+ and women’s right to choose.
The blog had claimed: “They want the non-Muslim population to be stagnant while their Muslim population grows. Numbers mean power.

“They want a young male population that is weakened or with confused female tendencies, whether real or imagined, or transgendered.
“They want to oppress the women and weaken the men. And the rest of America? They are controlling you via the media.”

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/12/1...nder-election/

TERFIsm has very much taken root in England.

[Tami]

I Headed the F.B.I. and C.I.A. There’s a Dire Threat to the Country I Love.

The privilege of being the only American in our history to serve as the director of both the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. gives me a unique perspective and a responsibility to speak out about a dire threat to the rule of law in the country I love. Order protects liberty, and liberty protects order. Today, the integrity of the institutions that protect our civil order are, tragically, under assault from too many people whose job it should be to protect them.

The rule of law is the bedrock of American democracy, the principle that protects every American from the abuse of monarchs, despots and tyrants. Every American should demand that our leaders put the rule of law above politics.

I am deeply disturbed by the assertion of President Trump that our “current director” — as he refers to the man he selected for the job of running the F.B.I. — cannot fix what the president calls a broken agency. The 10-year term given to all directors following J. Edgar Hoover’s 48-year tenure was created to provide independence for the director and for the bureau. The president’s thinly veiled suggestion that the director, Christopher Wray, like his banished predecessor, James Comey, could be on the chopping block, disturbs me greatly. The independence of both the F.B.I. and its director are critical and should be fiercely protected by each branch of government.

Over my nine-plus years as F.B.I. director, I reported to four honorable attorneys general. Each clearly understood the importance of the rule of law in our democracy and the critical role the F.B.I. plays in the enforcement of our laws. They fought to protect both, knowing how important it was that our F.B.I. remain independent of political influence of any kind.

[Malvolio]

If someone were to start a British version of WBE's work, a Crazy/Stupid Tory of the day, you could do worse than to start with Sally Ann Hart.



https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/12/1...nder-election/

TERFIsm has very much taken root in England.

Her theory makes no sense. A "Muslim agenda" would not promote LGBT rights or a woman's right to choose. They both go against a strict adherence to Islam.

[Tami]

Russia’s State TV Calls Trump Their ‘Agent’

Sometimes a picture doesn’t have to be worth a thousand words. Just a few will do. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov returned home from his visit with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office last week, Russian state media was gloating over the spectacle. TV channel Rossiya 1 aired a segment entitled “Puppet Master and ‘Agent’—How to Understand Lavrov’s Meeting With Trump.”

Vesti Nedeli, a Sunday news show on the same network, pointed out that it was Trump, personally, who asked Lavrov to pose standing near as Trump sat at his desk. It’s almost the literal image of a power behind the throne.

nd in the meantime, much to Russia’s satisfaction, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is still waiting for that critical White House meeting with the American president: the famous “quid pro quo” for Zelensky announcing an investigation that would smear Democratic challenger Joe Biden. As yet, Zelensky hasn’t done that, and as yet, no meeting has been set.

Russian state television still views the impending impeachment as a bump in the road that won’t lead to Trump’s removal from office. But President Vladimir Putin’s propaganda brigades enjoy watching the heightened divisions in the United States, and how it hurts relations between the U.S. and Ukraine.

They’ve also added a cynical new a narrative filled with half-joking ironies as they look at the American president’s bleak prospects when he does leave office.

Appearing on Sunday Evening With Vladimir Soloviev, Mikhail Gusman, first deputy director general of ITAR-TASS, Russia’s oldest and largest news agency, predicted: “Sooner or later, the Democrats will come back into power. The next term or the term after that, it doesn’t matter... I have an even more unpleasant forecast for Trump. After the White House, he will face a very unhappy period.”

The host, Vladimir Soloviev, smugly asked: “Should we get another apartment in Rostov ready?” Soloviev’s allusion was to the situation of Viktor Yanukovych, former president of Ukraine, who was forced to flee to Russia in 2014 and settled in the city of Rostov-on-Don.

Such parallels between Yanukovych and Trump are being drawn not only because of their common association with Paul Manafort, adviser to the first, campaign chairman for the second, but also because Russian experts and politicians consider both of them to be openly pro-Kremlin.

[Tami]

Judge stymies Trump's border wall by invoking GOP law targeting Obama

President Donald Trump’s border wall is facing a surprising new legal hurdle down in Texas: an obscure legislative provision crafted by House Republicans in 2014 when the GOP was targeting then-President Barack Obama’s budget powers.

The amendment, carried forward into current law, has resurfaced with a vengeance in El Paso, Texas. U.S District Court Judge David Briones has been quoting back its words in a series of rulings against Trump’s decision to take $3.6 billion from military construction projects to expedite his wall.

Story Continued Below

As first adopted, the Republican language specifically prohibited Obama from taking any step to “eliminate or reduce funding for any program, project, or activity as proposed in the President’s budget request” until it's cleared with Congress.

As first adopted, the Republican language specifically prohibited Obama from taking any step to “eliminate or reduce funding for any program, project, or activity as proposed in the President’s budget request” until it's cleared with Congress.

Story Continued Below

The triggering event was a relatively narrow dispute in 2013 over funding for space exploration. But when they were enacted in Jan. 2014, the restrictions applied government-wide. And a year later, under full Republican control, Congress added the word “increase” alongside “eliminate or reduce” funding.

What goes around, in other words, comes around.

But what’s most remarkable is how much the legislative phrasing — aimed squarely at Obama — applies directly to the current fight involving Trump.

First, it was Trump’s own budgets that asked Congress to fund many of the same military construction projects, for which appropriations were reduced or eliminated by his spending transfers. Second, Trump took the money unilaterally in order to increase funding for his wall to a level above what he had first requested in his budget.

Briones’ rulings have focused more on the second factor: Trump moving money to fund an above-budget increase for the wall. But the legislative history behind the amendment is a reminder that its intent was to also block a president from asking for money for one account, such as military construction, and then reducing the sum to serve his purposes elsewhere.

[jetengine]

If someone were to start a British version of WBE's work, a Crazy/Stupid Tory of the day, you could do worse than to start with Sally Ann Hart.



https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/12/1...nder-election/

TERFIsm has very much taken root in England.

Oh yeah the breeding conspiracy theory is a big thing.

[TheManInBlack]

I Headed the F.B.I. and C.I.A. There’s a Dire Threat to the Country I Love.

It's hard to take a CIA director seriously when he talks about ethics and law violations. The CIA basically exists to destabilize foreign governments, create coups, and do covert dirty work. When did we start trusting spooks and G-men?

[Kirby101]

It's hard to take a CIA director seriously when he talks about ethics and law violations. The CIA basically exists to destabilize foreign governments, create coups, and do covert dirty work. When did we start trusting spooks and G-men?

When a Russian agent became President.

[The Whovian]

For those of you who are for Bernie, I have some questions. Full disclosure, I was a registered Republican but I am going to change that to Independent. I'm no longer going to be sucked in by one establishment or the other. Instead, I will choose who the best person, in my mind, who most aligns with my views. I'm sick and tired of our country's war mongering and bailouts of corporate billionaires. I want our country to help our citizens and stop destroying our families, middle class and poor.

I like what Tulsi stands for in regards to stopping the US from being the world police and dumping trillions into the pockets of war mongers. But I also like Bernie's views on a lot of things. I don't agree with everything he says, but I do love his ideas on healthcare, free college tuition (and forgiveness of said tuition to those who already have the debt), mass incarceration, legalization of marijuana, capital punishment, cutting military spending, supporting veterans and some others.

I always thought of Bernie as a flake and nutcase (sorry). I came to that conclusion based on others assumptions, instead of doing my own research. I have listened to Bernie, read about him and concluded for myself that I like a lot of what he is saying. I also plan on going to one of his upcoming rallies.

My biggest concern (and fear) in supporting Bernie, is that I'm worried that if he were elected he would not stand up to the establishment and would cave in to them and just go along to get along, once he was in the WH. I see some times where he could stick by some people that he should, but doesn't because of pressure from the left. Or he has a chance in the debates to go after his opponents, but decides not to (see Hilary in 2016 and this year).

Can the Bernie supporters here please assure me that he would not, in your opinion, cave to the establishment once in the WH? Also, I get mixed signals from him when it comes to being isolationists. He says, like Tulsi, that he wants to cut back on our military spending (which I like, because that money could and should be used for funding programs for the poor and other projects), but then he says he would take down Assad because he's using tanks and his military to hurt his own people. I guess I don't get that logic. If we had to stop every dictator that did this, we would never be able to cut back on military spending and would have to keep sending our troops into harms way over in other countries.

Can you all please enlighten me on these two issues and any others that you may feel would help me understand Bernie better? Thank you

[TheManInBlack]

When a Russian agent became President.

That makes professional liars, spies, and murderers suddenly trustworthy? If anything, I'd trust them even less if the government really is as screwed up as you believe. I just find the CIA an odd place to put trust, simply because they're currently saying things you find suitable at the moment. You don't think the former CIA director has carefully polished his every word to suit a personal agenda? It's literally what he trained and directed agents to do for years to destabilize foreign powers. It's his modus operandi. Not only should anything he says be questioned, you should also question WHY he's saying it.

[Gray Lensman]

That makes professional liars, spies, and murderers suddenly trustworthy? If anything, I'd trust them even less if the government really is as screwed up as you believe. I just find the CIA an odd place to put trust, simply because they're currently saying things you find suitable at the moment. You don't think the former CIA director has carefully polished his every word to suit a personal agenda? It's literally what he trained and directed agents to do for years to destabilize foreign powers. It's his modus operandi. Not only should anything he says be questioned, you should also question WHY he's saying it.

The mentality of the CIA has always been that they do those terrible things in service of the country. They dismiss people who embellish their resumes or cheat on exams - they might want people who can lie, cheat, and steal when called upon to do so, but they take a dim view of anyone doing those things at any other time.

[TheManInBlack]

The mentality of the CIA has always been that they do those terrible things in service of the country. They dismiss people who embellish their resumes or cheat on exams - they might want people who can lie, cheat, and steal when called upon to do so, but they take a dim view of anyone doing those things at any other time.

Agreed. But 'service to country' is a VERY malleable term which can change entirely depending on the times, CIA director, and politics. I think it would be very obvious at this point in American history that more than ever before, service to country means very different things to different people. Either way, I'd trust my postman's political opinions before I'd trust a former CIA spook. And my postman's a dumbass.

[Kirby101]

That makes professional liars, spies, and murderers suddenly trustworthy? If anything, I'd trust them even less if the government really is as screwed up as you believe. I just find the CIA an odd place to put trust, simply because they're currently saying things you find suitable at the moment. You don't think the former CIA director has carefully polished his every word to suit a personal agenda? It's literally what he trained and directed agents to do for years to destabilize foreign powers. It's his modus operandi. Not only should anything he says be questioned, you should also question WHY he's saying it.

It was meant as a quip. But I trust the FBI more than the CIA. I trust both more than traitor Trump.

[Tami]

For those of you who are for Bernie, I have some questions. Full disclosure, I was a registered Republican but I am going to change that to Independent. I'm no longer going to be sucked in by one establishment or the other. Instead, I will choose who the best person, in my mind, who most aligns with my views. I'm sick and tired of our country's war mongering and bailouts of corporate billionaires. I want our country to help our citizens and stop destroying our families, middle class and poor.

I like what Tulsi stands for in regards to stopping the US from being the world police and dumping trillions into the pockets of war mongers. But I also like Bernie's views on a lot of things. I don't agree with everything he says, but I do love his ideas on healthcare, free college tuition (and forgiveness of said tuition to those who already have the debt), mass incarceration, legalization of marijuana, capital punishment, cutting military spending, supporting veterans and some others.

I always thought of Bernie as a flake and nutcase (sorry). I came to that conclusion based on others assumptions, instead of doing my own research. I have listened to Bernie, read about him and concluded for myself that I like a lot of what he is saying. I also plan on going to one of his upcoming rallies.

My biggest concern (and fear) in supporting Bernie, is that I'm worried that if he were elected he would not stand up to the establishment and would cave in to them and just go along to get along, once he was in the WH. I see some times where he could stick by some people that he should, but doesn't because of pressure from the left. Or he has a chance in the debates to go after his opponents, but decides not to (see Hilary in 2016 and this year).

Can the Bernie supporters here please assure me that he would not, in your opinion, cave to the establishment once in the WH? Also, I get mixed signals from him when it comes to being isolationists. He says, like Tulsi, that he wants to cut back on our military spending (which I like, because that money could and should be used for funding programs for the poor and other projects), but then he says he would take down Assad because he's using tanks and his military to hurt his own people. I guess I don't get that logic. If we had to stop every dictator that did this, we would never be able to cut back on military spending and would have to keep sending our troops into harms way over in other countries.

Can you all please enlighten me on these two issues and any others that you may feel would help me understand Bernie better? Thank you

I'm the exact opposite of what you are looking for, but I'll reply anyway. I look at the candidates holistically. Which ones will do the best job at uniting the country, dealing with the many issues and problems we have to face at home, including home-grown terrorism, immigration, infrastructure, the environment, the economy, as well as education and health care. I am also looking fro someone who can handle him or herself on the international stage, deal with Putin and Russian aggression, reunite allies, establish or reestablish relations with other countries, and so on.

I haven't decided who that is yet, but I do know it isn't either Bernie or Tulsi. Bernie has no foreign policy experience, he's a one-trick pony who isn't likely to get much done and will probably only last one term. Tulsi, I don't trust. She has too many sympathies with the kinds of foreign leaders we should be standing up to, not making friends with.

Whichever candidate can stand up to Putin, look him in the eye, and tell him to back off or else and mean it, that is the kind of backbone we need. [Bernie would just wag his finger at Putin and be laughed at]

Policies are, in the end, decided by Congress as much as by the President. As long as the person is a Democrat, I know they will make the best decisions at home. It's overseas that worries me.