All EYE am going to say is if Americans had to accept the 2000 election results, Trump will have to accept the 2016 results

"Democrats" are waging a War on Whites? Who knew?

H/T Left in Alabama

Finally a war I can support!  Just kidding. Those who know me know I am anti-war/anti-violence of any kind. My weapons of choice are words and the ballot box, but I got to thinking....what if democrats did wage a war on white folks?  Maybe if Democrats had waged a war on white folks we wouldn't be in this mess.  By mess I am referring to sending our troops to war based on dead wrong intelligence, raiding the surplus to give the rich a tax cut, spying on the American people without a warrant, outing CIA  agents,  massive unemployment, record foreclosures, failing public schools and infrastructure, and the list goes on and on, like the Energizer Bunny.

Before we jump into Congressman Mo Brooks (r. AL 05) #WarOnWhites we must decode his code words.  First, democrats are code for black folks, African Americans, Negroes, coloreds, and whatever else you want to call people of color, not to be confused with them their illegals, which is code for Mexicans, Hispanics, anyone else from south of the border.  So when Congressman Brooks says democrats are waging war on white folks, he's really saying black folks are waging war on white folks, because everybody knows the democratic party panders to black voters at the expense of white voters.  Now, this is not true, but this is the perception held by some, not to be confused with all, white folks.

A generation ago, the Alabama Democratic Party’s black caucus had to fight for representation on the party’s executive committee, but today the party and that caucus, the Alabama Democratic Conference, overlap so much they are nearly synonymous.

Under a 25-year-old consent decree, ADC can select at-large executive committee members to make the committee racially proportionate to the party’s electorate. But it has exercised that power only in terms of black and white. Hispanics and other minority groups are not represented well, if at all, on the committee.

The ADC’s power has put its president, Joe Reed, squarely in the party driver’s seat and has made him a divisive figure. Last year, a spat with then-party chairman Mark Kennedy ended with Kennedy resigning his position and creating a new political group, the Alabama Democratic Majority, which some in the party hoped could reform or replace the state executive committee. At the time, Kennedy denied that was its purpose, but the message was clear: For at least part of the leadership, Alabama’s Democratic party had become too dysfunctional to be salvageable.

What Kennedy and his allies left behind was a smattering of white faces in a mostly black crowd.

I tried to tell them instead of creating their own separate and unequal party to get rid of Joe Reed and his bunch, they should have been joining Joe Reed and his bunch.  But did they listen to me?  Naaaaah. So here we are 3 months before the election and democrats in the fifth congressional district have a choice between Mo Brooks and Mo Brooks Lite.  My only hope is Mo Brooks Lite has the decency not to publicly disrespect the President of the United States of America, and if elected he will put his republican past behind him, and put people over party.  But I digress.

Before we return to the #WarOnWhites, there is one more word we have to define, and that word is psychological projection.

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.^[1] For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

So, when Congressman Mo Brooks accuses democrats (blacks) of waging war on whites, he really means republicans (whites) are waging war on democrats (blacks).

Alabama has an ugly racial past that has taken decades to overcome. Still, for many outside the state, Alabama is remembered for Bloody Sunday in Selma and Bull Connor's fire hoses turned on peaceful protesters in Birmingham. Those images belong in the past in the wake of the civil rights movement, but Brooks' comments will only reinforce those images.The irony in Brooks' comments is he accuses Democrats of "... launching this war (by) claiming that whites hate everybody else." Really? With our first African-American president in his second term, is it he and his party fomenting hate? No.Brooks embodies all that is wrong with the contemporary Republican Party. He's too far right to understand ordinary people's problems, and he won't engage with Democrats to craft legislation — such as immigration — that has long needed to be addressed. He is mired in political theory and ideology, refusing to accept that others, even in his own party, have something to bring to the table. That is arrogance.Sadly, Brooks will find a willing audience for his incendiary views in a state and a nation increasingly divided against themselves.

Whites are waging a war on blacks, and the opening salvo was the certification of the 2000 election. 

Addendum

The real reason that I oppose the Republican Party has nothing to do with my being a Democrat. I'm not. I'm an independent, with no political party. I don't oppose the Republicans in order to support the Democrats, I oppose the Republicans because the kind of people who perpetrated the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing have joined the GOP. Prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Nixon's Southern Strategy, these people were loyal Democrats, partly because of the New Deal but mostly because of Reconstruction and the Civil War. When the Democratic Party split along sectional lines in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act, the Republicans reached out to the disaffected Southern Democrats, encouraged them to join the GOP. The party did not change the Dixiecrats, the Dixiecrats changed the party.

Whatever political party draws its strength from these people is the party I'm going to work to defeat
Whatever political party draws its strength from these people is the party I'm going to work to defeat.

The End.

I sure do miss the good old days when we had fair and free elections in America too

Prior to the 2000 election, I wondered how in the world George W. Bush and Dick Cheney planned to *ahem* win the 2000 election without the African American vote? Little did I know they planned not to count the African American vote.

The Florida election has been closely scrutinized since the election, and several irregularities are thought to have favored Bush. These included the Palm Beach "butterfly ballot," which produced an unexpectedly large number of votes for third-party candidate Patrick Buchanan. Also noted was a purge of over 54,000 citizens from the Florida voting rolls identified as felons, of whom 54% were African-Americans. The majority of these were not felons and should have been eligible to vote under Florida law.[8] Additionally, there were many more 'overvotes' than usual, especially in predominantly African-American precincts in Duval county (Jacksonville), where some 27,000 ballots showed two or more choices for President[citation needed]. Unlike the much-discussed Palm Beach County 'butterfly ballot,' the Duval County ballot spread choices for President over two pages with instructions to 'vote on every page' on the bottom of each page.

The plan worked so well in 2000 they decided to have a repeat in 2004

Vote suppression/voter intimidation and deception. Shortages of voting locations and ballot forms. Foreign monitors barred from polls. Unmatched exit polls/actual results - actual results always skewed to Republicans. Masses of e-Voting "glitches". Computers lost votes. Presidential votes miscast on e-Voting machines throughout the US. More recorded votes than voters. Republicans gained 128.45% in Florida counties using optical scan voting machines while Democrats lost 21% - some districts showed gains of over 400% while one, Liberty County, gained over 700% for Republicans.Warren County officials locked down the county administration building on election night and blocked anyone from observing the vote count as the nation awaited Ohio's returns. Bush had 'incredible' vote tallies. 7% turnout reported in Cleveland precinct. In Cuyahoga County different towns had the exact same number of "extra" votes. And on, and on...

It's not as if African Americans didn't sound the alarm and try to rectify the situation in both cases, but of course they were routinely ignored and marginalized.

In a coda to a contentious, confusing and drawn-out presidential election, members of the Congressional Black Caucus on Saturday tried to stop the formal recording of the Electoral College tally during a joint session of Congress.

As Vice President Al Gore presided over the session, black members who supported him for president objected vociferously to the proceedings. One after another, the representatives rose to prevent the electoral votes from Florida from being counted.

Each time, Gore was forced to deny their motion, filed under an 1887 law, because their written objection did not include a signature from both a House member and a senator.

One after another, the caucus members arose and asked that the House withdraw from the joint session. Again, Gore denied the motions because no senator had agreed. One after another, the members also objected to the proceedings because a quorum was not present in the chamber. The vice president shut down the complaints.

If you are wondering how republicans plan to *ahem* win in 2012 without not only the African American vote, but the Hispanic, and LBGT vote as well, look no farther than the gop infused, media enabled Voter ID laws.

It is ridiculous on its face to believe that simply requiring someone to prove their identity before voting is an onerous requirement.

I wonder what part of we the people don't have to prove who we are before voting don't they understand?

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973–1973aa-6)[1] is a landmark piece of national legislation in the United States that outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the U.S.[2]

Echoing the language of the 15th Amendment, the Act prohibits states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."[3] Specifically, Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote, a principal means by which Southern states had prevented African-Americans from exercising the franchise.[2] The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, who had earlier signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.[2][4]

The Act established extensive federal oversight of elections administration, providing that states with a history of discriminatory voting practices (so-called "covered jurisdictions") could not implement any change affecting voting without first obtaining the approval of the Department of Justice, a process known as preclearance.[5] These enforcement provisions applied to states and political subdivisions (mostly in the South) that had used a "device" to limit voting and in which less than 50 percent of the population was registered to vote in 1964.[5] The Act has been renewed and amended by Congress four times, the most recent being a 25-year extension signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2006.[6]

I can tell you right now RedEye will not be going out of the way to obtain a Voter ID card.

So here is senario

RedEye shows up at the polls on election day and is told they can't vote because they don't have a Voter ID card.

What does RedEye do? Say OK and turn around and go home without voting?

I don't think so. It's not RedEye's responsibility to prove they are RedEye, it's the governments job to prove RedEye is not RedEye.

A voter ID card will not prove RedEye is RedEye. Voter ID cards can be forged just like any other instrument. That's how we know it's not about proving identity, it's about keeping RedEye from voting.

What if hundreds of RedEye's show up on election day without a Voter ID card?

What if thousands of RedEye's show up on election day without a Voter ID card?

What if millions of RedEye's show up on election day without a Voter ID card?

Can you say Chaos?

Why "justice is a long way off"

The wheels of justice slowly but surely turn in the case of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman. The surprise decision by the Supreme Court to vacate an earlier ruling by a lower court in the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman may be another cog in the wheel.

On the down side, today's Supreme Court finding is, in a sense, a smokescreen. It might lead to long-delayed justice for victims of political prosecutions. But it does not address the real problem--that corrupt federal prosecutors and judges caused this grave injustice to happen.

As I said countless times before, this case is not about Don Siegelman, it's about political prosecutions and using the justice system to destroy political adversaries.

In fact the pattern of politically-instigated investigation, prosecution and recusal in this case perfectly matches the Siegelman case in the Middle District of Alabama, in which the Justice Department continues tenaciously to fight FOIA requests and even the document production demands of the United States Congress. At this point it is plain that the Justice Department is not guided by policies and principles in its posture, but by an earnest resolve to keep hidden the dark truths that an entire nation now suspects and which will come to the front burner as soon as the results of the Department’s own investigation into the misconduct of Attorney General Gonzales become public. It’s time to shine a bright and sanitizing light down the crevice of these prosecutions and let the truth be known.

What you see is what you get. What I see is a whole bunch of democrats being legally lynched by the republican controlled InJustice system.

There is the misconception that I am stoopid enough to believe ALL prosecutions are politically/racially motivated. Let me be clear, anytime I've made the allegation of political/racial prosecutions it's been in response to a SPECIFIC case we've discussed on LiA. I can understand why our conservative friends don't believe the prosecutions have a political/racial motivation, but I don't understand why my fellow liberals/progressives don't share my concern that our justice system, strike that, the Bush justice system has compromised the integrity of the rule of law, especially here in Alabama.

There is evidence, not an opinion to back up my assertion the Bush DOJ was politicized.

A new Justice Department report concludes that politics illegally influenced the hiring of career prosecutors and immigration judges, and largely lays the blame on top aides to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Monday’s report singles out the department’s former White House liaison, Monica Goodling, for violating federal law and Justice Department policy by discriminating against job applicants who weren’t Republican or conservative loyalists.

I want to have HOPE the Obama DOJ will live up to its campaign pledge of putting an end to Scooter Libby justice, Brownie incompetence and Karl Rove politics, but it's hard to have HOPE when one of its first actions is to throw out the conviction of former republican Alaska Senator Ted Stevens and let former democratic Governor Don Siegelman twist in the wind.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan has dismissed Stevens' conviction for lying on Senate financial disclosure forms, and ordered a criminal contempt investigation of the prosecutors in the case for what he called the worst "mishandling and misconduct" he had seen in his 25-year career on the bench.

The dismissal comes after Attorney General Eric Holder decided not to defend the conviction against allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.

As Legal Schnauzer notes;

Today's news is encouraging in the sense that the Siegelman and Minor defendants now stand a better chance of being freed. But they never should have been in prison in the first place. Ethical prosecutors, not under the influence of the corrupt Bush Justice Department, never would have brought these cases. Under the law, there was never any bribery or honest-services fraud from the outset. If prosecutors somehow did manage to bring the cases, ethical district judges would have kicked them out long before they ever reached a jury.

And brings us back to the real issue in this case;

The district courts and circuit courts have acted in an abominably corrupt manner--and yet the Supreme Court keeps remanding issues back to courts that already have proven they can't rule lawfully in these cases.

As African Americans said then and now, it's the courts stupid!. Justice is a long way off when all the votes aren't counted.

Some of the most powerful footage in Fahrenheit 9/11 comes from the Joint Session of Congress that convened on January 6, 2001. It was during this session that then Vice-President Al Gore presided over the verification of the Electoral College vote in the face of fierce Congressional protests. U.S. Rep. Peter Deutsch was the first to attempt to halt the proceedings and was followed shortly thereafter by U.S. Reps. Alcee Hastings and Corrine Brown.

Because no Senator would sign their inquiries into the Florida recount, the electoral vote was verified and the way was cleared for George W. Bush to be sworn in as the nation's 43rd president. Had U.S. Representatives Deutsch, Hastings and Brown been successful with their protests on January 6th, 2001, further investigations would have been conducted into the voting irregularities in Florida.

Watch and weep.

Know justice.
Know peace.
No justice.
No peace.

Can you hear me now?