Vote them out

If they have an A rating from the NRA, they don’t represent us. Vote them out.
Reed with dog and gun

We need representatives who will support reasonable gun control measures to protect lives, especially the lives of children. Enough!

Advertisements

About whungerford

* Contributor at NewNY23rd.com where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in 2018, Congress, Gun Violence, Political, Reed's Views, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Vote them out

  1. Carol says:

    I find it quite interesting that last week I could look up Tom Reed’s NRA grade on the NRA website (and verified that it was an A, not an A+), and now that information is suddenly only available to NRA members only, coincidentally (or not) right after the March for Our Lives.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Rynstone says:

    Hitler, Mao Tze Tung, Lenin, Stalin, Chavez, Castro, Pol Pot & Idi Amin would have been given an F- rating by the NRA.

    I assume that you are referring to 2nd Amendment supporters like the recent Congressional winner Connor Lamb ? (winner by a very thin margin)
    Conner Lamb did a campaign commercial with him shooting a semi-automatic AR15 style rifle with a (gasp…) high capacity magazine……. and oh goodness no injuries!

    Imagine…… if the Jews and Gypsies in the Nazi Ghettos had access to hundreds of Ar-15’s, high capacity magazines and ammunition. A lot of lives might have been saved around the world. Would the Progressive Liberals actually surrender the populace of the USA to the whims of a tyrannical government?

    Once again Progressive Liberals shown their only standards are double standards!

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/12/17061712/gun-control-democrat-trump-activism-midterms-2018

    http://triblive.com/local/allegheny/13308322-74/democrat-conor-lamb-says-new-gun-laws-not-needed-to-prevent-violence

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/18/connor-lamb-pennsylvania-democrat-supports-gun-rig/

    Like

  3. Rynstone says:

    The Board of Directors and the Executive staff of the NRA are voted into place by their many members. All of this Left influenced anti-gun propaganda is growing new NRA Membership at record high levels. Keep it up. Other 2nd Amendment groups like the Gun Owners of America are also seeing record growth.

    When Tom Selleck finally retires from acting and is voted to take lead of the NRA it will experience renew positive publicity and growth.

    Like

  4. josephurban says:

    As a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, as clarified by Justice Scalia in the DC v Heller decision, I concur. Every citizen has the right to own a gun, just as they have the right to free speech, religion, etc.
    And, as Scalia pointed out, no right is UNLIMITED. The government has the obligation to determine WHAT KINDS of weapons are available to civilians. And to limit ownership to certain kinds of people. Just as the government can limit speech (libel and slander laws) and religious practices (child marriages). So, to suggest that those who support gun control oppose the 2nd Amendment is a false narrative. In fact, the NRA actually is the group that wants to tear up the Constitution and have almost NO restrictions on weapons.
    Support the 2nd Amendment. Support Scalia. Support reasonable gun control.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. whungerford says:

    We will see relentless efforts to frame firearm regulations as contrary to the Second Amendment. As Emma Gonzalez, a student at the Parkland, Florida, high school famously said: “I call BS.”

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Rynstone says:

    Josephurban,
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    Please provide us with some of your ideas for additional reasonable gun control that would not infringe on the 2nd Amendment. (Federal and/or state)

    Please show me where in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution where it states that ” The government has the obligation to determine WHAT KINDS of weapons are available to civilians.
    Keep in mind there are currently thousands of laws regulating firearms.”

    “Consider the fact that we now have on the lawbooks of this nation over 20,000 laws governing the sale, distribution and use of firearms.”— Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., congressional hearings, 1965

    Yep, you read that last one right: 1965. That’s three years before passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the sweeping measure that became law after the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

    The Dingell quote was the earliest reference found by Brookings Institution researchers Jon Vernick and Lisa Hepburn when they first tried to untangle this factoid in 2002. The figure was repeated in a 1969 study, “Firearms and Violence in American Life,” which cited Dingell but noted that he did not provide a source when he testified. Dingell’s staff did not respond to a query about how Dingell came up with the figure.

    The NRA and it’s millions of members do not want to tear up teh Constitution. It wants to follow the 2nd Amendment as written and meant by the Founders.
    While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, “a standing army … would be opposed [by] a militia.” He argued that state militias “would be able to repel the danger” of a federal army, “It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.” He confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as “afraid to trust the people with arms.” He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because “besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition”.

    By January 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several specific amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. For example, the Pennsylvania convention debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to amendments to assure ratification. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:

    Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures

    In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment’s impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against state and local governments. In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” and that its protection is not limited to “only those weapons useful in warfare”.

    Like

  7. Rynstone says:

    Lesson learned a little too late:

    Generally speaking, conservative Americans don’t particularly care to hear Europeans weigh in with their opinions on our Second Amendment and gun laws, but an Italian woman recently stated something so simple yet profound that it simply must be shared.

    “Americans, I’m watching the #GunControl protests from Italy,” tweeted a user by the name of Redeemed Goddaughter.

    “Take a European’s advice: Last century our governments disarmed us. Now, in Germany & the UK they arrest you for Twitter & FB posts. Lesson?

    Politics
    Share
    Italian Woman Enters Gun Debate, Slays Liberals in Less Than 10 Seconds

    By Ben Marquis
    March 27, 2018 at 7:14pm
    Share Tweet Email Print

    Generally speaking, conservative Americans don’t particularly care to hear Europeans weigh in with their opinions on our Second Amendment and gun laws, but an Italian woman recently stated something so simple yet profound that it simply must be shared.

    “Americans, I’m watching the #GunControl protests from Italy,” tweeted a user by the name of Redeemed Goddaughter.

    “Take a European’s advice: Last century our governments disarmed us. Now, in Germany & the UK they arrest you for Twitter & FB posts. Lesson?

    Americans, I’m watching the #GunControl protests from Italy. Take a European’s advice:

    Last century our governments disarmed us. Now, in Germany & the UK they arrest you for Twitter & FB posts.

    Lesson?

    If the gov’t takes your 2nd Amendment, one day it’ll take your 1st.

    — Redeemed Goddaughter (@XianCorleone) March 26, 2018

    As the woman noted, much of Europe has implemented strict gun control measures over the years that have left the population largely disarmed and incapable of effectively standing up in defense of their rights.

    Thus, the citizens of many European countries have been all but silenced, forced to submit to various speech laws and other injustices, as a disarmed populace is largely viewed more as subjects instead of sovereign citizens in the eyes of all-powerful governments.

    As the woman noted, much of Europe has implemented strict gun control measures over the years that have left the population largely disarmed and incapable of effectively standing up in defense of their rights.

    Thus, the citizens of many European countries have been all but silenced, forced to submit to various speech laws and other injustices, as a disarmed populace is largely viewed more as subjects instead of sovereign citizens in the eyes of all-powerful governments.

    Like

  8. whungerford says:

    Rynstone, no matter how often you echo the NRA line, it’s BS.

    Like

  9. josephurban says:

    Ryn. You asked where in the Constitution it says that the government can regulate the types of guns available. The 2nd Amendment.
    Like the entire Constitution, the SCOTUS INTERPRETS what the words mean. That is because the Constitution was designed as a “framework” for government, not a static bible. For example, no where in the Constitution are corporations mentioned. Yet, the SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution to give corporations individual rights (Citizens United). Nowhere is there a specific right to privacy, but the courts have ruled, over time, that we all have that basic right. (Roe v Wade). No where does it say blacks kids can go to school, but the Brown v Board of Ed says they can.
    So, I will once again point you to the DC v Heller decision (2008). The decision, written by Scalia, could not be clearer. I disagree with some of it, but it stands as the law.
    No rights are unlimited. The government has the right to decide what kinds of weapons are legal. I know that the NRA is very selective in the way it reads the Constitution, and also the decisions of the Constitution. But until a new case takes precedence, the government has the right to regulate the types of weapons available to individuals. Like banning military style weapons. You may not like it, but that is the fact.

    Like

  10. josephurban says:

    Ryn. I wouldn’t point to Europe if I were you.
    The US has 18 times as many gun homicides PER PERSON than the Netherlands, Australia, Denmark, Sweden,Slovakia, New Zealand, 36 times more than Spain, Germany and Hungary, 9 times more than Ireland, etc. Somehow, the other industrial modern Democracies have been able to survive quite well with strict gun control laws!!!
    I have traveled throughout Europe (France, UK, Ireland, Spain, Italy) and can assure you the people of those countries enjoy the freedoms we enjoy. And they are much safer. Yes, there is crime, but not at the level of violence seen by our own USA. Every day about 90 people are killed by guns. In most of these countries there are not 90 people killed by guns in ONE YEAR!

    Like

  11. Rynstone says:

    joesephurbam,

    You can’t use gun homicide rates. You have to compare murder rates (all deaths by violence)

    Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has penned an editorial for the New York Times (surprise) calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

    Here the opening paragraphs of his article:
    Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

    That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

    Some of you may be surprised that a number of our founders did not want a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution. Their reasoning was based on the fact that the Constitution was a document of enumerated powers. If the Constitution did not give the national government authority in a particular area, then the Constitution did not have the authority or the power in that particular area.

    Once a right or power was added to the Constitution — either specified or prohibited — it gave the government, in some capacity, the authority and power to rule on that right or power.

    The thing of it is, our founders were so distrustful of government in the hands of a few that they wanted additional protections. Walter Williams explains:
    Why did the founders of our nation give us the Bill of Rights? The answer is easy. They knew Congress could not be trusted with our God-given rights. Think about it. Why in the world would they have written the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from enacting any law that abridges freedom of speech and the press? The answer is that in the absence of such a limitation Congress would abridge free speech and free press. That same distrust of Congress explains the other amendments found in our Bill of Rights protecting rights such as our rights to property, fair trial and to bear arms. The Bill of Rights should serve as a constant reminder of the deep distrust that our founders had of government. They knew that some government was necessary but they rightfully saw government as the enemy of the people and they sought to limit government and provide us with protections. (Townhall)

    To demonstrate that their mistrust was real, all we need to do is read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The Ninth Amendment states:
    The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    What does this mean? Again, Williams explains:
    In essence, the Ninth Amendment says it’s impossible to list all of our God-given or natural rights. Just because a right is not listed doesn’t mean it can be infringed upon or disparaged by the U.S. Congress. The Tenth Amendment is a reinforcement of the Ninth saying, ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.’ That means if a power is not delegated to Congress, it belongs to the states of the people.

    Even with a Constitution of enumerated powers only, a bill of specific precautionary rights, and two Amendments further limiting the national government, our elected officials continually violate the Constitution.

    Where do you find the word “education” in the Constitution? You don’t, and yet there is a Federal Department of Education dictating to the states how to run schools.

    To demonstrate that our founders had a deep mistrust of government, consider the following from Democrat Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz who wants a federal law that would require background checks for people who buy ammunition.
    “I really think it’s important to underscore that without bullets a gun is just a hunk of useless metal, and a would-be killer lacks the means to actually kill or maim…. You do not have the right to bear bullets,” Wasserman Schultz said at a news conference at the Pembroke Pines Police Department, where she was joined by political leaders, a police representative and teachers and students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.”

    Let’s apply her logic to the First Amendment by banning paper, pens, typewriters, microphones, cameras, and every means by which the Press does its job. The Press would have the right to “freedom of the Press,” but it would not have means to take their message to the masses. Or we could just ban their use of electricity.

    When Leftists claim, as Chris Cuomo just did, that no one wants to repeal the Second Amendment, don’t believe them. First, John Paul Stevens is proposing just such a repeal in his NYT’s article “Repeal the Second Amendment,” and second, if they don’t get a full repeal, they will attempt to define the right out of existence with legislation.

    Just like the left did not want us to know that ObamaCare would strip us of our doctors; just like the left did not want us to know that same sex marriage would result in the persecution of Christian cake and floral artists; the left do not want us to know that their ultimate goal is a repeal of our Second Amendment civil rights.

    In other words, the left and media fear that being honest about their desire to disarm law-abiding American will hurt their cause of disarming law-abiding Americans.

    Like

  12. josephurban says:

    Ryn. Sorry but your long post is just not logical.

    Of course I can compare gun homicide rates between countries. You might not like the FACTS. But facts are facts. The rates are there. The US has a massively greater gun homicide rate than any other industrialized nation on Earth A FACT. This isn’t Fox News, where you can make up your own facts.

    I see all of your posts on gun control continue to ignore the DC v Heller decision? Why is that. It is the law of the land. the majority opinion was written by the strict constructionist Antonin Scalia. Nobody more conservative on the SCOTUS. He makes it clear that ALL rights, including the right to won a gun, has legitimate LIMITS. He makes it clear that the 2nd Amendment does give one the right to possess any kind of weapon and the government has an interest in controlling who can get weapons.

    Justice Stevens is wrong, in my opinion. (After all, he is 97). There is no need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Reasonable gun control is already allowed under the 2nd Amendment. It is simply a matter of political will. The question is: how many lives of children and adults are worth a person’s desire to have a military-style weapon?

    Like

  13. josephurban says:

    Correction: Scalia makes it clear that the 2nd Amendment does NOT give one the right to possess any type of weapon…

    Like

  14. whungerford says:

    I believe Justice Stevens’ point was rather than be misinterpreted, the Second Amendment might better be repealed. Correctly interpreted, it is obsolete, but unobjectionable.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Rynstone says:

    Planned Parenthood takes far more children’s lives than firearms do. Why no public outcry over this?

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/planned-parenthood-performed-323999-abortions-and-received-553.7-million-fr

    Like

  16. Rynstone says:

    It is time for all politicians to quit cow towing to the man-made global warming hysteria.

    All of those who attend teh man-0made global warming Church of AL Gore need to go.
    https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/

    Like

  17. josephurban says:

    Golly Gee , Ryn. You are certainly all over the place with your last few posts. Planned Parenthood? Global Warming? Let’s stick to the topic at hand.

    What is your opinion of Scalia’s majority opinion in the DC v Heller case, which is the law of the land?

    Like

  18. Rynstone says:

    Ok Joe, I have some time today so I will bite.

    Please refer me to the specific section of Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in the DC v Heller case you are referring to. From my old Alma Mater;

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

    Like

  19. Rynstone says:

    Progressive Liberals and the main street news media are nothing more than lapdogs for Marxism.

    From Hillary Clinton and former President Obama’s mentor and hero Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals
    “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
    http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-nws-stroudsburg-rifle-team-gofundme-nra-grant-20180328-story.html

    Like

  20. Rynstone says:

    Good testimony on Gun Control legislation

    Like

  21. josephurban says:

    Ryn. You asked for it. The last sentence sums up the point I was making about the government’s right to limit WHO can possess weapons. One specific section of the DC v Heller decision, written by Justice Scalia:

    “…Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms….”26

    Like

  22. josephurban says:

    Ryn. Another part of Scalia’s decision involves the right of the government to restrict certain kinds of weapons. For example, banning of machine guns form civilians.The 2nd Amendment does not protect ALL weapons, the government can restrict SOME types of weapons.

    “…We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

    Like

  23. Rynstone says:

    If you read the Federalist papers you will learn that the Founders wanted the civilians to be armed with firearms that the government or military had. Actually there is not Constitutionally supposed to be a standing Army unless the country is at war.

    Section 8 – Powers of Congress

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    By the way, what are these voter suppression things the GOP supports that you speak of???

    Like

  24. josephurban says:

    Ryn…Changing the subject again. You asked for the specifics of the Scalia opinion in the DC v Heller case. I gave you the specifics. What is your response to Scalia?

    From Article One, which you posted….the powers of Congress…to call for a militia (which is why folks needed guns in the 18th century)…
    “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

    Voter suppression? So, since you lost the argument about the 2nd Amendment and the DC v Heller case you want to change the subject? Okey-dokey….
    “…In the case of North Carolina, a federal court noted that “after years of preclearance and expansion of voting access, by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force.”

    But then, said the court, the state “enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans… Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.”

    Indeed, in North Carolina, local officials crowed during the 2016 election that “African American Early Voting Is Down 8.5%.” Donald Trump carried the state by 177,509 votes….”

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-voter-suppression-is-the-countrys-greatest-scandal

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s