Look at who is now saying elections could be rigged

Reid campaigning with Clinton in Las Vegas this month. (NYTimes photo)

When Donald Trump says the elections are rigged, he is paranoid.

When Harry Reid writes a letter to the head of the FBI asking for an investigation into whether Russians are trying to rig the election for Trump, he is prescient. Nay, really just late out of the gate.

Reid’s Aug. 27 letter to FBI Director James Comey seeking the probe comes more than a week after the FBI sent out a warning to state elections departments about possible cyber attacks.

Yahoo News reports:

The FBI has uncovered evidence that foreign hackers penetrated two state election databases in recent weeks, prompting the bureau to warn election officials across the country to take new steps to enhance the security of their computer systems, according to federal and state law enforcement officials.

The FBI warning, contained in a “flash” alert from the FBI’s Cyber Division, a copy of which was obtained by Yahoo News, comes amid heightened concerns among U.S. intelligence officials about the possibility of cyberintrusions, potentially by Russian state-sponsored hackers, aimed at disrupting the November elections.

Yahoo News sources said the targeted states were Arizona and Illinois. In July, Illinois shut down voter registration for 10 days after hackers downloaded data about 200,000 voters.

The FBI alert listed IP addresses, one of which has been linked to suspected Russian hackers.

Reid’s letter asks:

Reid FBI letter

ABC News posted a news analysis by Richard Clarke, a former White House senior cybersecurity policy adviser, on Aug. 19 that concludes:

If someone makes the charge after this election that the results were altered by hackers, our country has almost no way of credibly refuting that claim. Thus American voters will have no way to know if they can trust the results of the election, unless it is a landslide, so large that it seems unlikely that the winning margin was purely the result of malicious activity.

91 comments on “Look at who is now saying elections could be rigged

  1. Vernon Clayson says:

    If anyone knows about rigging elections it would be Harry Reid and his fellow conspirators in the House, Senate, and their news media propagandists. The Russians aren’t exactly amateurs, if they have actually compromised Hillary Clinton’s emails and correspondence they could spoil her chances, if they don’t it’s because they see her as weak and venal, she can be bought and therefore less trouble than Trump.

  2. nyp says:

    That’s it — the Russians are going to rig the election in favor of Clinton.

    Very imaginative.

  3. Winston Smith says:

    Electronic voting has been rigged for years…

    http://blackboxvoting.org/

  4. Nyp says:

    Very nice to see lunatic right and left converge on this

  5. Steve says:

    Nice to see Nyp including Harry Reid with the collective (right and left) group of lunatics.

    Welcome to reality, nyp.

  6. Steve says:

    But, this blog is about Harry Reid and you posted……..

    Oh what’s the point in proving it, all you would do is spin your own words anyway.

    laugh

  7. nyp says:

    today’s ADP jobs report: another 177,000 private-sector jobs added in August.

    I blame that job-killing ObamaCare.

  8. When Obamacare finally implodes on itself…the little nypper will still be chirping about how great it WAS.

  9. nyp says:

    Yeah, just you wait — one of these days, everything will be terrible!

  10. Bill Shuster says:

    Harry Reid ought to know about vote tampering! He has been depending on it for at least the last four re-elections for him.

  11. Bill says:

    Leave it to Harry to always, always, always frame all issues as a political issue of those rascally Republicans potentially stealing the election from Hillary and giving it to that awful Donald Trump. Harry knows about contested elections. He has been in a few. In order to electronically “steal” an election it probably would be necessary to hack into one or more of the individual State systems, as each state has it’s own system. It is not a “federal” system but 50 individual state systems. Nevada might be in better shape than some other states as our electronic system does make provision for a paper printout.

  12. But do the electronic results match the paper printout, which no one ever checks.

  13. Steve says:

    Dunno bout you, I read the paper as it scrolls.

    I am under the impression it exists in case a “hanging chad” situation occurs.

  14. Patrick says:

    Ah those blessed states. Factories of justice and truth I tells ya. Thank The Lord above that we ain’t got no national standards for elections cause those 50 individual states ensure truth justice and the American way!

    Funny that, as the article says, you never heard nothing about fraud in elections in North Carolina, and certainly nothing about bringing photo IDs to the polling places till blacks and other minorities started voting for candidates of the democratic party.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/inside-the-republican-creation-of-the-north-carolina-voting-bill-dubbed-the-monster-law/2016/09/01/79162398-6adf-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html

  15. Patrick says:

    “A 2013 report by North Carolina’s Board of Elections showed that between 2000 and 2012, out of nearly 40 million votes cast, only two cases of in-person voter fraud were referred to a district attorney.”

    2 out of 40 MILLION and yet, the party of “fewer regulations” and “cut gov’ment, cut gov’ment, cut gov’ment absolutely DEMANDS an increase in regulations, demands an increase in gov’ment, and an increase in cost.

    Thee people are really evil.

  16. Bill says:

    I’m ignoring the prattle of Patrick who has no interest other than obfuscating invective but to Thomas, insofar as I know, I don’t think that the Secretary of State nor a local election board has ever had occasion to match the printed ballots with the electronic but theoretically at least, I think that it is possible to do so. It is an interesting question and perhaps someone who has specific knowledge is in a position to provide an answer.

  17. An unknown won two counties in the the 4th Congressional District GOP primary in 2014, but no one bothered to check the results against the printouts.

  18. Patrick says:

    So Bills ignoring my prattle, but feels obliged to point that out (apparently he thinks everyone here is to stupid to know that if he hadn’t made a point of trying to insult me, that we wouldn’t realize that he was ignoring me)

    Well Bill, I won’t pretend that I’m ignoring you, so let me just say that what you wrote is consistent with the partisan garbage you usually write.

    Don’t ever change.

  19. Bill says:

    I wasn’t ignoring you. I simply was not writing a response to you but was responding to Thomas. Sorry you felt insulted by my refusal to respond to what I considered to not be a relevant comment on the issue under discussion. I guess you don’t really see any irony in what you have written.

  20. Patrick says:

    I do see something odd about a person saying that they’re ignoring something yes. I mean, is there irony there?

    If not, I guess that explains how you can constantly condemn partisanship all the while consistently making partisan statements.

  21. Steve says:

    oh darn,

    Patrick is butt hurt.

    I feel so sad for him.

    not

  22. Patrick says:

    Ah those wonderful, wonderful 50 factories of “innovation”.

    Thank God, rather than a national standard, for conducting elections, we allow the lunatics the keys to the asylum.

    “The Supreme Court on Friday refused to allow Michigan to ban voters from casting straight-ticket ballots in the coming election after lower courts found the prohibition was likely to discriminate against African Americans and result in long lines at the polls.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rejects-michigan-ban-on-straight-ticket-voting/2016/09/09/7ce6bff6-7533-11e6-be4f-3f42f2e5a49e_story.html

    Maybe a different state can, I don’t know, say try to ban anyone with kinky hair from voting due to concerns with eyes being poked out? Makes as much sense as the above anyway.

  23. Barbara says:

    Article 1 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:

    The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

    A federal district judge in Michigan overturned Michigan’s state election laws mandating that the ballots give the option to vote a straight party ticket. He ruled that by not allowing this option, the state legislature had discriminated against African Americans. The district judge, along with a panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld his ruling, opined that the lack of such an option, which is not even offered in many other states, violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

    I guess they think African Americans are too dumb to know if a candidate is a Democrat or Republican. And apparently 6 justices on the Supreme Court agree as they refused to overturn the stay on the ruling. Again Roberts and Kennedy show they are not originalists and will allow the courts to meddle where they do not belong. The States need to assert their power by calling a Convention of States as outlined in Article V to pass amendments to curtail the tyranny of the courts and federal government.

  24. Bill says:

    The SCOTUS merely refused to hear the Michigan Case. The Michigan Legislature passed a law stating that voters could not cast a straight party ticket by simply casting one vote. Michigan sought to do what 40 other States do, prohibit the casting of a straight party vote by checking one box and not even reading the ballot. The lower court had said the law should not be enforced because it would cause long lines and delays in black neighborhood. My comment: Nothing like the soft prejudice of lowered expectations.

  25. Barbara says:

    So the bottom line is that by not issuing the stay, SCOTUS allowed the manner in which the elections in Michigan would be held to be dictated by one man, and they gutted the power of the state legislature.

    This judge facilitated Democratic Control of elections through a racist agenda. Asinine. This is more than just soft prejudice; it is cruel and oppressive government; a further weakening of our constitutional protections against tyranny.

  26. Steve says:

    Weeds

    But it seems to me having one box for “D” or “R” only keeps the current power structure in control.

    Remember, the founders had real issues with “party” politics.

  27. Bill says:

    Steve, the one box is particularly suited to low information voters or voters who are voting as per instructions or in places where political machines and political bosses tell the voters how to vote.

    What is reprehensible (as Barbara points out) in the lower court decision which the SCOTUS let stand is that the lower court impliedly said that African Americans are too uneducated or not intelligent enough to read a ballot in its entirety. Interestingly, the court didn’t say anything about American Indians, Hispanics, Asians or any other group.

    The logic of the lower court exhibits and endorses the idea that black voters cannot process complex matters as quickly or efficiently as whites.

    That is what I call “soft” racism. And, while it may be soft, it is no less racist.

    In my opinion, In order to exhibit prejudice, you don’t have to discriminate by an actual hostile act but, in my view, you can express prejudice by an act or attitude which says that a particular class of citizen should not be held to the same standard as others.

    That lowered standard is justified in cases of persons such as those with disabilities but not races of people.

    The lower court, in my opinion, showed itself to be racially prejudiced by saying that to force black people to read an entire ballot was prejudicial.

    I do not approve of prejudice nor racism in any form from any source.

  28. Steve says:

    Interesting because I see it as a way to hold power in a concentrated group.

    I think our views compliment each other and include those expressed by Barbara, Bill.

  29. Bill says:

    It is that too and agree that you, I and Barbara seem to somewhat overlap. .

    Now maybe we ought to get into a discussion about how the Presidential Debate Committee, it’s makeup and rules are all designed to protect the two major political parties from third parties emerging..

    And Barbara, you posed a whole lot of questions to me and I have not responded because I have simply not had the time to do so but will try to give you a cogent reply. .

  30. nyp says:

    so Michigan had straight-ticket voting for 125 years but, all of a sudden, the Republican-controlled legislature and Governor decided to prohibit it.
    Gee, I wonder why?

  31. nyp says:

    Another question: as you defend attempt after attempt by Republican-controlled state legislatures to make it harder and harder for people to vote, do you guys ever ask yourselves why African-Americans refuse to vote to Republicans?

  32. Barbara says:

    How has any Republican controlled state legislature made it harder for people to vote? Even the Jim Crow laws were implemented by Democrats – not Republicans. It was Republican controlled legislatures that repealed Jim Crow and pushed the Civil Rights Act in Congress.

  33. Barbara says:

    One other thought NYP and Steve – This ruling has great importance not so much because of the individual result. The tragedy is that people do not recognize that our courts are grabbing power they were never meant to have. Is no one outraged that one federal judge bolstered by a federal circuit court and even our Supreme Court have neutered the Michigan elected representatives?

    Perhaps Michigan should disband their state legislature and allow the appointed federal officials to issue all laws. Why have state legislatures at all since they are becoming more and more irrelevant? As long as the feds leave our little space alone, we’d be okay with that right? No need to get down in the weeds.

  34. Nyp says:

    Lyndon Johnson and the 1965 Congress were Republicans? Who knew?

  35. Steve says:

    Guess Nyp would vote the R column if Clinton was running as a Repub.

  36. Barbara says:

    Giving Johnson and the Democratic Party credit for passing civil rights legislation is on par with crediting Bill Clinton with welfare reform. Facts:

    1. Congress first passed civil rights legislation in 1866. No Democrat voted for the bill and the Republican controlled Congress over-rode a presidential veto by Democrat Andrew Johnson.

    2. A Republican controlled Congress passed legislation enforcing the 15th amendment in 1870 with no Democrat support.

    3. “Complete liberty and exact equality in the enjoyment of all civil, polit

    ical and public rights should be established and effectually maintained throughout the Union by efficient and appropriate state and federal legislation. Neither the law nor its administration should admit any discrimination in respect of citizens by reason of African Americans, creed, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Republican Party platform of 1872

    4. The Republican Congress passed, with no Democratic support, more civil rights legislation in 1875, part of which was later struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    “All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal and enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement…applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.”

    5. In the 1920s and 1930s, several anti-lynching bills failed to pass due to Democratic led fillibusters in the U.S. Senate.

    6. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was passed and signed into law by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower was a key player in desegreting institutions in the south

    http://www.politico.com/story/2007/09/eisenhower-was-key-desegregation-figure-005885

    Democrats, particularly southern Democrats, were led kicking and screaming to enact Civil Rights legislation. As President Obama said of Lyndon Johnson, ” “During his first 20 years in Congress,” Obama said, “he opposed every civil rights bill that came up for a vote, once calling the push for federal legislation a farce and a shame.”

    To answer your previous question as to why African Americans don’t vote for more Republicans – perhaps like you they don’t bother to study the history of the Democratic Party and it’s policies.

  37. Nyp says:

    Good point, Barbara — those African-American voters must simply be ignorant. They just don’t understand what is in their own best interest.

    BTW, what was the position of the Republican nominee in 1964 on the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

  38. Barbara says:

    Barry Goldwater supported the Civil Rights Act with the exception of Title II and VII. His personal feelings about discrimination are enshrined in the congressional record where he states, “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard…”

    He correctly foresaw that these provisions would lead to quotas and affirmative action and would result in an erosion of racial equality and acceptance. Correctly, I believe, he felt the federal government is limited in what it could constitutionally achieve. Real change is brought about through societal pressure on those who practiced such amoral acts. He was not a proponent that the ends justify the means.

    Likewise, he fought against racial discrimination in his home state of Arizona. He supported integration of the Arizona National Guard and the public school systems. He was active in the NAACP as well as the Urban National League.

  39. Barbara says:

    Here is an excellent article by Dr. Eric M Wallace discussing Goldwater’s conservative ideology of human nature being both material and spiritual. “Man’s development, in both spiritual and material aspects, is not something that can be directed by outside forces.”

    Conservative vs. the Borg

    http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/04/conservatism-vs.html

  40. Nyp says:

    Ah. So he opposed the Civil Rights Act.
    And so do you — after 50 years!

    Pretty much answers the question why African-Americans don’t vote republican.

  41. Barbara says:

    Nyp your shallowness is showing. I hardly believe that I have the ability to influence the voting preferences of a whole race of people!

  42. NYP says:

    Hey – I assume you also think the Fair Housing Act was another violation of our God-given civil liberties. Amirite?

  43. Barbara says:

    Let’s assume the federal district judge had issued a ruling stating that all candidates must be identified by race, age, gender, and sexual orientation because not doing so would violate the 14th amendment. The ballot would have to allow straight ticket voting for all these categories because not allowing a straight ticket would discriminate against each protected class. Would you support this ruling?

  44. Steve says:

    Nyp “assumes”

    all hail “honesty” !

  45. Amusing hypothetical, Babs.

  46. Also, liked the Goldwater lecture.

  47. nyp says:

    I can make neither heads nor tails of your hypothetical, so I cannot respond to it. It literally makes not sense.

  48. Steve says:

    Can’t refute it?

    Claim ignorance!

  49. nyp says:

    Your Goldwater “lecture” left out the best part about his opposition to the most important and transformative piece of civil rights legislation since the 14th Amendment: his fervent belief that the Civil Rights Act would turn America into a Stalinist police state:
    “To give genuine effect to the prohibitions of tho bill will require the creation of a Federal police force of mammoth proportions. It also bids fair to result in the development of an “informer” psychology in great areas of our national life–neighbors spying on neighbors, workers spying on workers, businessmen spying on businessen, where those who would dharass their fellow citizens for selfish and narrow purposes will have ample inducement to do so. These, the Federal police force and an “informer” psychology, are the hallmarks of the police state and landmarks in the destruction of a free society.”

    How right he was. Since 1964, its been like “Darkness at Noon” around here.

  50. nyp says:

    do you also agree with Goldwater that Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided?

  51. Barbara says:

    Goldwater was very prophetic. I also am rather fond of Dr. Wallace’s depiction of modern liberals with the Borg:

    “Gone was any individualistic idea, hopes, aspirations or achievement. Gone was any ethnic or cultural distinctiveness. They were all part of the collective. They were men and women without souls. Joining this collective was not optional, as they would always proclaim, “resistance is futile.”

    Opens up a whole new meaning to certain Star Trek episodes.

    Seriously NYP can you not understand agreeing with the result while vehemently opposing the means which brings about the result. Our Constitution is based on Federalism.

    I may agree that there are times when children should be seen and not heard, but that doesn’t mean I would cut out their tongues to achieve this end.

    Using the federal courts to bring about societal change is akin to cutting out children’s tongues to ensure their silence. Would such children not act out in other ways to make themselves heard?

  52. nyp says:

    OK, so it looks like you agree with Goldwater that Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided. Thomas Mitchell won’t say so directly, but I’m pretty sure he is with you on this one.

    Now that’s what i call deplorable!

  53. Steve says:

    Assumption and prejudice.

    Nyp has become what he claims to so dislike.

  54. Bill says:

    You are right Barbara. And, don’t forget that it was a Republican, Abraham Lincoln who fought the Civil War to abolish slavery. Just as a matter of general information, recent Legislative or State Action on straight Ticket Voting (STV) shows that the number of states offering straight ticket voting has been declining in popularity over time. Most recently, Wisconsin eliminated it in 2011, North Carolina in 2013, Rhode Island in 2014 and West Virginia in 2015.
    Georgia – abolished STV in 1994.
    Illinois – abolished STV in 1997.
    Indiana – abolished STV for at-large races in 2016 (SB 61)
    Missouri – abolished STV in 2006.
    New Hampshire – abolished STV in 2007.
    New Mexico – secretary of state decided not to offer a straight-ticket option in beginning with the November 2012 election. While it has historically been offered by tradition, it is not required by the state statutes or constitution.
    North Carolina – abolished STV in 2014 as part of 2013 legislation (HB 589).
    Rhode Island – abolished STV in 2015 as part of 2014 legislation (HB 8072).
    South Dakota – abolished STV in 1996.
    Wisconsin – abolished STV in 2011, effective for November 2012 elections. STV will remain available for UOCAVA voters.
    West Virginia – abolished STV in 2015 (SB 249).

    I am sure that the propagandists will insist that these were all Republican Legislatures and Republican Governors out to disenfranchise minorities but I rather doubt it.

    A question that should be asked is what overwhelming public interest is served by STV?

    And, the lower court’s decision is and was racist.

  55. Barbara says:

    Brown vs. Board of Education was correctly decided to overturn an early Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. Once the federal government goes down the unconstitutional road of meddling in areas not intended, it opens the door to government by current opinion of the sitting justices.

    The real story of the history of the Civil Rights Act:

    http://therightscoop.com/must-listen-mark-levin-tells-the-truth-about-the-1964-civil-rights-act-says-lbj-was-a-sleazy-human-being/

  56. Steve says:

    Most in Massachusetts (I was raised there) weren’t very happy with LBJ after 11/22/63

  57. Bill says:

    Just a little history lesson Nyp.

    The 1964 Civil Rights Act was an update of Republican Senator Charles Sumner’s 1875 Civil Rights Act. In striking down that law in 1883, the SCOTUS had ruled that the 14th amendment was not sufficient constitutional authorization, so the 1964 version had to be written in such a way as to rely instead on the interstate commerce clause for its constitutional underpinning.

    Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced the Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson warned Democrats in Congress that this time it was all or nothing. To ensure support from Republicans, he had to promise them that he would not accept any weakening of the bill and also that he would publicly credit the Republican Party for its role in securing congressional approval. Johnson played no direct role in the legislative fight, so that it would not be perceived as a partisan struggle. There was no doubt that the House of Representatives would pass the bill.

    In the Senate, Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen had little trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill. Democrats Senate Majority Leader Michael Mansfield and Senator Hubert Humphrey led the Democrat drive for passage, while the chief opponents were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, of later Watergate fame, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former Klansman whom Democrats outrageously still call “the conscience of the Senate”, filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote. The House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 126, a vote in which 79% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting no. President Johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964.

    Overall, there was little overt resistance to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The struggle was not yet over, however, as most southern state governments remained under the control of segregationist Democrats. It was a Republican federal judge who was most responsible for desegregating the South’s public schools. Appointed by President Eisenhower in 1955, Frank Johnson had overturned Montgomery, Alabama’s infamous “blacks in the back of the bus” law in his very first decision. During the 1960s, Judge Johnson continued to advance civil rights despite opposition from George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and other Democrat Governors.

    a little history lesson nyp.

  58. nyp says:

    Thank you, but I already know all that.

  59. Bill says:

    Just curious of the relevancy of your question to Barbara about the position of the 1964 Republican Presidential candidate? And if you already knew the history of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, then perhaps you are being a bit disingenuous in your posts. Are you willing to admit that but for the Republicans in Congress the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not have passed?

  60. Steve says:

    Nyp being slippery?

    Say it ain’t so!

  61. Bill says:

    This has been most interesting and educational. Thank you, especially, Barbara. Right now, I am leaving you all to continue on while I have a martini or two and a steak and watch the taped game of UNR being thoroughly trounced by Notre Dame.

    When I come back tomorrow, I’ll be curious if NYP will give the Republicans credit for the 1964 Civil Rights Act or simply continue the partisan denial.

  62. Steve says:

    I’m betting on silence or partisan denial.

  63. Barbara says:

    Hey Guys,

    Ran across this article on the website Federalist.com. It turns out being a “right wing” women has more benefits than one might have guessed. Just saying liberals – another reason appreciate conservative women!

    12 Reasons Science Shows Conservative Women Have The Best Sex

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/08/12-reasons-science-shows-conservative-women-best-sex/

  64. nyp says:

    Yes, it is true that before 1964 there were many moderate and liberal Republicans, just as it is also true that in the century after the Civil War racist Democrats in the South consistently blocked Civil Right legislation. Nothing at all controversial about that. It is a historical truism.

    It is also historically true that the Democratic Party’s turn towards civil rights — a turn that began with Eleanor Roosevelt and Hubert Humphrey — drove Southern Democrats out of the party and into the Republican Party just as the GOP was being taken over by conservatives dedicated to driving out the liberal and moderate Republicans who had allied with LBJ and the northern Democrats to pass the great Civil Rights bills of the 1960s.

    In 1960 Phyllis Schlafy (to take a famous name lately in the news,) had helped lead a conservative revolt against a party platform opposing segregation and racial discrimination in voting and housing. In ’64, she and her fellow
    conservatives succeeded in defeating platform amendments endorsing the enforcement of the Civil Rights Act. By 1969, the GOP was implementing the Southern Strategy that locked up the South for two generations. By the 1970s, racially-obsessed Southerners had pretty much completed their migration to the GOP.

    Of course, people like Barbara (and, I would think, Thomas Mitchell,) have a schizophrenic approach to Civil Rights history. They want the GOP to be properly credited for achievements like the Civil Rights Act, but they still consider civil rights legislation to be a totalitarian outrage that has led to the death of freedom.

  65. Steve says:

    Partisan denial!

    nice.

    And Barbara,
    number 13 is, conservatives will get out a ruler and check the claims!

  66. Barbara says:

    Trust by verify!

  67. Barbara says:

    Oops. Trust but verify!

  68. Nyp says:

    I guess that in “Brown v. Board” it was OK for Thurgood Marshall to use the courts to bring about social change. It wasn’t like cutting the tounges out of children at all. Similarly with Judge Frank Johnson’s landmark rulings.

    Today, however, when people go to court to fight GOP voter suppression laws, it’s completely different.

  69. Steve says:

    Yeah, Nyp.
    I agree, we need to remove the ID requirement from the voter REGISTRATION process…..

    smh

  70. Barbara says:

    NYP – Alinsky Rule 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” One question. Does the end always justify the means?

  71. Nyp says:

    No, it does not.
    Is that why you oppose civil rights laws?

  72. Barbara says:

    Your are incorrect in your assertion that I oppose civil rights laws. I believe the federal government is constitutionally limited in this area, but state and local communities are the proper forum. I also do not believe enacting legislation is the most successful way of bringing about social change, and can even have the opposite effect of what is intended.

    There is a place for federal legislation. For example, I believe Roosevelt violated the civil rights of Japanese Americans when his executive order 9066 was used to force relocation of over 100,000 citizens of Japanese descent in internment camps. Of course, his actions were already prohibited (not to mention militarily unneccessary) under the Constitution.

    Similarly most hate crime legislation is already proscribed within state statutes where it should be and not at the federal level. These types of laws have the unintended consequences of causing racial, gender, and sexual discrimination.

  73. nyp says:

    So, your position is as follows:
    1. As a general rule, federal civil rights laws are somehow unconstitutional.
    2. Nevertheless, you are in favor of civil rights laws, but only at the state and local level, where history has shown that local officals are far more solicitous of the rights of persecuted minority groups.
    3. However, in general, civil rights laws are bad, because they do not work and even have the opposite effect of what is intended.

    Hmmm

  74. Barbara says:

    Federal civil rights law (and many court decisions) would make the Constitution a race-conscious document when it should be a color blind document. Our Declaration declared we are all equal. The Constitution which gives structure to the Declaration should remain color blind.

    In fact I would go one step further and do away with reporting race on our Census and in government institutions. I see these things as dividing us and as Bill would state I see no compelling state interest to do so. A student is a student. A criminal is a criminal. Why do we need to know how many white students vs black students we have? Does the color of ones skin determine how a student is taught, what they are taught, or what they are expected to learn?

    Real change is not brought about through legislation. Example – my great-grandfather was thought to be of German descent (actually emigrated from Northern Italy in 1902 but spoke German and Italian). During WWII, the local pharamist refused to sell medicine to him for my great-grandmother who was ill because he was a “Kraut”. Several of his neighbors made a trip to town and explained things to the pharmacist.. My great-grandmother got her medicine. The pharmacist never refused to sell anything to my family again and life went on.

    The existence of a law can have the unintended consequence of suppressing the acknowledgement of one’s moral responsibility toward a fellow citizen.

  75. Nyp says:

    In other words, I have accurately stated Barbara’s “position ”

    Okey-dokey, then

  76. Bill says:

    Good comment Barbara. As for reportage, I would be happier if when someone does something heinous, that they seem never to report that the perpetrator was a former, soldier, sailor, airman or draft dodger but always seem to recite that it was a former Marine. Just kidding.

    I do agree that we should be color blind and that color blindness should be a view that should be seen from both directions regardless of what race, color or creed the viewer might be.

    There may well be instances where every perceived wrong must have a legal remedy is not a good thing and does not add to the stability and structure of a society. Politicians would do better to first use their bully pulpits to persuade. Laws always and inevitably must have the threat of force behind them.

    So many of our laws and the ensuing implementating regulations do little more than enrich the attorneys, empower the bureaucrats to build bigger power bases and encourage persons to try to win the legal lottery of a huge award or settlement for what can be a relatively harmless or specious transgression or omission. It is simply a reality of today’s legal system that litigation is some times brought, not because of merit, but because it is cheaper to settle than fight and there is no down side for doing so.

  77. Steve says:

    Nyp’s longer arms are on order!

  78. Nyp says:

    Since there isn’t any more racism or other forms of discrimination left in our society this all makes sense.

  79. Steve says:

    Laws trying to make all that stuff go away have been SOOO successful.

    Cancel the order.

    No patting your self on the back for that comment, nyp.

  80. Nyp says:

    I wonder if there could possibly be a connection between the federal laws banning discrimination on the basis of sex and race and the very impressive gains that women and African -Americans have made since the 1960s.

    Na, must just be a coincidence

  81. Steve says:

    Considering the current state of the African American inner city communities, Thurgood Marshal might argue that contention.

    And women were well on their way to breaking that so called glass ceiling well before the 1960’s as Jane Addams would tell you.

  82. Barbara says:

    And all without the federal Equal Rights Amendment .

  83. Steve says:

    And the Equal Rights amendment was first proposed in the 1920’s.

    Some people insist on believing things all happen at once.

  84. Nyp says:

    Only an idiot would say that African-Americans haven’t made enormous strides economically and socially since the days of Jim Crow.

  85. Barbara says:

    “Academics and the media blame poverty and discrimination for today’s crime,” writes Williams. “No one bothers to ask why crime was falling in the 1930s, ’40s, and ’50s, when blacks faced far greater poverty and discrimination.”

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/williams-academics-media-wrong-blame-crime-poverty-discrimination

    Now, on to school integration and its effect on minority achievement. The typical leftist argument is actually a racist one: “Blacks, their logic implies, cannot achieve academic excellence unless they go out and capture a white kid to sit next to their kids.” Progressives like to speak out against white privilege until their above logic is exposed.

    It seems to me that blacks made enormous economic gains under Reagan’s economic policies.

    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20040611/news_lz1e11perkins.html

    But the reality is, the 1980s, with a conservative, free-market Republican in the White House, were a boom time for black America.

    Indeed, Andrew Brimmer, the Harvard-trained black economist, the former Federal Reserve Board member, estimated that total black business receipts increased from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987, translating into an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent (compared to 5 percent for all U.S. businesses.

  86. Steve says:

    When they resort to “idiot” and “stupid” it shows they really haven’t got anything at all.

  87. nyp says:

    Gee, I guess that proves that laws banning discrimination don’t accomplish anything.

  88. nyp says:

    BTW, accoding to today’s
    Census data report, the number of uninsured Americans fell by 4 million in 2015, on top of a nearly 9 million drop the year before, with the share of Americans without insurance falling to an all-time low of 9.1 percent.
    At the same time, the typical household’s income rose by a stunning 5.2 percent, or $2,798, the largest increase in median income in both percentage and dollar terms ever recorded, with data back to 1967. The poverty rate fell from 14.8 percent to 13.5 percent, tying the record for the largest improvement since 1968.

    I blame that job-killing ObamaCare.

  89. Steve says:

    And those laws banning drugs accomplished…….

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s