1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Inside the Racist Republican Voter ID Sham in North Carolina

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by CometsWin, Sep 7, 2016.

  1. CometsWin

    CometsWin Imperial cereal killer
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    25,549
    Likes Received:
    7,483
    So scumbag'ish. They created this bill and had it on hold waiting for Scalia and his minions on the Supreme Court to weaken the Voting Rights Act and they quickly moved to target minorities to curb their ability to vote.

    Inside the Republican creation of the North Carolina voting bill dubbed the ‘monster’ law

    RALEIGH, N.C. — The emails to the North Carolina election board seemed routine at the time.

    “Is there any way to get a breakdown of the 2008 voter turnout, by race (white and black) and type of vote (early and Election Day)?” a staffer for the state’s Republican-controlled legislature asked in January 2012.

    “Is there no category for ‘Hispanic’ voter?” a GOP lawmaker asked in March 2013 after requesting a range of data, including how many voters cast ballots outside their precinct.

    And in April 2013, a top aide to the Republican House speaker asked for “a breakdown, by race, of those registered voters in your database that do not have a driver’s license number.”

    Months later, the North Carolina legislature passed a law that cut a week of early voting, eliminated out-of-precinct voting and required voters to show specific types of photo ID — restrictions that election board data demonstrated would disproportionately affect African Americans and other minorities.

    Critics dubbed it the “monster” law — a sprawling measure that stitched together various voting restrictions being tested in other states. As civil rights groups have sued to block the North Carolina law and others like it around the country, several thousand pages of documents have been produced under court order, revealing the details of how Republicans crafted these measures.

    A review of these documents shows that North Carolina GOP leaders launched a meticulous and coordinated effort to deter black voters, who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. The law, created and passed entirely by white legislators, evoked the state’s ugly history of blocking African Americans from voting — practices that had taken a civil rights movement and extensive federal intervention to stop.

    Last month, a three-judge federal appeals panel struck down the North Carolina law, calling it “the most restrictive voting law North Carolina has seen since the era of Jim Crow.” Drawing from the emails and other evidence, the 83-page ruling charged that Republican lawmakers had targeted “African Americans with almost surgical precision.”

    Gov. Pat McCrory (R) filed an emergency petition to restore the law, but a deadlocked Supreme Court on Wednesday refused his stay request, meaning the law will not be in effect for the Nov. 8 election. Because the lower court did not offer specific guidelines for reinstating early voting, however, local election boards run by Republicans are still trying to curb access to the polls.

    In lengthy interviews, GOP leaders insisted their law is not racially motivated and their goal was to combat voter fraud. They called their opponents demagogues, who are using the specter of racism to inflame the issue.

    “You didn’t hear about fraud in North Carolina until blacks started voting in large numbers,” said Barber, who has also led a series of large protests against the law. “Then all of a sudden, there’s a problem with how people are voting.”


    “People keep asking, ‘When they passed this law, were they racist in their heart?’ It doesn’t matter,” he added. “You look at the heart of their policies. If I tell you this law is going to affect black people more than anyone else, and you still go ahead and do it, you yourself are making clear exactly what you are.”

    Longtime Republican consultant Carter Wrenn, a fixture in North Carolina politics, said the GOP’s voter fraud argument is nothing more than an excuse.

    “Of course it’s political. Why else would you do it?” he said, explaining that Republicans, like any political party, want to protect their majority. While GOP lawmakers might have passed the law to suppress some voters, Wrenn said, that does not mean it was racist.

    “Look, if African Americans voted overwhelmingly Republican, they would have kept early voting right where it was,” Wrenn said. “It wasn’t about discriminating against African Americans. They just ended up in the middle of it because they vote Democrat.”

    Barber, though, argued that Republicans are playing with words.

    “You can’t expect racists to come right out and sound like racists,” he said. “They’ve substituted the word ‘racial’ with the word ‘political.’ ”

    Fights over race and voting rights are nothing new in North Carolina. Its history — like those of many Southern states — is littered with laws and policies specifically designed to deter black voters: literacy tests, poll taxes and required recitations of the preamble of the Constitution.

    The Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned many of these practices. But as recently as the mid-1990s, voter turnout among African Americans here remained low, with only 37 percent voting compared with 48 percent of whites.

    In the late 1990s, when Democrats controlled the legislature, the state tried to make voting easier for all residents. The new rules allowed voting before Election Day, same-day voter registration and the counting of votes cast in the wrong precinct.

    The laws ended up helping black voters more because they often face more financial and logistical barriers, said Rep. Henry “Mickey” Michaux, 85, one of the state’s first black legislators, who helped pass many of the new voting rules. “Some folks don’t own a car. Some have the type of job where you can’t take a day off.”

    With the new laws, voter turnout in North Carolina went from 43rd place in the nation to 11th. The increase was especially big among black voters.


    Then, in 2010, North Carolina experienced a seismic political shift: Republicans took control of the House and Senate for the first time since 1898. For years, GOP legislators said, they had watched Republicans in other states such as Georgia and Indiana pass voter ID laws. Now they had the power to do the same in Raleigh.

    House Speaker Thom Tillis and Senate Leader Phil Berger tapped Rep. David Lewis, a tobacco and cotton farmer from the rural center of the state, to oversee the effort to pass a voter ID bill. In 2011, legislators passed a law requiring all voters to produce a photo ID, such as a driver’s license. But the state’s governor, then still a Democrat, vetoed the bill.

    In an interview, Lewis said he was driven by a deep concern about voter fraud, particularly people showing up at polls and deliberately impersonating another person. But there is little evidence that such fraud is a problem. 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.

    Lewis and other Republicans insist fraud could be happening all the same.

    “Just because it’s not documented doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist,” he said.

    So in 2012, when McCrory won the governor’s office, Lewis and others tried again.

    Within months of McCrory’s victory, emails show, the state election board began receiving requests for demographic data from a top aide to Tillis named Ray Starling and a group of GOP lawmakers, including Lewis and state Reps. Tim Moore and Harry Warren.

    They asked for statistics on voter behavior broken down by race: Who voted early, and who voted on Election Day? Who voted out of precinct?

    They asked about what kinds of people were registered to vote but did not have a driver’s license. They asked about student ID cards — which some states allow as a form of voter ID — and how many African Americans had them.


    Moore did not respond to requests for comment. Lewis, Warren and Tillis said they requested the data to make sure their bill would not violate federal laws against discrimination.

    Over several email exchanges, state researchers told GOP legislators that between 318,643 and 612,955 registered voters appeared to lack IDs issued by the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles. And the data attached showed that the percentage of black people at risk of losing their vote under the new law was much higher than that of whites.

    In another email exchange, officials at the University of North Carolina received a data request that came from Lewis.

    “I was asked by a State Representative about the number of Student ID cards that are created and the % of those who are African American,” a university official says to his lower staff. No explanation is given for why Lewis needs the data, just a plea to hurry on it. “He needs it in 2 hours or less.”

    But for all the keen interest Republicans expressed in emails about voting methods heavily used by minority voters, the law they drafted in April 2013 at first did not touch any of it. Instead, it focused initially only on voter IDs.

    Once that early version of HB 589 passed the House, it sat for two months in North Carolina’s Senate. When reporters asked about the delay, Tom Apodaca, the Republican chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, pointed to one reason: the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Under a decades-old provision in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — called Section 5 — Southern states like North Carolina with a history of voter discrimination could not change election laws without the approval of federal officials.

    But in the spring of 2013, as North Carolina Republicans were working on their bill, a court case — called Shelby v. Holder — was being argued before the Supreme Court that threatened the very existence of Section 5.

    On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its ruling on the case, nullifying Section 5. Explaining the court’s 5-to-4 decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that “history did not end in 1965” when the Voting Rights Act was passed. In the decades since then, he said, “voting tests were abolished, disparities in voter registration and turnout due to race were erased, and African-Americans attained political office in record numbers.”

    In North Carolina, within hours of the court ruling, Apodaca told local reporters, “Now we can go with the full bill.” With the “legal headache” of Section 5 out of the way, he said, a more extensive “omnibus” bill would soon be introduced in the Senate.

    Weeks later, at 9 p.m. on a Monday, five days before the end of the legislative session, Republican lawmakers emailed out their new version of HB 589.

    Democratic state Sen. Josh Stein remembers getting the email while sitting at his kitchen table that night, already dressed for bed. “My jaw just hit the table.”

    The bill had grown from 16 pages to 57, tacking on more than 50 new parts. The new bill shortened early voting by half, cutting one of the Sundays when black churches held their “Souls to Polls” drives. It eliminated same-day registration and out-of-
    precinct voting.

    It also proposed changes that, to Stein and other opponents, made no sense unless you were purposely trying to discourage voting. For example, it canceled an existing rule that let 16- and 17-year-old high schoolers pre-register to vote in civics classes or when they got driver’s licenses. And it took away counties’ ability to extend poll hours on Election Day during extraordinary circumstances such as long lines.


    On the next day, a hearing on the bill was packed. Republicans in charge began by giving the crowd one white piece of paper with 10 lines on it. Only 10 people would be given the chance to talk, they explained, with just two minutes each. That total of 20 minutes, it later turned out, would be the only public testimony Republicans allowed on the revised bill.

    During the hearing, Stein read into the legislative record studies and statistics to show the bill would disproportionately hurt African American, minority and younger voters. The idea, he said, was to show that Republicans knew exactly what they were doing and lay the groundwork for the legal battle ahead.

    On the Senate side, Republican Sen. Bob Rucho was tasked with defending the bill. “I don’t agree with your premise,” he told Stein and other critics, “and secondly, I don’t look at race as who’s going to vote. What we’re trying to do is make sure that we have an equal opportunity for every single person to vote, and it’s not designed on race in any manner.”

    In the space of three days, Republicans managed to get HB 589 approved by the Senate Rules Committee, passed in a Senate floor vote and sent back to the House for a final vote on the second-to-last day of the legislative session.

    A federal court judge would later write, “Neither this legislature — nor, as far as we can tell, any other legislature in the country — has ever done so much, so fast, to restrict [voting] access.”

    On July 25, 2013, the bill passed the House, 73 to 41. Everyone who voted for the law was a white Republican, and every black member of the legislature voted against it.
    As the final vote was cast, Democratic representatives all stood up, held hands and bowed their heads in prayer.

    Rick Glazier, a white Democratic representative at the time, was on the House floor with Michaux, the black legislator who helped pass many of the voting-access laws being dismantled by HB 589. “I’ll never forget the look on his face. To see the thing you had fought for your whole career destroyed in a matter of days,” Glazier said. “He had tears in his eyes.”

    Lewis said he deeply resented critics who have painted the bill and its supporters as racist. “When Democrats were in power, I may not have agreed with them, but I never questioned them personally or tried to impugn their reputations,” he said.

    On the day McCrory signed HB 589 into law, the state’s NAACP chapter sued over the voter ID portion of the bill, while the League of Women Voters and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice challenged its other parts, such as cutting early voting, same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting. National lawyers from groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Advancement Project stepped in to help. The Justice Department later joined as well.

    In January, the federal district judge overseeing the consolidated cases sided with the Republicans and kept HB 589 in place. The judge, Thomas D. Schroeder — a George W. Bush appointee — said that Republicans offered plausible explanations for why they requested racial voting data and enacted the law.

    But on July 29, the three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit — all Democratic appointees — overturned Schroeder’s decision.

    North Carolina’s Republican leaders have condemned the 4th Circuit ruling and called its judges partisan.

    The stakes are high for both sides. With just weeks before early voting begins, McCrory is locked in a tight race for reelection against Roy Cooper, the state attorney general. As a swing state, North Carolina could also be pivotal in the presidential election.

    The Republican state Senate and House leaders said in a statement: “We can only wonder if the intent is to reopen the door for voter fraud, potentially allowing fellow Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton and Roy Cooper to steal the election.”

    Meanwhile, the years-long fight has metastasized into a county-by-county war throughout North Carolina.

    When the appellate court restored that week of early voting previously eliminated by HB 589, the judges did not specify what times or places the early voting would take place. Now, Republicans in many counties appear to be using that opening to carry out the intended cuts of HB 589 anyway.

    In recent weeks, after the 4th Circuit’s ruling, the election board in Guilford County tried to cancel Sunday voting and slash the number of polling sites, especially in black and student-heavy neighborhoods. After hundreds disrupted a meeting with chants and protest songs, the board passed a scaled-back compromise plan.

    Soon after, the election board in Wake County — which includes the state capital, Raleigh — tried a similar move by restricting the restored early voting days to a single location with limited parking.

    And in heavily African American Lenoir County, Republican election board members are trying to eliminate Sunday voting and evening hours and slash polling sites from four to one.

    When the Republican governor asked the Supreme Court to temporarily reinstate the restrictions of HB 589, he argued that the 4th Circuit struck down the law too close to Election Day, which threatened to create confusion.

    He was worried, he said, about the harmful effect it could have on voters.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. JayGoogle

    JayGoogle Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2007
    Messages:
    37,300
    Likes Received:
    15,092
    Yet Obama is the 'Divisive' one...right?
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    40,409
    Likes Received:
    6,089
    No kidding. Crazy stuff.
     
  4. Nook

    Nook Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    32,781
    Likes Received:
    32,521
    It shows you how important winning the Presidency is.... Federal court Judges are appointed and a majority of the time vote down party lines.... Obviously the Supreme Court importance has already been discussed.

    Politicians are going to do what it takes to protect their power and get reelected.
     
  5. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    25,955
    Likes Received:
    5,355
    So sad, just shows how fragile our democracy is. Given the opportunity, people will subvert it for personal gain.
     
  6. txtony

    txtony Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    10,520
    Likes Received:
    3,939
    Shameful. Is this the 'make american great again' ? No thx. American needs to continue to move fwd with being inclusive, not divisive. It's not just smart, it's the ethical and right thing to do.
     
  7. jayhow92

    jayhow92 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Messages:
    7,140
    Likes Received:
    1,705
    Disgusting
     
  8. dumbartonbass

    dumbartonbass Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    5,415
    Likes Received:
    1,962
    Just thought I'd post in this thread before the usual "Well, I have to show ID to buy a beer, why shouldn't I have to show it in order to vote" crowd arrives and attempts to totally distort the debate.

    This is shameful politics and emblematic of our awful zero-sum, win-at-all-costs two party mindset.
     
  9. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    30,577
    Likes Received:
    16,491
    Somehow I don't think we will see any of the alt-rights, er, conservatives posting in this thread...
     
  10. justtxyank

    justtxyank Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    40,076
    Likes Received:
    32,893
    I'm not black so I can only empathize with this, not truly understand how crushing it has to feel. To be an 85 year old black man who fought for voting rights, probably believing that America had come so far even if there was still more to do, and then now at what has to be close to the end of your life to see it all taken away....that had to be absolutely brutal for this man. His heart had to be breaking.
     
  11. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    25,955
    Likes Received:
    5,355
    I think it's telling that the right-wing posters here are staying away from this thread
     
  12. mdrowe00

    mdrowe00 Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,551
    Likes Received:
    1,188
    I actually believe that empathy is the entire point of this exercise.

    Part of the suggestion of "...moving on..." and "...getting over it..." constantly offered to black Americans involves displaying a sort of "empathy" that, at any opportunity, would not be (and has rarely ever been) afforded to any black person.

    I hear, often, a particular refrain from what I would assume are well-meaning white people...who would perhaps, given an opportunity, actually care very much to erase entirely the nation's history of racial oppression...specifically black racial oppression…an empathy for a white person’s pain and angst and anguish at having ungrateful and scurrilous Negroes like me gripe and complain about things that aren’t happening to them (as much) as they used to…

    ...but see, that's the thing about history. It's a notoriously hard thing to erase or forget about or get over, particularly in social orders. And when you endeavor to do so (be it through clever political machinations, or specious intellectual "debates"), as human beings are often wont to do, we end up invariably repeating the same actions we would like to tell ourselves we have moved beyond.

    That refrain I hear from time to time is: 'what can I do NOW (as a white person) to move things forward'?

    The very first thing to do, in my opinion, is to stop pretending that there's some distinction between honorable disagreement and racial prejudice.

    Our national history has seen this type of endeavor chronicled on more than one occasion in that past so many of us need to forget about (or more specifically, need others of us to forget about). And only when presented with the starkest examples to the contrary has there even been a shred of conscience kindled about what kind of nation we are and what kind of nation we wish to become.

    The underlying theme is the lengths people will go to, and the "morals" they will abandon, in the pursuit and acquisition of power. It marks a normal procession of logic to then suggest that this is a problem essentially of man's inhumanity to man, irrespective of race or creed or color. That's what we tell ourselves as people with a bit more general knowledge about certain things now than perhaps, say, even only 50 or 60 years ago, anyway.

    That's where the mistake is made.

    The overarching premise which undergirds that theme (in the context of American society) is the idea long accepted that black people (n!gger, colored, Negro...what-have-you) were in most regards an inferior "race" of people...a blight on the American landscape and psyche upon which there could be reached no salient cure or resolution for...

    …a “race” of people who, in good “American” conscience, could not go on being enslaved at the expense of the dignity of the nation...but could certainly be marginalized at every social and political opportunity…

    ...and despite any Negro's best (or worst) efforts...at the end of the day, he was still essentially just that...inferior.

    Incapable. Will-less. Soulless. Ignorant. Foolish. Useless.

    The mistake is believing that solving this “racial” problem is something other than what it is…a process. And apparently, a process constantly seeking to be pre-empted or interrupted or dismissed for the “angst” and “inconvenience” and “discomfort” of it to some people to be alleviated…otherwise called the Reconstruction era after the Civil War…

    Those that forget history, I’ve heard, are doomed to repeat it.

    For example, the speciousness of the “...race is a social construct…” argument leads to its ultimate examination by dint of the next questions that almost, by default, have to subsequently be asked of it: (1) Whose construct is it? Or Who constructed it? And (2) For what purpose was “race” constructed?

    Or the example of exceptions (or for black people, exceptional people) justifying or validating the rule. Not the “rule” that one can create his own destiny, but the rule that that destiny is subject to the discretion and/or scrutiny of the writer of the rule or the scorekeeper.

    Black people have to be “twice as good” at anything a white person does to get half as much credit for doing it. Ever heard that saying among Negroes?

    Know something I never heard an answer to, but always asked about? Why does a n!gger have to be twice as good at something if the standard is set by someone only half as good as me? Who’s making these rules?

    These “Republicans” who want to claim a racial history of tolerance and inclusion that they systematically deconstruct, and subsequently wish not to be challenged about their “integrity”, have already said what the standard was…reiterated and repackaged, but not altogether unheard of or unknown. They would rather have as many white voters (no matter what those voters’ motivations were) than to have a third of Negroes who could choose for themselves who best represented them. There is no intellectual basis required or needed or sought after. As Mark Twain said: “There are lies, damned lies and statistics.”

    Hm.

    What is it that somebody who is white…somebody who feels “uncomfortable” around black people…someone white who isn’t “responsible” for slavery…someone white who isn’t “racist” and doesn’t have a “racist” mindset? Someone white who just wants everybody to get along?

    Well, I would suggest to start by taking the same advice routinely doled out to all us ignorant, liberal, brainwashed Negroes (or half-negroes, or biracial whatchamacallits)…

    Stop pretending that this “race” problem isn’t your problem. Because all these “feelings” you might be having about them just confirms that they are your problems, too…and that for whatever reason, you are as responsible for their persistence as Negroes are responsible for letting the foxes into the henhouse. Because there are just as many white people who stay silent about their own prejudices and people they know who have them and set them on perches in government and feign some kind of disgust at their behavior (just as they did in the past), as there are Negroes who, instead of learning from the past, have sought to carry around the worst sentiments, and adopt the worst traits, of those who would only see them destroyed anyway.

    If there was ever a need for a “third political party” in this country, it should have been a “Civil Rights” party. All of these “libertarian” or “green party” or LGBT parties only came about because of a civil movement. And the only way for those civil issues to be addressed was to be set outside that “rich white man vs. poor white man” argument that still rages across this country, a hundred years or more after it was fought over. And Negroes aligning themselves exclusively with either a “democrat” or a “republican” gave away what this country always had the potential for, but often times seemed to lack.

    Conscience. And empathy.

    I get the old legislator’s dismay. And I get the praying. Strange thing about black folk…we seem to cling to that Christian thing more tightly than anything else in this world, on average. But the truth of the matter is that this is wholly within our sphere of influence…and the old guy, in his praying (as I suspect, if we are a “Christian” nation we all ought to do) should remember in his bible the gospel of Mark (13:35):

    “…Keep watch, for ye know not when the master returns…”
     
  13. ROXTXIA

    ROXTXIA Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2000
    Messages:
    16,887
    Likes Received:
    5,686
    Maybe they're in their coffins, waiting for sunset?
     
  14. TheRealist137

    TheRealist137 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    27,525
    Likes Received:
    8,013
    Where are all the right-wing posters that had so many opinions on voter ID law in threads previously made about this topic?
     
  15. RudyTBag

    RudyTBag Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Messages:
    23,626
    Likes Received:
    10,104
    Shame! Shame! Shame!
     
  16. REEKO_HTOWN

    REEKO_HTOWN I'm Rich Biiiiaaatch!

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    Messages:
    43,077
    Likes Received:
    11,252
    They are probably searching their Alt right news sources to see examples of ass backwards defense.
     
  17. JayGoogle

    JayGoogle Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2007
    Messages:
    37,300
    Likes Received:
    15,092
    Nah they won't show up.

    Just like my Dothan and Matthew Ajibade threads they go ghost quick. They are all about faking it but their silence is heard loud and clear.
     
  18. A_3PO

    A_3PO Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    41,148
    Likes Received:
    3,792
    They are waiting to be told what to say by their heroes.
     
  19. Liberon

    Liberon Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    8,838
    Likes Received:
    841
    Demgems and Repugnics....
     
  20. CometsWin

    CometsWin Imperial cereal killer
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    25,549
    Likes Received:
    7,483
    Your posts are like the anti-bigotexx. Always thoughtful and well considered. Thanks for posting.
     
    1 person likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now