PDA

View Full Version : War in the Streets?


Snapper
12-12-2000, 10:26 AM
http://www.sierratimes.com/edjj121200.htm

A must read letter to Jessie Jackson

bishop_74
12-12-2000, 10:31 AM
Excellent article. It's about time someone stood up to Jackson. Racism is alive and well because of people like him.

I wish this article would be discussed on national TV by likes of Brokaw and Jennings.

Dr. Red
12-12-2000, 10:33 AM
JESSE JACKSON: 'WE WILL TAKE TO THE STREETS'; BUSH BROTHER DISFRANCHISED BLACK VOTERS, VIOLATED 'CIVIL RIGHTS'

"We will take to the streets right now, we will delegitimize Bush, discredit him, do whatever it takes, but never accept him."

Those are the threatening comments made by Rev. Jesse Jackson on Monday to reporters outside of the US Supreme Court in Washington.

Jackson also accused Bush's brother Jeb of stealing the election by intimidating black voters all over the state of Florida.

Jackson made the stunning comments to two reporters from HUMAN EVENTS magazine -- who captured the exchange on tape.

Jackson: To me the issue, one, is the court so political that its mind is already made up; thatís a real question. Justice Scaliaís son is a lawyer who works for Bush, on todayís Internet Justice Thomasís wife is recruiting staff members for Bush who works for Heritage Foundation.

So is the court so predisposed politically that the arguments donít matter is a very real question. I hope the court rises above the political partisanship, and chooses the Republic over Republicans, and the democracy over Democrats, and makes that kind of decision.

But maybe the biggest decision of this sort since the 1857 Dred Scott decision, or the 1896 Ferguson decision, so itís a huge decision to be made today. Second,, is that they kept asking for uniformity of remedy, but you know how uniform procedures, by county.<BR>

Dr. Red
12-12-2000, 10:34 AM
If University of Florida plays Florida State in football, or Miami, all the football fields are 100 x 50. The playing field is even, the rules are public, the goals are clear, so you have uniform standards. But then those voting standards vary from county to county and indeed African-Americans were targeted, 80 percent of those are in discussion are really African American voters, who were targeted, only African Americans were stopped by police as they stopped to vote, and as they were asked for their ID cards and for their driverís licenses. 8000 people, mostly African Americans were sent, (inaudible,) they were felons by Mrs. Harris, a private firm from TX, none of them were, some were misdemeanors, and some hadnít been arrested at all, or within the black community, you had the most broken down machinery. We know the pattern of who was in fact targeted, during the campaign.

Lastly, will the courts honor the intent of the voter? Governorís made two arguments lately. Friday in Seminole county, they said honor the intent of the voter, and in Miami-Dade, they said honor the machine, so they got to the fork in the road, and they chose the fork.

They really must honor the intent of the voter. There will not be a legitimate winner unless the voters determine who that winner is. The courts must not take unto themselves to make that determination, the voters must determine who the actual winner is. If you govern with the consent of the governed, thatís democratic. But if in fact we are governed without our consent, we are being ruled. And that is despotism. We want democracy, not despotism. <BR>

Dr. Red
12-12-2000, 10:34 AM
Question, reporter unknown: From the way the proceedings went, do you think Mr. Gore has a chance of winning this case?

Jackson: He certainly has a chance, but the assumption would be that their minds are already made up, for example, Justices OíConnor and Kennedy raised very challenging questions to the Bush lawyers at the very outset. That could suggest that they at least have been thinking about the process. Scalia challeneged over and over the Gore lawyers, and Clarence Thomas more or less mused through it all, he had nothing to say. He was really a spectator.

But the biggest spectator was the Department of Justice, they have abdicated their job, they have a role to play, they were absent, when 80 percent of those in question were black voters, the Department of Justice (hereinafter DOJ) took a hike. Mother Liberty was blindfolded today, and closemouthed, and should have had something to say.

Tim Carney, Human Events Magazine: Do you think there is actually a concerted effort to take away the votes of blacks?

<BR>

Dr. Red
12-12-2000, 10:34 AM
Jackson: Absolutely! You can document it, you can look at where, who got disenfranchised, the quantity, and who, from Liberty City, to Broward, to Lakeland, to Rivera Beach, Orlando, to inner city Jacksonville, most of those disenfranchised were African Americans Students at FL A&M, Bethune-Cookman, went to vote, the ballots registration in their hands, their name not on the polls. 80 percent were African American. And you had the Holocaust survivors in the West Palm area, who pushed the button for Gore and they got Buchanan, they didnít mean to do that, their was a violation, of them for example. And so, in Duval County, 27000 ballots were thrown away, they were held back until the protest period was over, in fact. And so, if this were Yugoslavia, and at the end, Milosevic was losing, you got to the last state where Milosevicís brother was the governor, and in that state the machinery broke down, and he won by the margin of machination in his brotherís state, we would be slow to certify that election, it would not pass the smell test.

Dr. Red
12-12-2000, 10:35 AM
Carney: So do you think Jeb Bush orchestrated the disenfranchisement of black voters?

Jackson: No doubt about it that Jeb Bush was a major factor in the Florida breakdown. He sent out for example absentee ballots over his name and state seal. That was illegal. Mrs. Harris sent out the 8000 blacks, claiming they were felons. Well, the fact is, none of them were felons. Some were misdemeanors. And some had no arrests at all. It was a very targeted violation, and so in a democracy, you can afford to lose, you win some, you lose some; you canít afford to lose your franchise. And thatís why if this decision goes down as it should go, the voters will determine the winner. But if in fact, we lose this case, our civil rights struggle will expand. We will not surrender our right to vote, our citizenship or our dignity. We will not go backwards in our quest to affirm our citizenship.

Jackson, later, speaking while walking to his car: "ÖÖIn some sense we will lose our moral authority to judge elections around the world, and weíre less able to say to China, to say to Europe, " this is how elections are supposed to go". The Bush forces may have short term, given a long term pain to our country. This is not the way to conduct an election, they should be open, free, and transparent, and credible. This one does not meet those standards.<BR>

Dr. Red
12-12-2000, 10:35 AM
Carney: You donít think itís a very serious charge to charge Jeb Bush with civil rights violations?

Jackson: Itís a very serious charge, and an accurate charge. Itís serious, but accurate.

Carney: So do you want the DOJ to investigate him?

Jackson: He took the position, you know against affirmative action. You know, sons of inheritance, attack sons of daughters of achievement, and they should understand, and they seemingly do not understand. You know, Bush makes a lot of how much he loves veterans. He could have been a veteran, but he dodged the war. He could have been a veteran. I love veterans, my father was a veteran. Came back to America, and did not have the same rights that the Nazi POWís had. I love veterans. I went to Iraq, and brought 600 veterans wives back from jail. I went to Yugoslavia and brought Americans home who were under Milosevic. And so, we love veterans, the issue here today, is shall we honor the intent of every American voter? The veterans, the military votes should have counted. Holocaust survivors, all those votes should have counted PauseÖ.because, then, you have a legitimate winner! I can live under Bush if he is a legitimate winner, thatís not the issue. In America, you win some, you lose some. The issue here is will our democracy have legitimacy, by honoring the intent of the voter. You canít say that a holocaust survivor punched two, one for Gore, one for Buchanan, and say, "well, your pain, my gain, Iím your leader." You canít say to the Haitian boat people, "well, you canít read and write well, but tough, you should go to Yale, like I did. Thatís not the spirit of democracy.<BR>

Dr. Red
12-12-2000, 10:35 AM
Carney: Do you think itís appropriate to make this entirely racial issue talking about Jews, and whites, and Haitians, etc?

Jackson: Itís not entirely, but I can tell you, I know who was targeted, because Iíve been there, I understand it, you see? I worked in with in Boca Raton with the Holocaust survivors who wept bitterly because they voted for Pat Buchanan. He said it wasnít his vote, and they said it was not their vote, and so, the Jewish factor is real, because they said itís real...

Students at Florida A&M, Bethune Cookman, were not allowed to vote. And so, this is not about "chadism", this isnít about dimples, thatís abstract. Itís about people who really are Americans that didnít have their right to vote honored.. Yesterday, the Redskins played Dallas. Redskin fans are disappointed they lost, but not in an angry sense, because they know the playing field was even. But if in Dallas, the Dallas players had to get 8 yards for a first down, and the Redskins had to get 12, theyíd still be fighting.

When the playing field is even, and the rules are public, and the goals are clear, we can accept winning or losing. But here what were weíre talking about is that the playing field has not been even. We deserve better. <BR>

Dr. Red
12-12-2000, 10:36 AM
Jackson, 2 minutes later, still on the way to the car: Gore believes he won this campaign, so he says "count". Bush believes Gore won, so he says, "Donít count." It should come down to finally who was eligibly counted? Do you choose the people or the machines? You get groceries at the store. And if there are 20 dollars on the counter, and it comes out all zeroes. You donít walk away with groceriesÖIf it comes out all zeroes again, you donít put Ďem back, you do a hand count, thatís what you do. You go to the airport, and you take all your stuff out, and the machine doesnít work, and they do it again. And of course! Thatís the law in Texas, the law in Florida. So a bold attempt to take from people their franchise, is ugly. I can live under Bush winning, I canít live under Bush stealing. We must not give legitimacy to an attempt her to take away Americaís honor. I travel a lot around the world. You know, one of the great things I do around the world, is certify elections. You know, South Africa, Asia, etc. We are less able today to do that. We have lost our moral authority, because we are paying a big price just to win!

Weíve got to fight to save our country. We must also do so with integrity. You canít build trust around blatant dishonesty.

Jordan Gehrke, Human Events, "Sir, who specifically do you think was intimidating black voters in Florida?"<BR>

Dr. Red
12-12-2000, 10:36 AM
Jackson: Who are you with?

Gehrke: "Human Events."

Jackson: OK. Alright. In some places, police were stopping blacks at the polls, within the polling area. Asking for their driverís licenses and ID cards. That happened. In some other places, blacks were in the area where you had the oldest machines that broke down, they did not have affidavits there. In other instances, students at FL A&M, Bethune-Cookman, and Even Waters in Jacksonville, went to vote, and had in their hand voter registration cards, and their names not on the polls. That happened. In Jacksonville, you had one ballot in the paper, another ballot in the booth. So if you honored the procedure you were eliminated.

Gehrke: Who do you think was giving the orders to do this stuff?

Jackson: Well, all of this is on the watch of Jeb Bush, and Mrs. Harris. The Republican Machinery, the Governor, the Sec. Of State, the legislature, someone is responsible. The state government is responsible for administering elections.

Gehrke: So, you are saying that Jeb Bush ordered police to intimidate black voters to keep them from voting?

Jackson: It is under his watch, therefore, he is responsible. You can set a cultural climate, where you set a the spirit that flows. But the buck stops somewhere. Thatís what leaders must do. When the stuff got thick, Jeb left the state, and left James Baker speaking for the state."

Unknown reporter: "In the new Congress, what do you think we can expect, just people completely taking the gloves off in the new session?"<BR>

Dr. Red
12-12-2000, 10:39 AM
Jackson: I hope itís not that ugly but, you know, Tom Delay, and Trent Lott, sent staff down to Miami-Dade to intimidate those who were counting. Now, thatís a bit far for seasoned congress people to go to alter the outcome of an election. So when you do that you lose your capacity to speak and be heard.

------------
IN HIS OWN WORDS

Chief_Noraa
12-12-2000, 11:14 AM
I have heard many accusations of foul play directed towards each side. The legitimacy of these claims is difficult to determine by someone like myself whom was not there. The entire fiasco is truly a black eye on both of the two major parties.
I have a question to you legal experts on the BB. I took quite a few law classes back in college and feel I have a fairly well rounded understanding of how the law of the land works. I also realize that those classes were many moons ago and details get a bit fuzzy over time. My question is this. Is not Mr. Jackson committing a crime by encouraging others to disobey the law? Could he not be criminally and civilly liable for the actions of his followers should they ď Take to the streetsĒ? Looting, violence, and theft are often the true motivation of many protesters hiding behind the facade of some perceived injustice. Is not Jesse squarely in harms way from a legal standpoint?

Dr. Red
12-12-2000, 11:23 AM
First - taking to the streets has an acceptable interpretation of peaceful demonstration.
Second - His speech most probably isn't immediate and direct enough to be considered 'fomenting.' That is, he is answering questions at an interview. He knows this will reach a volatile population at some point and that population may take some kind of action. But that's not the same as directing addressing a group, bats in hand, suggesting uses for the bats and pointing out the guy down the block upon whom said uses should exercised.

Chief_Noraa
12-12-2000, 11:42 AM
JC-
At this stage of the game I tend to agree with you however: the groundwork has been set. Jesse has considerable influence. I think that he is headed toward treacherous ground from a legal standpoint. It kinda follows the same mind set as negligence. While it is not a drunk driverís intention to kill someone else by getting behind the wheel of a car he is clearly placing others at risk. While the comparison is not completely on point you get the idea.
Iím really looking at a what if scenario, what if Dubya is declared the winner and in response JJ makes a speech encouraging our citizens to ď Take to the streets and let them (whoever them are) know we will not sit quietly by while our (whoever our is) rights are being violated. Under this scenario if riots were to occur does he have a potential problem with the law? Criminally and or civilly? <BR>

Bwana
12-12-2000, 11:44 AM
I am reminded of JJ everytime I step in dog ****. It takes one second to get into it, and forever to get rid of it.

When JJ makes a comment to the media it usually has a resounding effect on both the black and white communities. The results are generally an increased hatred and paranoia from the black community against the white community, and continued lack of respect for JJ & the Rainbow Coalition from the white community.

JJ, as he usually does, leads with hypebole vs. fact. Unfortunately, his followers don't generally separate the two.

Dr. Red
12-12-2000, 11:48 AM
RCG -
Problem one, people aren't cars. ya' gotta assume the capacity for rational thought and decision making.
Problem two, there is no right to drive in the Constitution.

Not trying to argue, I too condemn what he's saying. But that is the framework for analyzing his actions.

Chief_Noraa
12-12-2000, 12:09 PM
JC
No problem, It just seems to me that with the current ď Its not my faultĒ mentality of our country he could be in harms way from a legal stand point. Assuming rational thought is assuming a lot these days :) While I am far more offended by intrusions on free speech than anything someone might say, I just find it interesting to pontificate about this. A better comparison would be the yelling FIRE!! in a packed theater example. A reasonable and rational person could foresee injuries occurring from this action. Depending on the hypothetical speech it could fall in the same category legally. Personally I am a huge believer in personal responsibility and find the ďIím a victimĒ mentality so prevalent these days to be repugnant. The next few weeks are going to be very interesting. <BR>

Dr. Red
12-12-2000, 12:19 PM
I think it is appropriate to condemn his speech, AND to publicize it as condemned speech [to nip in the bud his future effectiveness].
However, until the speech gets a lot closer to exhortation of a group to IMMEDIATE, VIOLENT action, lets keep it out of the courts.

HC_Chief
12-12-2000, 02:37 PM
The real concern here would be that if this volatile commentary produces this "war in the streets". The government's reaction to a civil display would be fodder for the world press. If America shows the world Police Riot Teams fighting Americans in the street. AMERICA will never have a legitimate world presence again. Moral high ground lost, never to be regained.

My take only. LD for KC

redshirt32
12-12-2000, 03:20 PM
Jesse Jackson is one of the biggest demagogues I have ever seen. He is a sack of manure as far as I'm concerned. His power base is to keep people upset and believing they are disenfranchised and entitled. Without it, he is nothing.

I hope he doesn't believe the rhetoric he is spouting, because there are a lot of folks fed up enough to make him eat those words...<BR>

nmt1
12-12-2000, 03:25 PM
All rhetoric aside, Jackson just wants Gore to win. Period. He would not have cared if EVERY african american was "disenfranchised" as long as Gore was declared the winner. He fits in perfectly with the Sore Loserman mindset. Why is he so pro Gore in the first place?

------------------
GO PITT!

TEX
12-12-2000, 03:29 PM
with the unintended risk of sounding like a disenfranchised redneck....let him bring his riot to my unnamed county gravel road....then, I'll worry about it from 1/4 mile away...with a 300mag.

Great mentality...If it doesn't go our way..start a riot and lute..get your area rebuilt and some financial sympathy for brother Jackson's cause.