The same Justice Department that has launched an investigation into the interrogation methods of the CIA dropped an investigation last month into charges of voter intimidation by two members of the New Black Panthers outside a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day. One of the two men, Samir Shabazz, was said to have been brandishing a “police-style baton weapon,” according to complaint filed in the United States District Court in Philadelphia. It has since been revealed that the other man present, Jerry Jackson, was a member of the Democratic Committee in the 14th Ward.
What makes the story newsworthy is the curious way in which the Justice Department handled the case. After the defendants failed to respond to the lawsuit, the DOJ filed for an extension, rather than a default judgment, which would have been standard procedure. The case was delayed until May 15.
Then on May 15, the DOJ again behaved strangely, filing a notice of voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit against Jackson. A default judgment was sought for Shabazz, but with none of the usual conditions Justice would demand, such as keeping Shabazz away from any polling locations for a set number of years into the future. Hans von Spakovsky, former Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, said that DOJ’s actions were unprecedented.
What could have been Justice’s motivation for taking the course of action it did? Could it be that the defendants were upstanding, peaceful citizens merely assisting with the flow of traffic in and out of the polling place last November?
You can judge for yourself after taking a look at screen grabs from the MySpace page of Jerry Jackson, the defendant against whom all charges were dropped. NOTE: Since these images were first posted, the MySpace account has been deleted.
Remember, the person who posted these images is an elected Democrat Party official in Philadelphia. If that is not bad enough, consider this: He has been appointed again to be a poll watcher for the upcoming Democratic Primary in Philadelphia’s municipal election!
Comments 36
He got appointed a poll watcher? Wow, what’s the pay for that?
I guess he’s probably not really a skilled goon or maybe there just aren’t any really good jobs anymore for a gifted goon the way there were when a goon could aspire to become an official White House Plumber.
August 29th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
@fuster — And the endless, pointless blather just keeps coming. Maybe you need to rethink your priorities. You seem like a ***** liberal to me.
August 29th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
I think Howard that the opportunities for “goons in government” have decreased over the last century and I’m not sure what part political leanings plays in this.
I only wish to help assure you that civilized behavior is still with us as much as ever it was.
I hesitate to label your posts as endless blather and see a good deal of intelligence in some, despite what often appears as a too-generous amount of malice toward some.
August 29th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
@fuster — And you, my friend, need to think a little more seriously about who means you harm and who doesn’t. I can assure that none of the people here do. I wouldn’t be so sure about the two fine, upstanding individuals mentioned in my post.
August 29th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
@Howard Portnoy – Howard, you may not realize it because I call you “buddy” instead of the more endearing “idiot” that you like to employ, but I don’t think that any of the folks here any anything other than fine folk, buddy.
August 29th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
@fuster — I couldn’t agree more, fuster. By the same token, I am quite certain, based on his action at the polling place in Philly, plus his MySpace page, that Jerry Jackson wouldn’t be quite so nice if you got to meet him face to face. So when you claim I show a “a too-generous amount of malice toward” people like this, I think you’re missing the point about where the real malice is.
August 29th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Buddy, somewhere on the internet, I saw the film of these two guys outside the polling place acting tough and then walking meekly to the police car when the cops told them to walk.
I don’t doubt that there are ill-intentioned people out there, and I don’t doubt that rather ordinary people can be lead into doing harm, but I also don’t doubt that these two aren’t much.
August 29th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
@fuster — fuster, all you’ve proved to me is that they’re cowards or, putting a more positive spin on it, that they are capable of acting docile when the situation demands. The “content” of Jackson’s MySpace page, on the other hand, suggests that, if he had the cojones, he’d want to come after the people he believes are his oppressors in a big way. I also refuse to believe that the New Black Panthers aren’t a potentially dangerous group.
Maybe this is just where you and I differ. You’re willing to assume they are harmless. I am willing to take them that at their word — or their actions — which suggests otherwise.
August 29th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Howard, where we differ is mostly that I think that these people have very little capability and that we have a great deal.
They have sticks and stones and name-calling, we have guns and numbers.
August 29th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Actually, it turns out “we” don’t have guns and so on. “We” are just ordinary people who go to the polls, and “we” expect that the police and then the courts will take care of the Jacksons among us. But in this case, the courts declined to do so. He’ll be back again doing his thing, and “our” protectors have let us know that at some level it’s OK with them.
August 30th, 2009 at 8:42 am
@fuster — fuster, there are militias made of angry people of color forming all over the country. Many of them, like the New Black Panthers, dress in paramilitary garb. Many, moreover, are angry over their perceived ongoing subjugation to the white man — this despite the fact the president is himself black.
August 30th, 2009 at 10:17 am
There’s a hot new tee shirt out for young, black males. It shows a black man with an automatic large caliber automatic pistol held over his head.
Is this a promise of what we can expect if 0bie does not so easily win reelection next time around?
August 30th, 2009 at 11:01 am
In my opinion the one unambiguously positive aspect of Obama’s presidency is that his presence in the White House has persuaded millions of African-Americans that they can participate fully in American life. I see the change in attitude in all my daily dealings with black people, and it’s wonderful.
The only problems are his policies, his ideology, and his competence level.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:13 am
@Zoltan Newberry – I posted my comment before I saw yours. I do worry about a rebound effect when Obama’s popularity continues to slide, as it will. Already we are hearing outrageous claims that opposition to Obama’s policies is somehow connected with race.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:16 am
I might have added that he has what Holden Caulfield would have called a lousy personality.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:20 am
@Peter Shalen — Peter, his approval ratings among blacks have been and remain stratospheric — in the 90s. That sounds more to me like sheep, who judge a man by the color of his skin rather than the content of his character, than it does masses suddenly engaged in the political process.
August 30th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
@Howard Portnoy – Howard, most of the militias in this country are made up of crazy white people who are more than happy to tell you that mud people and/or jews have got to go, one way or the other.
If other crazy people want to form their own crazy organizations, try not to worry too much.
People like the JDL or Black Panthers don’t produce a fraction of the violence of the KKK and other white militias.
August 30th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
fuster, the difference between the crazies you cite and the groups I cite is that the latter are not necessarily crazy — just impressionable and easily swayed by those who would take advantage of the system and appeal to their baser passions. (N.B. Those who stoke these passions are not invariably themselves people of color.) The former, meanwhile, are mostly relics that conduct meetings and parades. I concede that these white loons are prone to occasional unspeakable acts (think OKC), but I fear we ain’t see nothin’ yet from the New Black Panthers, SOUL, and many of these other militant black organizations, who dream of “taking it to the man.”
Bottom line: You bar your door against whom you perceive as dangerous, and I’ll bar my door against whom I perceive as dangerous.
August 30th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
@Howard Portnoy – Howard, decades ago an article in the New York Times—I think it was the magazine section—contained an anecdote about a woman on the Lower East Side who was asked whether ethnic factors should be taken into consideration in deciding whether to vote for a candidate. She said “Ethnic, shmethnic, as long as he’s Jewish.”
I think it’s certainly true that a great many African-Americans have not moved beyond that degree of political sophistication. The color of the president’s skin has a huge symbolic value for these folks. If that helps give them a sense of belonging to this country, as I believe it’s doing for many of them, it will be a positive thing.
Unfortunately, for those among the African-American population whose understanding of politics remains so rudimentary, it can cut both ways: if having a black man in the White House gives these folks a sense of belonging, then there’s a danger that, for some of them, having him voted out could take that sense away. That’s yet another reason why Obama’s extremist policies are so disastrous.
August 30th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
@Peter Shalen — Peter, again let me note with delight your evoking the Yiddishesque rhyming shm. This, I believe, is one of the undernoted and underrated achievements of American Jewish ethnicity.
As to the anecdote you cite, members of my family (my oldest brother in particular) were utterly aghast in 2000 that I planned not to vote Democrat since there was a Jew on the ticket. As I attempted (futilely) to explain then, voting for (or against) a candidate because of his religion, skin color, etc. is abusing the right to vote. It is my contention that blacks who voted for Obama purely on the basis of his color—and many I suspect I did—were, if anything, moving themselves away from the American community as a whole. The tendency of blacks to vote historically along Democratic lines, even thought they owe as much if not more to Republicans, is symptomatic of a similar blind loyalty that stands in the way of real racial harmony (if such a goal is achievable).
August 30th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
@Howard Portnoy – Then you don’t notice a change in the attitude of black people you deal with? I do, and I think it’s remarkable.
August 30th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
@Peter Shalen — Actually no, Peter. There are quite a few blacks who live in my building, and while I am not out-and-out friends with any of them, those I exchange pleasantries with in the elevator or stop to chat with are unfailingly pleasant, upbeat, and polite — but they’ve always been that way. Others, especially younger ones, are more aloof but they’ve always been that way, too. So, on balance, no. Nothing has really changed all that much in my world.
August 30th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
@Howard Portnoy -@20- Just to continue being a pain, can you really contend that it’s black people that stand in the way of real racial harmony?
Maybe your memory is failing.
August 30th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
@fuster — Them as much as anyone else. They listen to race hucksters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and believe every word of the garbage these idiots utter.
August 30th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
It’s also, Peter, and first of all, another reason not to take racially motivated voting seriously in the first place.
This is what I mean: As a matter of course, I deduct 11% from the number of respondents of all parties, and 20% from the number of respondents who are Democrats, from the totals of those respondents who offer a pro-Democrat or pro-Obama opinion to a pollster on any subject. Twelve percent is approximately the number of black Americans; 21% is approximately the number of Democrats who are black (I allow for a 1% Republican, Independent, whatever, vote among blacks).
Does that mean I view the opinion of black Americans on Barack Obama and the Democratic Party as worthless for the purposes of assessing trends in America? You better bet it does. The support of blacks for Obama and/or Democrats is not only worthless as a measure of general opinion, it is absolutely and pathologically misleading and impervious to fact. When circa 69% of blacks opine that O.J. Simpson was innocent of his ex-wife’s murder, his having been framed by white racists, you see, you can be sure that the opinions of black Americans on any subject in which race is even remotely a factor can be discounted in advance and in toto – with a clean conscience, too. You might, with as much profit, estimate the distribution of jobs in America by strolling a carnival midway: 10% sword swallowers, 10% fire eaters, 10% two-headed calves, and so on, as utilize black opinion when it comes to evaluating Barack Obama’s presidency. For what it’s worth, I live and work in a community that is 95% black, in a job with colleagues who are 90% black or Hispanic; and before he was elected, most of them cared about precisely two facts: He is black and his wife is black. Either item was sufficient to elicit 110% approbation, and that in typical blank-check fashion, namely, from now on and regardless.
The re-election of Marion Barry and Alcee Hastings are just two bits of data I could mention that might’ve clarified for us well in advance just how high a hurdle of credulity Obama would have to clear to alienate black Americans. Here are a few other for-instances: Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are actually thought of as ministers, no kidding, by the vast majority of African-Americans; and, oh yes, Cornel West, Louis “Skippy” Gates, and Michael Dyson are considered scholars. The words of Maxine Waters and John Conyers are gospel in the black community, all but unimpeachable. The list of such pathologically misplaced loyalties on the part of African-Americans could be extended at tiresome length.
Don’t be misled, there are certainly easily identifiable people who are anti-Obama regardless; but when you aggregate them rationally, they are not 94% of anything but themselves. To sum up, the next time you read that President Obama’s approval rating is, say, 50% according to the latest poll, automatically deduct 11% before concluding anything.
August 30th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Where do you work, Joe?
Harold’s Chicken?
August 30th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
@Zoltan Newberry – Are we being a very bad Zoltan this evening?
August 30th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Zoltan, I am a public high-school teacher and an instructor at a public university.
August 30th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Wonderful! I’m so glad at least there are a few additional lucky kids in public school (I have 2 in arguably the best public high school in Chicago). I’m sure you’re a great teacher, Joe.
Long ago I was a juvie PO. The hardest thing was when I got a double promotion and had to supervise people who had no interest in seeing the kids on their caseload.
Do you know that creep in Antioch, Ca. had been on probation for many years? What a laugh! The probation dept. in CC County had no idea the pervert had kidnapped an 11 year old child, imprisoned and brainwashed her for over 17 years and had two kids with her.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Joe, almost any ethnic group, and especially one that with good reason perceives itself as victimized, will unify around its leadership. That’s what people do.
The whiteys who vote white and the ones who self-consciously vote anti-white (but typically within some tribe defined by characteristics other than skin color) will not often have arrived at their decisions by some morally or intellectually superior process – except to the extent that the greater size, wealth, and longer history in the majority has enabled the white population to encounter and test a wider range of alternatives.
The problem is the leadership – how Maxine Waters and Barack Obama and all of the others become identified as leaders and who fills their heads with rubbish. Blacks – in particular AA leaders – align with Democrats because Democrats have provided them bigger slices of the pie in the areas where the pie-eaters eat (it’s a VERY big pie, as you know). Separating the voters from their leaders would be easier if there was an alternative leadership ready to take over. The day may not be as far away as it looks, but attacking blacks as a group tends to induce a group unifying response.
If the AA community is to be characterized and criticized by anyone who isn’t a member, let the analysis be ruthless and accurate, but sophisticated enough to move beyond the racialisms of the past, even if to do so it must move through them as well.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
@Joe NS – Joe, everything you say may well be true, but my point was that having a black man in the White House may be a step toward curing the kind of racial paranoia that you’re describing. If the majority of black people can come to see themselves as Americans, that can be a first step toward becoming aware of the issues facing the country and realizing that they’re not all about race. From my personal experience I believe that this election helped a lot of people with this first step. How many will make it to the next step, and how long from now, is another question.
August 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
Colin, I was discussing, if I may call it that, how to interpret poll numbers, offering a rule of thumb. Think of it, Peter, as a renormalization procedure to smooth out divergencies.
Of course there are reasons for the phenomenon. But 94%??? That is dizzyingly inappropriate, in my opinion. It’s remarkable enough that Jews support Democrats 70 to 80 percent of the time; but Jews are a much smaller population in America (2.5%), and smaller size favors homogeneity of opinion. Also, the Jewish vote, at least for president, has shown statistically significant variability over time. Warren Harding got more than 40% of it in 1920! That was at a time when ethnic solidarity among Jews was arguably much higher than today. George Bush, Sr., approached 38% in 1988, I believe. Reagan, too, though somewhat smaller, in 1984.
Nothing like 94% of Catholics voted for JFK in 1960, only the second time a Catholic ran for the office. Do you think Giuliani would have received much more than 60% of Italian votes had he been the Republican nominee in 2008? I don’t. Yet, African-American support for Democrats sits there, as though thumb-tacked, at better than 90% election after election, like the height of the mercury in a thermometer at noon in August, utterly indifferent, it seems, to the damage that party has wrought in the black community for 45 years.
BTW: The descent into the maelstrom begins today, for me anyway. I will be commenting less and less often during the week but will try to look in on Saturdays and Sundays.
Keep swingin’!
August 31st, 2009 at 6:33 am
I would assume that in the 1920’s, those African-Americans who voted still went overwhelmingly for Republican candidates. Among both blacks and Jews, the pattern of voting for Democrats would have started only with the New Deal.
In 1924, H.L. Mencken wrote:
August 31st, 2009 at 8:43 am
Peter – “having a black man in the White House may be a step toward curing the kind of racial paranoia that you’re describing”
A baby step maybe; but this idea has already had many lower level trials. Surely by now some sociologist would have published a highly touted paper on how cities that elect black mayors get less polarized as a result if there were anything there.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:41 am
Well, even as a re-normalization procedure, I’d say you exaggerate the impact, since if opinion in the black community approximated opinion in the white community (on the heavily politicized issues where black opinion is 90-100% uniform), they’d still contribute significantly to the Dem side.
It’s actually much more complicated than that, of course. What would you have considered a merely enthusiastic rather than automatic vote for “one of their own”? 60%? 70%? In other words, there an interesting and valid question as to the lack of a significant minority that votes ideology over racial solidarity, but its impact on the results last November or on opinion samples on partisan issues is much smaller than the proportion of the population: More like a theoretical 3% adjustment, not an 11% one.
All of this pre-supposes that blacks don’t have a rational self-interest calculation in voting with near-unanimity for Democratic and other leftwing politicians, and for supporting the likes of Jesse Jackson and Maxine Waters. I think there are many reasons why the tendency has become self-reinforcing, but, if the calculation is going to be changed, maybe it needed to be taken all the way to an extreme.
November 2008 may turn out to have been the exhaustion peak – among blacks and some other ethnic groups. If so, then the Democratpermanent demographic advantage may turn out to be a sand castle.
August 31st, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Not so fast, Colin. Do not underestimate progressive zeal. They go to bed and wake up with a sense of mission every day. Without any real belief in divine natural law, they instead find great virtue in secular utopian fantasies. They dismiss any opposition with the wave of a hand (or the wave of a club in Philadelphia). They are on a mission. Their politics mean everything to them.
All of this provides them with a sense of entitlement. They know how to fix elections in our urban centers. And they do this so well, that the folks in Avon and Allentown do not matter.
They gird themselves for battle every day. If you don’ believe me, spend a little time at hufflepuff.com or stalin.com, and see if it doesn’t make you weep.
We will need to work very hard every day and we will probably require politicians of our own who can rival Lincoln and Reagan.
August 31st, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Post a Comment