No Hope, Definitely No Change


From Fox News:

A member of the New Black Panther Party who was charged with voter intimidation in the 2008 election for standing outside a Philadelphia polling site was back Tuesday morning – in an official capacity.

Jerry Jackson, who was charged in the 2008 case along with Minister King Samir Shabazz, but later saw charges dropped by the Department of Justice, was seen early Tuesday outside a North Philadelphia voting site wearing the group’s trademark black beret, combat-style uniform and heavy boots. Fox News confirmed he is a designated poll watcher.

“No comment,” Jackson said when approached by a reporter at 1221 Fairmount Ave., in the city’s 14th Ward, where he lurked on Election Day in 2008.

What’s that line about watching the watchmen?

There are 13 comments.

  1. Thatcher

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    Who watches the watchmen? or, who guards the guardians?


    • #1
    • November 6, 2012 at 10:55 am
    • Like
  2. Inactive

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    • #2
    • November 6, 2012 at 10:57 am
    • Like
  3. Inactive

    Troy, everyone knows that the Panthers are just there so that the KKK and the neo-Nazis don’t intimidate voters.

    • #3
    • November 6, 2012 at 10:57 am
    • Like
  4. Inactive

    Oh, there are people there to watch the watchers.

    An organization of retired SOF (SEALS, Delta, Rangers, etc) has people in place at every one of those polling places to keep an eye on the Black Panther fellows.

    If they’re polite and don’t bother anyone I don’t see any problem with the NBPP guys being at or around the polls.

    And now, with the SOF guys in place, I suspect that the NBPP fellows will feel incentivized to maintain their politeness throughout the day.

    • #4
    • November 6, 2012 at 11:02 am
    • Like
  5. Inactive

    We already have a cult of personality president, the only thing missing was para-military thugs, welcome to the third world.

    • #5
    • November 6, 2012 at 11:05 am
    • Like
  6. Member

    When the DoJ is run by crooks, that’s what you get.

    • #6
    • November 6, 2012 at 11:12 am
    • Like
  7. Member

    Stupid Question from a Non-American:

    I thought elections in the USA are administered by the states (which is why different states have different voting machines, differently formatted ballots, etc..).

    If elections are administered by the states, why is “voter intimidation” a federal crime? Why is the DOJ, which answers to the winning candidate, in any position to prosecute or drop charges of voter intimidation? Is that not a clear conflict of interest?

    Why are charges of voter intimidation not covered by state law, to avoid this conflict of interest?

    • #7
    • November 7, 2012 at 1:22 am
    • Like
  8. Inactive

    Because of the Civil Rights Act many aspects of voting that used to be the state’s responsibility was taken away by the feds. Some things were taken away from every state, and some things were taken only from select southern states (as retribution for Jim Crow laws).

    Now, don’t get me wrong, Jim Crow laws were bad and needed to be fixed, but now we’ve swung the other direction in that we’re punishing people who’ve done nothing at all wrong, while letting people who are actively facilitating vote fraud up north go without even an investigation.

    In fact, I would wager that the most racist and fraud riddled places in the US are NOT the places where the Civil Rights Act is in force.

    A funny thing happened when the south desegregated, black folks and white folks lived along side each other and learned more or less how to get along.

    And yet northerners still sneer at the racist south, while simultaneously treating black people like they’re too stupid to figure out how to get a photo ID and vote lawfully.

    • #8
    • November 7, 2012 at 1:45 am
    • Like
  9. Member
    CoolHand: Because of the Civil Rights Act many aspects of voting that used to be the state’s responsibility was taken away by the feds. Some things were taken away from every state, and some things were taken only from select southern states (as retribution for Jim Crow laws).

    So, the Civil Rights Act prohibits states from enacting laws to combat voter intimidation?

    • #9
    • November 7, 2012 at 2:06 am
    • Like
  10. Inactive

    Yes, it does, in that it totally removes from those states the ability to change their election laws in any way without prior Justice Dept approval.

    Hell, in most southern states, they can’t even change the location of the polling place without a nine month fact finding process and a big long hearing by the DOJ.

    I remember in 2010, in Texas (IIRC) a polling place had always been in some gracious fellow’s garage. Been that way for decades, but then he either gets sick or dies or just wants to sell the house (I can’t remember which), and the DOJ forced the new owners to maintain the polling place because the Texas board of elections didn’t petition the DOJ in enough time for them to do the hearing (like six months notice instead of nine).

    Most southern states have next to zero control over their own election systems because of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

    A usurpation of power from forty odd years back which continues to nibble upon our stern sections every year, because nobody has the hutzpa challenge such a sacred cow as the Civil Rights Act.

    • #10
    • November 7, 2012 at 6:32 am
    • Like
  11. Inactive

    Like I said, something had to be done to break the Jim Crow cartel, but its time has come and gone.

    Just like affirmative action, we are not discriminating in the other direction to show how “equal” everyone is.

    It’s idiotic, and it needs to stop.

    • #11
    • November 7, 2012 at 6:35 am
    • Like
  12. Member

    I don’t know about you, but paramilitary thugs looming at polling places makes me more motivated to get out and vote.

    It also makes me more likely to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights, but for different reasons.

    • #12
    • November 7, 2012 at 12:13 pm
    • Like
  13. Member

    <devil’s advocate mode = on>

    Troy Senik, Ed.:

    Fox News confirmed he is a designated poll watcher.

    What does that mean, precisely?

    Does it mean that his presence at the polling place was signed-off by officials of the Democratic Party?

    If it doesn’t, then I do not really see how the Obama campaign can be blamed for his presence at the polling place.

    As long as he’s polite and he doesn’t actually threaten anybody or break any election rules, then isn’t he simply a dude in a black hat and a black jacket hanging out in a public place?

    <devil’s advocate mode = off>

    Of course, the DOJ can certainly be blamed for not seeking an injunction against his participation as a “poll watcher”, back when he was charged in 2008.

    • #13
    • November 7, 2012 at 12:57 pm
    • Like