An open letter to Jesse Jackson

© 2000

Dear Reverend Jesse Jackson:

I have something to say in response to your not-so-veiled threat to provoke riots if the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't rule to your liking in the matter of the presidential vote count: Grow up, do something constructive with your time, get a life.

This game you play -- shaking down the American corporate and political establishment by invoking fear -- is getting old. Your credibility -- if you ever had any -- is threadbare at best. There is a growing consensus in America that you are little more than a joke -- and this kind of political extortion will not work any longer.

"Even if this court rules against counting our vote, it will simply create a civil rights explosion," you said after leaving today's Supreme Court hearing. "People will not surrender to this tyranny. This people will not stand by and accept this with surrender. We can afford to lose an election -- you win some, you lose some. You can't afford to lose your franchise. People will be fighting for their right to vote and for their vote to count. The same forces that were against the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ... seek to disenfranchise us in 2000 and do not want to renew the Voting Rights Act in the year 2007."

We know what you are saying. We understand the code words. We all know what you mean by "civil rights explosion." And it doesn't scare many of us.

The real civil rights explosion would occur in this country if the Supreme Court bowed to your brand of coercion and intimidation. I hear from people everyday sickened by the way their votes are being stolen by courts, by voter fraud and by attempts to change the rules in the middle of the political game.

I know you are desperate. It shows in the words you choose, in the hyperbole you invoke, in the intensity of the rhetoric you employ.

You're right about something else: People will not surrender to this tyranny -- the tyranny you would like to impose on the freedom-loving, law-abiding, rules-respecting people of the United States.

In closing, let me remind you of one more fact you seem to have forgotten. In suggesting those opposing your shameless, partisan pandering on behalf of Vice President Al Gore, are the same folks who opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, please recall that Sen. Al Gore Sr., your favorite candidate's father, was among the many congressional Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Joseph Farah

Joseph Farah is editor and chief executive officer of WorldNetDaily.com and writes a daily column.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000

Answers

Joseph Farah is editor and chief executive officer of WorldNetDaily.com and writes a daily column.

Joseph Farah is asshole editor and chief executive BULLSHITTER of WorldNetDaily.com and writes a daily column of HOGWASH.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000

And yet, Charlie, in reading over your posts, your "opinions", it would seem that you agree with virtually everything Farah says.

Go figure.

And, BTW:

"Open Letter to Joseph Farah:

Joseph Who?"

(rotflmao -- sooooooooo easy)

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000

In closing, let me remind you of one more fact you seem to have forgotten. In suggesting those opposing your shameless, partisan pandering on behalf of Vice President Al Gore, are the same folks who opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, please recall that Sen. Al Gore Sr., your favorite candidate's father, was among the many congressional Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

THAT is plain wrong, Gore Senior DID vote for the CRA of 1965. Course one would be damned to find proof online. Probably what Farah is counting on calculated scumball that he is.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000

I don't have much use for Joseph Farah or WorldNetDaily, but I do agree that Jesse Jackson is way off base on this one.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000

As I see it, blacks and minorities (as a group) are convinced that they will never enjoy a lofty position on societies totem pole. A certain futility has set in that breeds thoughts of civil unrest and a ‘take what we can get’ attitude. When I came into the work force all those decades ago, the percentage of the working population that required any form of public assistance was less than 3%. My hometown of Detroit was the first of the concentrated welfare cities that were given birth in the late 50’s. Tens of thousands of poor blacks (and whites) relocated to Detroit to work in the auto plants. Layoffs and production slowdowns created a massive group of people that found themselves unable to support, house, and feed themselves. Public assistance to the rescue. For the most part, this aid was short-term until the individual went back to work. In any case, the numbers were low enough where the financial ‘burden’ was tolerable.

In the early 60’s, Lyndon Baines Johnson forever altered the landscape of our country with his ‘Great Society’ legislations. LBJ needed the black vote if he were ever to have a chance at being ‘elected’ President, so he cut some deals with the black power brokers. Great Society my ass. Great disaster is more like it.

Fast forward to the present.

The numbers game is destroying our country. The percentage of eligible working Americans on public assistance welfare is dangerously out of whack and is propelling us to a critical mass situation. The black community knows that only the democrats will continue to keep the give-a-way programs in place and that is the overriding reason they will support Al Gore at all costs. The segment of the American population that has had it with these government sponsored programs that have done nothing more than perpetuate the problems and create a welfare monster out of control, want a reversal of this insanity.

You can talk this thing through until the cows come home but here is the bottom line on this election: Black –Vs- White

Jesse Jackson has threatened us all with civil unrest and rioting in the streets if Al Gore is not elected. I say this to you ‘Reverend’: should these riots of yours come to pass how will this benefit your people? We’ve seen this act before, burning out the hood and looting for personal gain. Real patriots aye? I say it is time for Jesse Jackson to be held responsible for his actions, just as any other criminal would be. If David Duke were proposing the same garbage he would be locked up pronto.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000

>> ...here is the bottom line on this election: Black -Vs- White <<

Apaarently you cast Bush as the "White" person's candidate in this contest. How lovely! Which slogan do you suggest he adopt:

If You're White, I'm Your President!

On Your Side Against Black People!

Bush: the Answer to White Folks' Prayers!

If You're Black, Get Back, Jack!

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000

Cute Brian, just the response one would expect from a ‘fringe’ thinker like you.

And so you won’t accuse me of skirting the issue, yes I do think Al Gore is the black candidate and GWB the white candidate. I would expect you to turn a serious issue into your usual immature prattling.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000

I think of Bush as "the Tax Cut candidate", and Gore as "the Criminal candidate".

Easy to tell who I want to win,

Frank, still at work, but obviously in body only.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000

>> I would expect you to turn a serious issue into your usual immature prattling. <<

I am willing to take instruction. So tell me, Barry, how exactly do you define this "serious issue" where the "bottom line on this election" is "Black -Vs- White"? Please, feel free to define this issue in such a way as to utterly nullify my "immature prattling", while yet teaching me the true dimensions of your much more serious outlook for this country and its future?

Go on. What have you got to lose by expressing yourself fully on this subject?

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000

Doc Paulie and CPR Texas are two of the most negative posters on this Forum. They never have anything good to say about anybody. They must be total jerks!

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Yes, Barry, please enlighten us with your lofty thoughts. So far, if I'm reading correctly, yours has been one of the most overt expressions of racism on the 'Net I have read.

It's okay not to count their votes if they're not Caucasian, wealthy and Republican? Also, Barry, the percentage of Americans on public assistance is less than 1% of the national population. The average monthly stipend for these folks is less than $500 per family.

If Shrub Bush is the racist's choice of candidate, I'm relieved to have voted for Gore.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Are we having fun yet Julie? Your 1% figure is pure bullshit as we are talking about the 'working population', not three year olds. Read my lips....'President Bush'.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Brian is right.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Correction: Brian is both right and left. He is in fact left while being right & right while at the same time left. You're welcome.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Brian is Syd.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Hey Barry, my 1% statistic is correct, as is the monthly stipend amount I quoted.

How many people do you *know*, Barry, that are on welfare? I'll bet that you've never met anyone on welfare, let alone any of your friends or family. What area do you live in? How much do welfare recipients receive per month in your area? (You might have to consult a news source other than WorldNetDaily for the accurate information.)

You shouldn't get too comfortable calling him "President" Bush. That Justice investigation could cause some substantial problems for the Bush dynasty.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

If Gore is the black candidate and Bush is the white candidate, there must be an awful lot of black people in this country. How else can you explain why the white candidate lost the popular vote to the black candidate by more than 300,000?

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Tar, good comment.

Julie, I can't find the link now but Anita, Flint and I were having the same discussion on another thread. Actually about 1% of whites are on welfare and 7.5% of blacks are on welfare.

Brian, looks like Julie is saying the very same thing you said to me. You questioned my ever knowing anyone on welfare. For the record, I have known quite a few on welfare (some guys I dated) and my husband was on welfare. Just because lean republican doesn't mean I haven't been or seen the face of poor in America. Just because I've been raped by a black man doesn't mean I'm racist.

Julie please don't make yourself look like Brian (his posts are very juvenile) unless you know specifically Barry's background. Based on his post, I'd say that yes he does know (or has known) people on welfare but I wouldn't testify to it.

And finally, jesse is a jerk for inciting a riot.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Thanks Maria. I find folks like Julie and Brian to be quite amusing. Simple minded liberals who would die of a heart attack if they ever walked in my shoes. Five minutes in any big city ghetto and these two would never need an enema again. And Jesse Jackson…time for him to be held accountable….. And he will be….very soon.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

>> I find folks like Julie and Brian to be quite amusing. Simple minded liberals who would die of a heart attack if they ever walked in my shoes. <<

Right. And you know this because you are able to fit me and Julie into some safe, imagined pigeon-hole that you are convinced is true.

So, Barry and Maria, tell me everything you know to be objectively and measurably true about me. For example, where did I go to school? What did I study? How old am I? Where have I lived? How tall am I? How much money do I have in the bank? How did I vote in the last 5 elections? How much do I make? How many brothers and sisters do I have? What is the title of the last book I read ... or of any book I have read? What did I say I think of that book? Did I serve in the military? Did I see combat? Was I decorated?

Hell, just tell me if I am male or female -- and then say how it is you know this is a fact and not something you imagined to be true.

Go ahead. Make a list. Check it twice. I want to hear from you. I want to hear what kind of facts you base your assertions on.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Well Brian, to be very candid with you it’s a full mental image that we tend to attach to other ‘cyber people’. Of course I don’t ‘know’ you in person but that’s a different gig. Here in the vast reaches of the Internet, your entire persona is based in the ‘written’ word. Yes, the magical land of make believe where nothing is as it seems, and where the word ‘fact’ don’t mean squat. If you are seeking facts than you have just wandered way off course. You might want to step up to video dating for a more ‘complete’ experience. And please, you shouldn’t spend too much time frettin’ over the fluffy stuff….your plate just has to be a little fuller than that.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

Brian, Based on the things you have posted here, I know that you're a decent human being. I know that you now live in Oregon. I know that you really thought that Nader would shape the campaign much the way that Perot did with Bush and Clinton. I know that you have a daughter in a wheel chair and my heart goes out to both of you. I know that you care about the environment. And finally, I know that you are very disappointed in the way the election has turned out, hence your posts are becoming more and more juvenile.

As far as the rest of your questions, no I don't know about how much money you have, how much you earn, what your physical attributes are, and frankly I don't care about those things. We had our differences in the past but I've gotten past your mocking my style (reference the old aunt analogy). Finally, I'm wondering why you think that it's ok for you to assume so many things about me and yet I can't return the favor. I think you have a lot to offer to this forum.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

<>

Hey, Barry, with the racist attitudes shown previously on this thread, you wouldn't LAST five minutes in a big-city ghetto.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

Thank you, Maria, for decisively proving the difference between yourself and Barry.

Is there any particular trait you can identify for me in my recent postings that you find "more and more juvenile?" I'm not likely to identify it on my own... and I am willing to amend my tone if it is brought to my attention in a way I understand, by someone who is not motivated by malice.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000