A Chip Off the Old Block: Jackson Family Values, Part IV

By Nicholas Stix
November 16, 2000
Toogood Reports

[Part I: Jesse Jackson on How to Steal a Presidential Election, and Live Happily Ever After; Part II: “Whose Rights? Our Rights!”; and Part III: “Gettin’ Paid.”]

 
In my three previous columns, I talked about a man whose contempt for federal election law and due process has led him to attempt to steal a Presidential election. His name: Jesse Jackson.

Now I want to talk about another man with a similar contempt for federal election law. His name: Jesse Jackson.

In the former case, I was talking about the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the founder and leader of PUSH (People United to Save Humanity)/Rainbow Coalition. In the latter case, I was talking about Cong. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), who has represented Chicago’s Second Congressional District since 1996, and who, according to his website, was born while his father was marching in Selma, Alabama with Martin Luther King Jr.

A November 7 Newsmax.com article reported that on November 6, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. had bragged about all the electioneering that had been done by Democrats in black churches. On Steve Gill and Terry Hopkins’ WLAC-AM show, Nashville This Morning, the following exchange occurred:

GILL: Let me ask you about this. It’s against IRS regulations for politicians to campaign from the pulpit. Why are these politicians campaigning in black churches?

JACKSON: I’m not totally convinced that’s true in the African-American community. Certainly there’s a separation of church and state. But in our community there’s little distinction between our religion and our politics. ... And so in many African-American churches born out of experience in this country, the role of the churches has evolved into a very, very active political institution which has been very effective for a number of causes in the black community.

HOPKINS: And that supersedes the law?

JACKSON: Absolutely. Oh, absolutely.

According to federal election law, churches that permit on-premise electioneering—in other words, most black churches—forfeit their tax-exempt status.

At WLAC-FM, the producer of Morning in Nashville, Patrick Hennessy, assured me, “It’s word for word on Newsmax. That’s exactly what he said. We’ve got it on tape.”

Patrick Hennessy continued, “It was a Monday. Al Gore had been politicking in black churches,” which set the stage for co-host Steve Gill’s question. “What got us, was when he said, ‘Absolutely. Oh, absolutely.’”

The apple didn’t fall far from the tree.

Needless to say, the mainstream national media ignored the story. Meanwhile, the Chicago newspapers were apparently closed for an election-eve vacation, and the New York Times didn’t find it “fit to print.”

As everyone in America knows, federal laws exist as bludgeons for blacks to use on whites. As Cong. Jackson emphasized, apparently contradicting himself, “Certainly there’s a separation of church and state.” When you understand the race code, an apparent contradiction becomes instead a double-standard: ‘Certainly there’s a separation of church and state, where whites are concerned. But that doesn’t hold in the African-American community.’

When was the last time blacks were punished for violating federal law? (For that matter, when was the first time?) Specifically, when have you ever heard of a black church losing its tax-exempt status for electioneering?

The Jackson family’s war on the election laws is simply the logical outcome of affirmative action: If blacks are to be exempted from having to follow rules and laws that are vigorously, even draconianly applied to whites; encouraged and empowered by the government to engage in [felony] racial extortion, institutional racism, racist jury nullification, and given rigged congressional races; then they cannot be faulted for expecting to have the right to nullify a presidential election.

As Bill Clinton used to say, “Change is good”! What about it, Rev. Jackson and Cong. Jackson? How about, for a radical change, you started honoring the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the laws of these United States?