Racists, racists…everywhere!

Why isn’t Obama creaming his rival? Why is he, at best, just a few points ahead, and stubbornly stalled below 50 percent in every national poll?

The commentariat has countless other answers at the ready. Obama is aloof, elitist, lacks the common touch. He has failed to put forward a powerful economic message. He is cut from the same cloth as past Democrats seen as too weak, too effete, too liberal. His calculated dash to the center has left him looking, in the words of GOP consultant Alex Castellanos, like “an ever-changing work-in-progress … as authentic as a pair of designer jeans.”

Yet, as Castellanos admits to me, all these explanations “leave many things unspoken.” Or perhaps just one big thing. Obama, after all, isn’t having trouble with African-American voters or Hispanic voters or young voters. Where he’s lagging is among white voters, and with older ones in particular. Call me crazy, but isn’t it possible, just possible, that Obama’s lead is being inhibited by the fact that he is, you know, black? “Of course it is,” says another prominent Republican operative. “It’s the thing that nobody wants to talk about, but it’s obviously a huge factor.”

You old racist fossils! How dare you not help in the anointment of the Messiah? For shame.

The House is apparently about to apologize on behalf of dead men for a crime committed against dead men.

The House of Representatives was poised Tuesday to pass a resolution apologizing to African-Americans for slavery and the era of Jim Crow.

The nonbinding resolution, which is expected to pass, was introduced by Rep. Steve Cohen, a white lawmaker who represents a majority black district in Memphis, Tennessee.

…By passing the resolution, the House would also acknowledge the “injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow.”

…”African-Americans continue to suffer from the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow — long after both systems were formally abolished — through enormous damage and loss, both tangible and intangible, including the loss of human dignity and liberty, the frustration of careers and professional lives, and the long-term loss of income and opportunity,” the resolution states.

Certainly slavery was all of those things - an injustice, cruel, brutal and inhumane.  However, there is no denying (as the resolution attempts to do) that the descendants of slaves are much better off today than they otherwise would be, despite the abhorrent immorality of slavery itself.  Descendants of slavery, if there had been no such institution, would today be inhabiting a continent full of misery, civil war and genocide instead of a land of unparalleled opportunity.  This fact is by no means meant to mitigate the atrocities of slavery and certainly cannot be used to provide a post hoc moral justification for such a horrendous practice, but it is fact nonetheless.

If the House is interested in apologizing for things that have made today’s black community worse off, and not just those things that harmed it in the past, I suggest they start apologizing for The New Deal and Great Society disasters, both of which have done a magnificent job of decimating the black family - something even slavery could not accomplish.

Warning: Runaway liberalism is hazardous to a nation’s health.  Just look at Britain:

Toddlers who say “yuck” when given flavorful foreign food may be exhibiting racist behavior, a British government-sponsored organization says.

The London-based National Children’s Bureau released a 366-page guide counseling adults on recognizing racist behavior in young children, The Telegraph reported Monday.

The guide, titled Young Children and Racial Justice, warns adults that babies must also be included in the effort to eliminate racism because they have the ability to “recognize different people in their lives.”

The bureau says to be aware of children who “react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying ‘yuck’.”

“Racist incidents among children in early years settings tend to be around name-calling, casual thoughtless comments and peer group relationships,” the guide says.

Staff members are advised not to ignore racist actions and to condemn them when they occur.

Send the little buggers to reeducation camps!

In case you needed more proof that Obama is auditioning for the job of Victim-In-Chief, the oppressed Senator said this at a Florida fundraiser:

“We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run,” said the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. “They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’”

This is change? Looks like the same worn-out, democrat playbook to me.

The narrative for the general election is being cast and anyone who doesn’t immediately jump on the Obama bandwagon will be accused of racism. CQ Politics frets that Obama will face a “racial challenge” in the general election. To substantiate the proposition that people who don’t support Obama are all just evil racists, the article rests heavily on Newsweek poll, an organization with a history of using shoddy polling methodology.

While Illinois Sen. Barack Obama runs dead even with Arizona Sen. John McCain in a new Newsweek poll at 46 percent each with 8 percent undecided, the survey took a hard look at the race factor by employing what it called a “Racial Resentment Index” to further analyze voting blocs and it concluded that, “Obama’s race may well explain his difficulty in winning over white voters.”

Questions in the poll that tested voters on issues that involved race included views on affirmative action, whether blacks or whites lost out more because of racial preferences in things like hiring or school admissions, whether racial discrimination or personal responsibility accounted for problems facing black Americans, opinions on interracial marriage and dating and reaction that white voters would have if a black American with equal education and income moved into their neighborhood.

Measuring people’s motivations is admittedly a difficult task, but this is a horrible conceptualization of racism. Newsweek’s “Racial Restenment Index” doesn’t measure racism, it measures liberalism! The only questions that possibly have anything to do with racism are the last two; the rest are just direct measures of an individual’s proclivity toward liberal policy. Support affirmative action? If so, you’re a good non-racist (liberal)! See everyone as victims rather than in control of their own destiny? If not, you must be a racist (and an evil conservative)!

Be prepared: the media will, at the behest of the Obama campaign, continue to assault non-Obama voters and insist on labeling them all racists with ever greater frequency the closer we get to the election.

Running a typically anecdotal story on the upcoming democratic primary in Kentucky, the Chicago Tribune has thrust itself into contention for understatement of the year. Despite noting Clinton’s 25+ lead in polls, the Tribune could only bring itself to admit that the state is “leaning Clinton’s way“.

The cause of Obama’s inability to run a competitive campaign, of course, must include racism:

Like its Appalachian neighbor, Kentucky shares a large rural population, though metropolitan areas in Louisville, Lexington and the suburbs across the Ohio River from Cincinnati give Obama an opening.

Although Gershtenson said “religion and guns matter” in the Kentucky ethos, race also is a factor. “There’s no doubt that there is a significant portion of the electorate that would be very hesitant to vote for a black man,” he said.

Really? And what evidence exactly leads one to conclude such a thing with “no doubt”?

Kim Criglier, a married mother of four who runs a photography business and works the bar at the historic Brown Hotel, said she and her friends have debated the upcoming election.

A lifelong Kentuckian, who considers herself “a liberal, yet conservative,” she acknowledges resentment to strong women exists in some parts of the state, yet “they would be more apt to vote for a white woman over a black male, sad as that is.”

This is how the racism argument typically goes. The media never actually shows any empirical evidence to support their claims. Rather, they just find people who think that everyone else is racist, regurgitate their unsubstantiated opinions, and we’re just supposed to throw up our hands and say, “by golly, they must be right!”

Voter fraud is a serious problem all across the country, a problem made much worse in the 90’s thanks to Clinton’s “motor voter” debacle. Many states, responding to public pressure, have moved to close loopholes and ensure the integrity of the voting process. The Florida legislature has passed a sensible bill that made what can at best be described as moderate changes in hopes of providing better protection to legitimate voters from having their ballots diluted.

Feds question whether state’s new voting law is fair

A sweeping new elections law passed with great fanfare earlier this year is coming under the scrutiny of the U.S. Department of Justice, which wants to make sure parts of it won’t discriminate against minorities.

Buried in the lengthy 42-page law, which forced counties to switch to optical-can voting machines for the fall 2008 elections, are changes to identification requirements for voters as well as new requirements for groups that register voters.

An Oct. 29 letter from the Department of Justice says the agency needs more information to decide the impact the changes will have on minority voters.

”Our analysis also indicates that the information is insufficient to enable us to determine that the proposed changes . . . do not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color or membership in a language minority group,” wrote John Tanner, chief of the voting section of the Civil Rights Division.

The Department of Justice, however, has decided to play on race fears by pretending that it needs more information to insure that minority voters aren’t “disenfranchised”. This is transparent nonsense, for the rule changes apply equally to all. There is no legitimate and factual basis for assuming that one sub-group or another is unduly targeted, unless of course that sub-group just happens to be engaging in greater fraud than others.

The usual rabble of race-related outcry has of course emerged.

‘Anything that burdens or shuts down voter registration drives will have a negative effect in those communities,” said Renee Paradis, an attorney with the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.

The only drives that will be “shut down” are those which are fraudulent. Meanwhile, a necessary burden is already inherent in the process for all to ensure the protection of all votes. That has nothing to do with race. It’s time to stop with the racial fear-mongering and fix our beleaguered voting mechanism.

So we all know by now that one of the favorite tactics of the left, when they can’t get their way, is to accuse everyone else of being racists. This strategy has been used heavily over the many immigration debates. Irving, Texas, which has dared to enforce immigration laws, is now seeing just this sort of dishonest intimidation campaign being waged against its law enforcement officials.

Irving, TX Criminal Immigrant Program Called Racist - Corruption Chronicles

A Texas city?s program to get rid of criminal immigrants has led to more than 1,600 deportations and furious Latino rights advocates will rally at City Hall this weekend to block further implementation because they say the measure is racist and discriminatory.

Irving?s Criminal Alien Program simply checks the immigration status of anyone arrested within city limits. Those found to be in the country illegally are turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and eventually deported for violating federal immigration laws.

…Now illegal immigration advocates, who initially supported the effective program, are playing the race card. They claim that police officers are bigots who racially profile suspects and that all immigrants?legal and illegal alike?now live in fear.

So a program that targets all criminals for immigration status checks is racist. Logic is wasted on these people. One thing is clear though, if this program has them this upset it must be working. Every city should adopt this common sense strategy.

The Supreme Court has been on a roll lately. This time they’ve correctly ruled that west coast liberals assigning students to schools according to race do so unconstitutionally.

The school districts have not carried their heavy burden of showing that the interest they seek to achieve justifies the extreme means they have chosen?discriminating among individual students based on race by relying upon racial classifications in making school assignments.

. . .Although remedying the effects of past intentional discrimination is a compelling interest under the strict scrutiny test, see Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U. S. 467 , that interest is not involved here because the Seattle schools were never segregated by law nor subject to court-ordered desegregation, and the desegregation decree to which the Jefferson County schools were previously subject has been dissolved.

The left often justifies their institutionally condoned racism with the claim that they are just correcting for past racism. They now make this argument so reflexively, that they don’t even bother to determine if there is any history of past racism to which they can possibly be referring. Indeed, they instinctively refer to any racial imbalance as “segregation”, but in so doing they lose the meaning of the word. Even the supposedly intelligent liberals on the Supreme Court can’t understand this basic distinction. Justice Thomas, in his concurrence, sets them straight.

Disfavoring a color-blind interpretation of the Constitution, the dissent would give school boards a free hand to make decisions on the basis of race—, an approach reminiscent of that advocated by the segregationists in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S 483 (1954). This approach is just as wrong today as it was a half-century ago. The Constitution and our cases require us to be much more demanding before permitting local school boards to make decisions based on race.

. . .The dissent repeatedly claims that the school districts are threatened with resegregation and that they will succumb to that threat if these plans are declared unconstitutional. It also argues that these plans can be justified as part of the school boards’ attempts to “eradicate earlier school segregation.” . . Contrary to the dissent’s rhetoric, neither of these school districts is threatened with resegregation, and neither is constitutionally compelled or permitted to undertake race-based remediation. Racial imbalance is not segregation, and the mere incantation of terms like resegregation and remediation cannot make up the difference.

Because this Court has authorized and required race-based remedial measures to address de jure segregation, it
is important to define segregation clearly and to distinguish it from racial imbalance. In the context of public
schooling, segregation is the deliberate operation of a school system to “carry out a governmental policy to separate
pupils in schools solely on the basis of race.” . . In Brown, this Court declared that segregation was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Racial imbalance is the failure of a school district’s individual schools to match or approximate the demographic makeup of the student population at large. . . Racial imbalance is not segregation. Although presently observed racial imbalance might result from past de jure segregation, racial imbalance can also result from any number of innocent private decisions, including voluntary housing choices. Because racial imbalance is not inevitably linked to unconstitutional segregation, it is not unconstitutional in and of itself.

The use of racial imbalance by liberals to justify their social engineering programs is no longer acceptable. It is time they accept that observing such an imbalance does not constitute evidence of racism.

That’s right, the NBA, nearly every black teenagers dream job, is racist against blacks. According to a recent study.

NEW YORK (AP) - An academic study of NBA officiating found that white referees called fouls at a greater rate against black players than against white players, The New York Times reported on its Web site Tuesday night.

The study by a University of Pennsylvania assistant professor and Cornell graduate student also found that black officials called fouls more frequently against white players than black, but noted that that tendency was not as pronounced.

Justin Wolfers, an assistant professor of business and public policy at Penn’s Wharton School, and Joseph Price, a Cornell graduate student in economics, said the difference in calls “is large enough that the probability of a team winning is noticeably affected by the racial composition of the refereeing crew.”

The study, conducted over a 13-season span through 2004, found that the racial makeup of a three-man officiating crew affected calls by up to 4 1/2 percent.

The NBA strongly criticized the study, which was based on information from publicly available box scores, which show only the referees’ names and contain no information about which official made a call.

“The study that is cited in the New York Times article is wrong,” president of league and basketball operations Joel Litvin told The Associated Press on Tuesday night. “The fact is there is no evidence of racial bias in foul calls made by NBA officials and that is based on a study conducted by our experts who looked at data that was far more robust and current than the data relied upon by Professor Wolfers.

How long until Jesse Jackson demands the NBA increase the percentage of black officials? Or the ACLU demands the NBA stop racially profiling blacks on the court? We obviously need stricter quotas to ensure racial equality at the free-throw line.

Not even our sports are safe from moonbattery!

On a personal note - good luck to the Mavs tonight. Send those smug San Fran bozos home to the freak show where they belong. A team from the bay area called the “Warriors” is the biggest joke ever. In San Fran they spit on the real warriors. Also, they have the most obnoxious sports fans ever. I’m with Barkley. They’re goin down!

UPDATE:

Who are you, and what have you done with Dirk?