The Color Of The Vote

Common tactic employed by Democrats

We should all be appalled at the Democrat party for using  black and Hispanic Democrat to waging a war on whites as part of their campaign tactics to split the nation. What the Democrats are doing with their dividing America by race is they are waging a war on whites and I find that repugnant.

We should not be dividing anybody based on national heritage or race. Rather, we should be bringing us all together. That's what the melting pot ideal America is all about. A person's skin pigmentation is something acquired at birth that has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the person of how one should vote."

President Barack Obama implemented this tactic in 2008 and 2012 “where he divides us on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare. This is a part of the war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party. And the way in which they’re launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else.” 

Yet other congressional conservatives concur with this theme saying that Democrats openly soliciting votes of people based on color, they are attacking whites based on skin color. And that's wrong. Nobody should be attacked based on skin color. 

The Democrats do it on a regular basis and you can see it in the campaign appeal that they make based on skin color. I don't know of a single Republican who has made an appeal for votes based on skin color. But there has been columns written on how can Republicans gather more votes from blacks, I've written some of them  myself. And no one should have forgotten how Obama stated while speaking to a large group of illegal immigrants how they would be rewarded for they're support of the Democratic party and how they should help punish the Republicans for wanting to secure the border.

The Democrats routinely make appeals based on race and they get away with it. It's repugnant to ever make an appeal based on race. I'm one of those who does not believe in racism, and I believe everyone should be treated equally as American citizens. It's high time folks started calling out the Democrats for their racial appeals. Certainly if you were flip the coin and a white person were to say vote for me because I'm white, it would be an uproar and deservedly so. So why do we allow blacks to say vote f me because I'm black or Hispanics vote for me because I'm Hispanic? Race is immaterial and everybody ought to be treated the same."

Conservatism Unplugged: There Goes The Neighborhood

This will be my final installment under the “Conservatism Unplugged” banner. I will be frank and up-front with you on this matter of race and politics as they're current today here in America. I have nothing personal against Obama, BUT, Doesn’t it seem like the Obama administration has divided this country by both race and income?


 The expectations of most pundits, the election of President Obama has aggravated the racial divide in America between blacks and all other racial groups because Obama has hardened black political and social segregation. Far from bringing black and white together, as he promised to do in his famous 2004 Democratic National Convention speech and that was implicit throughout his 2008 campaign, his policies since assuming the Presidency have led to racial polarization, Here, see for yourself.

Jeremiah Wright

Obama's political palaver about bringing people together when he was on the national stage was belied by his own statements and actions when the lights were not shining on him.  After all, this is the man who was an active member of a church led by the race-baiting Jeremiah Wright, and who held out Wright's statement that "white people's greed runs a world in need" as transformative to himself.


But it has been Obama's statist policies, his mania for social and economic engineering that has stoked the racial divisions. His policies, be it the affirmative action policies that are laced throughout the laws passed under him (including ObamaCare), the policies of departments such as the Department of Justice, rules and regulations that have proliferated under his Presidency, his massive shifting of savings among groups have hardened the divides.  There has been a great deal of favoritism exhibited by this administration, some visible but a lot invisible,  or that certainly fly under the radar screen and remain unvisited by mainstream media. Nothing surprising about this dynamic. People vote on pocketbook issues all the time. But I will undoubtedly be decried as being a racist for simply stating that fact and putting it in its proper context.

It was hailed as the dawn of a “post-racial America,” ushered in by the election of the first black president in a country still scarred by the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow and the battle for civil rights.

Just a few short months after President Obama’s historic 2008 election, when many Americans believed the country had finally taken the upper hand over race, some are asking where did the dream of a post-racial America go?  The historical significance of Obama’s White House win, creating the illusion of a colorblind society where racial issues were no longer a major concern.

“The whole country says, ‘Wow, this is a euphoric moment. We’ve transcended our baggage,’ and post-racialism was born with Obama’s election.

Why is race still such an explosive issue in the U.S.? The race question as an onion with many layers to it, is still the biggest hurdle that America has yet to properly deal with the consequences of its history of racism, slavery, segregation and open oppression.

Obama is not being judged through the prism of race by whites, he’s being judged on his lack of economic knowledge. Despite slipping poll numbers, surveys find that a relatively low percentages of voters believe Obama is favoring a black agenda. According to the recent Pew Research Center poll, 13 percent of whites and Hispanics and 1 percent of blacks said they believe he's not paying enough attention to the concerns of the black community.

We were all there in 2008 when the black community voted in record numbers for this President, and now after talking with many in my community, it’s happening again, because our community is still stoned on that koolaid that was served up in 2008. Will the effects ever wear off? 

Does anyone remember the recent unveiling of the Bush portrait? Bush got a  joke off about the possible future of America. I believe what he was saying was "I was the last President of a free America".

Studies have revealed that black men are no longer excited about Obama, and it is mainly due to the fact that they feel he has not done enough for the African-American community. In addition, some feel President Obama is not black enough, and leans towards pleasing white America.

Solving our racial problems in this country will require concrete steps, significant investment and above all, commitment. We're going to have a lot of work to do to overcome the long legacy of Jim Crow and slavery. It can't be purchased on the cheap. I am fundamentally optimistic about our capacity to do that. And I do assert that there's a core decency in the American people and in white Americans that makes me hopeful about our ability to deal with these issues. But these issues aren't just solved by electing a black president or a white president, all of our mind set must change.

Race and racism are still critical factors in determining what happens and who gets ahead in America. The election of Barack Obama ushered in this silly term and now that he’s begun running for re-election, I’m here to brusquely escort it out of the party called American English because it’s a con man of a term, selling you a concept that doesn’t exist.

“Post-racial” is a mythical idea that should be as painful to the mind’s ear as fingernails on the chalkboard are to the outer ear. It’s an intellectual Loch Ness monster. It is indeed a monster because it’s dangerous. What people seem to mean by “post-racial” is: nowadays race no longer matters and anyone can accomplish anything because racism is behind us. All of that is false. But widespread use of the term lends credence to the idea that all of that is true—I mean, why would we have a term for an idea that’s not real? In that way the lie becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and thus feeds the notion that it’s O.K. to be somnambulant about race or even aggressively dismissive of it.

Only through being aware of racial disparities and talking about race can we have any chance of forward movement. Because nowadays there are many white people who are not racist, who are perhaps anti-racist, but who still benefit from white privilege without even meaning to. So you may not be racist but still receiving the spoils of racism. That still doesn’t make you racist. But it makes you part of the system and reveals why it’s also your responsibility to interrogate and examine how our society works and be aware of the biases that keep white supremacy functioning. 

I suspect “post-racial” was born benignly from the hope that Obama’s electoral success meant that the racial problems that have long plagued America were over. Kumbaya. Surely Obama’s victory revealed something had changed in America, but it was not a signal that we’d reached the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s mountaintop world where race no longer matters and equality has been achieved.

During the Obama administration “post-racial” and “race card” and “reverse racism” have run amok like gremlins in the language, obfuscating race and making discussions about it harder. America still has so much work to do regarding race and racism and “post-racial” is only making that work harder to do. That’s why “post-racial” and its cohorts must be stopped posthaste.

I Don't Have VOTER ID; Can I Still Vote?

Obama administration has “launched an all-out war on voter ID laws” to bolster the president’s re-election chances. 

Ken Blackwell

A Republican activist, Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, asserts that voter ID laws offer a “reasonable safeguard” to protect against voter fraud and ballot-box stuffing.


Blackwell, who was secretary of state in Ohio from 1999 to 2007, also has been mayor of Cincinnati, undersecretary in the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the George H.W. Bush administration, and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission. He now is vice chairman of the Republican National Committee's Platform Committee and a senior fellow with the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU). 






The ACRU has launched a new campaign called Protect Your Vote, an effort to protect states’ rights to require voters to present ID cards at the polling place.

The liberal war on voter integrity has now morphed from partisan hypocrisy to parody. It is bad enough for the Obama administration and its cheerleaders in the media to falsely brand the effort by various states to require citizens to present a picture ID when they go to vote as a revival of Jim Crow laws. But the NAACP has reduced that controversy to satire by asking the United Nations Human Rights Council to weigh in on the matter at an upcoming conference on minority rights in Geneva, Switzerland.

This is the same UN Council that is comprised of some of the worst human rights abusers in the world, which includes China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia. The idea that Americans would ask a group whose members are countries that not only restrict voting rights but lack even the façade of democratic rule to take a stand on U.S. laws is beyond absurd. It seems never to have occurred to the partisans at the NAACP that there is something humorous about regimes that deny all of their citizens any say in governance standing in judgment on an actual working democracy. The arguments arrayed against voter ID laws by the Obama administration and those seeking to create a race issue where none exists are already weak. But by involving the UN, the NAACP has exposed itself to some well-earned scorn.


Laws requiring voters to show identification at the polls are common-sense measures to prevent fraud and corruption and to ensure that each year’s election returns accurately reflect the will of the people. With the attack led by the Obama Justice Department on voter ID laws across this country, ACRU has decided to mount a counteroffensive to protect the integrity of ballot boxes all across our country.

Although Attorney General Eric Holder’s actions are purportedly to prevent minorities from being disenfranchised, the reality is that these actions are nothing more than a crass political move with the purpose of ensuring that President Obama gets re-elected. The Justice Department recently blocked a new photo ID law in Texas and halted South Carolina’s law in December. 

Egyptians voter ID card

More than 30 states have tried to put in place a common-sense measure of voter ID so that people are assured that voters are who they purport to be, and voter IDs are commonplace in our culture. After all, you need an ID for a driver’s license, for boarding an airplane, receiving a passport, purchasing alcohol or checking out a library book. So to use it to safeguard the integrity of the voting process at the voting station is  a common-sense measure . 

We've just witnessed voting in Egypt at the end of January. I watched as Egyptians offered voter ID cards to say, I am who I purport to be. This is not a matter of saying there is voter fraud that’s run rampant, but we do have enough anecdotal evidence. We all know the horror stories of ACORN in 2008 and 2010. So there is enough evidence to suggest that we need to put things in place to protect this from going crazy.

The UN Human Rights Council is itself a standing mockery of the entire cause of human rights not just because it is comprised of tyrannies who routinely practice the atrocities the council is supposed to combat, but also because it devotes the vast majority of its time and effort to attacking Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. The UN’s obsession with delegitimizing Israel has long since crossed the line into anti-Semitism. But the world body’s lack of interest in doing something about China’s abuses in Tibet, the plight of women in the Arab world or the suppression of dissent in Cuba and China is just as outrageous.

The internationalization of the voter ID issue is also particularly inane because most developed countries, including the democracies, require citizens to have ID cards as a matter of law.

It should also be remembered that the argument that voter ID laws disenfranchise minorities is a thinly veiled attempt to incite racial distrust at the expense of a good government measure. The notion that there is something discriminatory about requiring voters to properly identify themselves in a nation when such photo IDS are already required for all airline travel and many other routine measures is absurd. The best that Attorney General Holder could do when overruling Texas’ voter ID law last week was to cite the fact that approximately 94 percent of Hispanics have such documentation as opposed to about 96 percent of non-Hispanics. Interestingly, there was no mention in the complaint about any disparity between African-Americans and other citizens even though we are told voter ID laws target the poor.

Justice John Paul Stevens

The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that voter ID laws were legal. That 6-3-majority opinion was written by liberal Justice John Paul Stevens who wrote, “there is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters.” Stevens also noted “we cannot conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters.” That is especially true because the states that have passed or considered voter ID laws have made provisions to give such cards free of charge to the tiny minority of citizens who don’t already have them.

The Obama administration isn't really this stupid, they really know that to get government services and access requires these very same IDs and they understand that these States also have instituted free of cost IDs. This is merely an extension of Critical Race Theory that we have heard so much about lately. Critical Race Theory claims that since racism is embedded with the core structure of society and cannot be expunged through any means racism must be addressed by punitive counter-racism for the benefit of the discriminated parties. So therefore, the administration is pursuing a goal of allowing Blacks and Hispanics to commit voter fraud in an effort to "equalize" the political playing field. The same thinking is behind the DOJ prosecution of "White" perpetrated voter intimidation and their pass when Blacks are accused of the same. This is merely the tip of the iceberg, the most visible. This mindset is filtering down to every level of the Justice bureaucracy and to every sort of crime. Expect to see more excuses for crimes perpetrated by minorities and more prosecutions for vaguely defined "hate" crimes by "Whites.

EXTRA EXTRA: Get your sexual impropriety here, Today only

SHE WANTED IT

Herman Cain

Why have both of the most prominent black conservatives of the past 20 years been targeted by sexual allegation? Why don’t white conservatives get similarly accused? Why does the Left seem to find such charges against black conservatives so credible? Why do charges of sexual impropriety against conservative black men”stick” so readily in the minds of the Left?

I think that the Left has fallen into a psychological rut worn deep in our collective cultural conscience by a century of scientific racism. I think they are all primed to see black men as sexually impulsive. That is why they instantly think such charges as credible.

Classical racism (pre-WWII) held that non-white races were less evolved away from animals than whites and therefore had more animalistic natures. Under the non-Darwinian concept of evolution ascendant at the time,  the “scientific consensus” held that natural forces were pushing all living things along a predetermined development towards some “higher” or “perfected” state. In humans, that meant our brains grew larger, increasing intellect and emotional control but at the same time weakening the body.

Non-whites were believed to be less evolved and therefore mentally and emotionally inferior but with the relative strength and stamina of animals. In a time when most men still performed manual labor for a living, the era’s progressives argued that the “lesser” races had an unfair advantage in the free-market when it came to competing for manual labor jobs so the government had to step in. Most Jim Crow laws, unions and immigration restrictions on Asian were supported by the era’s progressives with the argument that “greedy” business owners would hire non-whites because they could do the job better without paying attention to the “socially responsible” need to maintain white supremacy.

One side effect of seeing non-whites, particularly black people, as more animalistic, was that they were also seen as being more sexually virile.  However, they were also viewed as being more animal like in having far less sexual self-control and more likely to give into impulses. In a time when people had direct exposure to the highly aggressive and dangerous sexual behavior of bulls, stallions and boars, it was easy to see the supposedly more animalistic black males as posing a similar danger, more over, the fact that a white man needs a white woman to conceive a white baby was more of a threat to Black society than the fact that blacks can take any person on earth and conceive a black child that's where the idea that black men looking at white women posed a danger comes from. It got a lot of innocent men and boys killed.

Many Black-American thinkers today maintain that the fading echoes of this old concept still resonates within our cultural subconscious and that we are all, regardless of race, primed to see Black-American males as overly sensual and sexually impulsive. While being stereotyped as virile is boon to the teenager and college aged, being seen as impulsive in any way is detrimental to rising to positions of trust and authority. Many black men still feel they are viewed as impulsive and thoughtless.

Given this history, shouldn’t we be asking just what is driving accusation of sexual harassment against first Clarence Thomas and now Herman Cain? Why these particular allegations against the only two Black-American male conservatives to seek high Federal office?

Anita Hill Dripping with sex appeal

The acts that Anita Hills alleged, even if taken at face value, were trivial acts. Did Thomas’ race and sex amplify the significance of those acts in Hill’s mind?  Moreover, were they amplified in the minds of the Leftists who sought to bring Thomas down? Did Cain’s secret accusers likewise assume that a black man, even an older, educated black man, must be sexually impulsive and magnify innocuous comments into something sexual and aggressive?

Clarence Thomas

Does our collective legacy of racism drive us all to we assume that the faintest hint of sexual suggestion on the part of a black man must represent the tip of an iceberg of animalistic sexuality? Do women, even black women, feel more threatened by the comments of black men than those made by other men?

Most worrisome, do these charges gain instant traction on the Left because of cynical political calculation or because of the Lefts’ latent racism? When faced by an Black-American male who refuses to defer to them, do they revert to cultural subconscious racism and assume that the offending black man must be sexually dangerous?

I think it quite possible.

One of the defining aspects of Leftism is a complete lack of individual moral introspection. Leftists have an unshakable faith in their own moral rectitude. They are the elect and the rest of us are the damned. Leftists never stop to wonder if subtle, inherited racism influences their thoughts and actions. Believing themselves immune to such failings, they never defend against them and always fall prey.

Racism is a moral failing Leftist definitely believe themselves immune to. They won’t admit that in their hearts, they see African-Americans as lesser people, ever trapped in an infantile state and always requiring the benevolent protection of the noble white Leftists.

They won’t  admit that Cain and other black conservatives provoke such a strong emotional reaction precisely because they refuse to act like dependent, subservient infants. They won’t admit to themselves that they are so quick to believe accusation of sexual misconduct against black conservatives because when blacks challenge Leftists the Leftists have no psychological barriers to reverting back to culturally inherited stereotypes about the supposed dangerous sexuality of black men.

The Left thinks they’ve advanced so far but they haven’t. When tested they fail. All it takes is the least suggestion and they revert to the ugly past.