Thomas Sowell: Liberals are now playing race-card fraud
By: Thomas Sowell | 07/21/10 3:00 AM
Credit card fraud is a serious problem. But race-card fraud is an even bigger problem.
Playing the race card takes many forms. Judge Charles Pickering, a federal judge in Mississippi who defended the civil rights of blacks for years and defied the Ku Klux Klan back when that was dangerous, was depicted as a racist when he was nominated for a federal appellate judgeship.
No one even mistakenly thought he was a racist. The point was simply to discredit him for political reasons- and it worked.
This year’s target is the Tea Party. When leading Democrats, led by a smirking Nancy Pelosi, made their triumphant walk on Capitol Hill, celebrating their passage of a bill in defiance of public opinion, Tea Party members on the scene protested.
All this was captured on camera and the scene was played on television. What was not captured on any of the cameras and other recording devices on the scene was anybody using racist language, as has been charged by those playing the race card.
When you realize how many media people were there, and how many ordinary citizens carry around recording devices of one sort or another, it is remarkable- indeed, unbelievable- that racist remarks were made and yet were not captured by anybody.
The latest attack on the Tea Party movement, by Ben Jealous of the NAACP, has once again played the race card. Like the proverbial lawyer who knows his case is weak, he shouts louder.
This is not the first time that an organization with an honorable and historic mission has eventually degenerated into a tawdry racket. But that an organization like the NAACP, after years of fighting against genuine racism, should now be playing the game of race-card fraud is especially painful to see.
Some critics of the Tea Party have seized upon banners carried at one of its rallies that compared Obama with Hitler and Stalin. Extreme? Yes. But there was nothing racist about it, since extreme comparisons have been made about politicians of every race, color, creed, nationality, ideology and sexual preference.
Some Obama supporters have long regarded any criticism of him as racism. But that they should have to resort to such a banner to bolster their case shows how desperate they are for any evidence.
Among people who voted for President Barack Obama in 2008, those who are likely to be most disappointed are those who thought that they were voting for a new post-racial era. There was absolutely nothing in Obama’s past to lead to any such expectation, and much to suggest the exact opposite. But the man’s rhetoric and demeanor during the election campaign enabled this and many other illusions to flourish.
Still, it was an honest mistake of the kind that decent people have often made when dealing with people whose agendas are not constrained by decency, but only by what they think they can get away with.
On race, as on other issues, different people have radically different views of Obama, depending on whether they judge him by what he says or by what he does.
As Obama’s own books point out, he has for years cultivated a talent for saying things that people will find congenial.
You want bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington? He will say that he wants bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington. Then he will shut Republicans out of the decision-making process and respond to their suggestions by reminding them that he won the election. A famous writer- Ring Lardner, I believe- once wrote: “‘Shut up,’ he explained.”
You want a government that is open instead of secretive? He will say that. He will promise to post proposed legislation on the Internet long enough for everyone to read it and know what is in it before there is a vote.
In practice, however, he has rushed massive bills through Congress too fast for anybody- even the members of Congress- to know what was in those bills.
Racial issues are more of the same. You want a government where all citizens are treated alike, regardless of race or ethnicity? Obama will say that.
Then he will advocate appointing judges with “empathy” for particular segments of the population, such as racial minorities. “Empathy” is just a pretty word for the ugly reality of bias.
Obama’s first nomination of a Supreme Court justice was a classic example of someone with “empathy” for some racial groups, but not others. As a Circuit Court judge, Sonia Sotomayor voted to dismiss a case involving white firefighters who had been denied the promotions for which they qualified, because not enough blacks or Hispanics passed the same test that they did.
A fellow Hispanic judge protested the way the white firefighters’ case was dismissed, rather than adjudicated. Moreover, the Supreme Court not only took the case, it ruled in favor of the firefighters.
Obama’s injecting himself into a local police matter in Massachusetts, despite admitting that he didn’t know the facts, to say that a white policeman was in the wrong in arresting a black professor who was a friend of Obama, was more of the same. So is Obama’s Justice Department overlooking blatant voter intimidation by thugs who happen to be black.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything post-racial about Obama, except for the people who voted for him in the mistaken belief that he shared their desire to be post-racial. When he leaves office, especially if it is after one term, he will leave this country more racially polarized than before.
Hopefully, he may also leave the voters wiser, though sadder, after they learn from painful experience that you can’t judge politicians by their rhetoric, or ignore their past because of your hopes for the future. Voters may even wise up to race card fraud.
Examiner Columnist Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, one of the most respected voices or our time and is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate, Author of The Housing Boom and Bust
Many American, if only subconsciously, voted for Barack Hussein Obama in the hope that his election would finally put an end to the racial tensions in America. Instead racial tensions have not been higher in decades than they are now with Obama at the helm. And the reason for that is Obama and the Progressive left’s consistent use of the race card since he had been in office. Obama and his minions are the ones who have been divisive and derisive… not white main street America, not the tea party and not republicans. Here is just another example:
Sheila Jackson Lee’s question and insane if you use any logic and facts at all and her insinuations are race driven. Nancy Pelosi’s support of Lee’s statements and ideologically driven, for she is one of the most ideologically left politicians on the Hill. The left is obsessed with race and using it as a tool to control and divide people for their purposes and they are rewriting history to serve their purposes. The race card, divide and conquer, multiculturalism and political correctness are all tools of the division and of the left!
The reason Obama’s and buddy Geithner’s latest debt ceiling increase request was such a fight has nothing to do with the fact that Obama is half black, but rather that he has doubled our national debt in 18 months and is bankrupting our country with his spending and ideology.
Star Parker, a black author, former GOP Congressional candidate, and political activist, radio personality and speaker, who used to be a welfare recipient, will tell you (and often does) that the whole divide and conquer philosophy and keeping minorities on the government dole is part of the progressive left’s plan and ideology and we all bought into it…. blacks and whites!
And an even more heinous is this example:
‘A SLAVE HOLDER NAMED THOMAS JEFFERSON’: IS SMITHSONIAN‘S NEW ’RACE’ EXHIBIT – FAIR TO FOUNDING FATHER? HARDLY!!!
Which major government-funded U.S. museum currently features an exhibit that classifies Thomas Jefferson as simply “a slave holder”?
The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History currently features an exhibit titled “Race: Are We So Different?”
That would be the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, located in the heart of nation’s capital.
The Blaze visited the exhibit and found a couple of things that might surprise you.
A five-minute video at the front of the hall sets up the visitor’s experience, which in addition to describing Christopher Columbus as someone who only “colonized and conquered” the natives he encountered, refers to Jefferson merely as a “slave holder”:
“Race,” the narrator says, “is a powerful idea that was invented by society.”
“Many of the ideas we now associate with race originated during the European era of exploration. Europeans like Christopher Columbus traveled overseas and encountered and then colonized and conquered peoples in Africa, Asia and the Americas who looked, talked and acted much differently from them.
“In the American colonies, the first laborers were European indentured servants. When African laborers were forcibly brought to Virginia beginning in 1619, status was defined by wealth and religion, not by physical characteristics such as skin color. But this would change.
“By 1776 when “All men are created equal” was written into the Declaration of Independence by a slave holder named Thomas Jefferson, a democratic nation was born with a major contradiction about race at its core. As our new nation asserted its independence from European tyranny, blacks and American Indians were viewed as less than human and not deserving of the same liberties as whites.”
A display in another part of the exhibit features a historical timeline of slavery. The entry for the year 1784 states: “Thomas Jefferson, future U.S. president and likely the father of at least one of the slaves he owned, publishes ‘Notes on the State of Virginia.’” It quotes Jefferson’s writing, where he posits whether blacks are a distinct, inferior race from whites and if that would be an obstacle to their emancipation.
Jefferson did of course own slaves — hundreds throughout his lifetime. But his feelings on slavery were also much more complex than the exhibit suggests — in other writings he called it “an abominable crime” and “moral depravity.” He drafted Virginia’s 1778 law banning the importation of enslaved Africans and separately proposed slavery be outlawed in the new Northwest territories.
But “Race: Are We So Different?” does not cover any of that. None of the exhibit’s written displays examines these nuances; the only other details offered are on a looped video with a historian who says Jefferson knew it was “a massive contradiction” to both own slaves while professing the “lofty ideals” of America — a brief distinction that is easy to miss.
When contacted by The Blaze, Kelly Carnes of the Natural History Museum‘s press office said she could not speak to the exhibit’s content because it was not created by the Smithsonian. Damon Dozier of the American Anthropological Association did not respond to requests for comment.
At the end of the day, a casual Smithsonian visitor is likely to come away from one of the nation’s preeminent museums thinking that one of the Founding Fathers was truly nothing more than a racist slave owner — and remember, since it’s a government-funded museum, you as a taxpayer are paying for it.
Other features of note:
- A display titled “Racism’s effects on health“ says ”numerous studies have linked the stress of racism on African Americans to high blood pressure, adding evidence to the claims that racism contributes to the high rates of hypertension among them.“ It adds that racism may also affect health through ”limited access to nutritious food and safe environments for exercise; increased exposure to environmental toxins; reduced quality of health care.”
- A display about the history of affirmative action in the U.S. declares, “The legacy of white privilege still runs far ahead of efforts to compensate for it.” It features a note about two 2003 Supreme Court affirmative action rulings, which it says upheld “the limited use of race as a factor in reviewing student [university] applications.” While Grutter v. Bollinger did uphold the use of race for admissions, the ruling in the second case, Gratz v. Bollinger, actually held that the use of simply assigning “points” to someone based on their race was unconstitutional. Beside the display’s text is a photograph of the 2003 court, including Clarence Thomas, the sole African American justice. Thomas has long maintained his views opposing affirmative action, something nowhere to be found on the display.
You can take a virtual tour of the exhibit here. “Race: Are We So Different?” will be on display at the Smithsonian through Jan. 2. 2012
Update: 08.15.11 5:06PM ET
They Who Live by the Race Card Die by the Race Card
Due to Obama’s declining poll numbers, Democrat tongues loosened by cocktails at parties are quietly suggesting,“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could primary Obama out with Hillary? Darn it, we can’t because Obama is black!”
I say, “Hallelujah — a perfect example of divine justice.” They who live by the race card die by the race card.
Almost three years ago, the Democrats offered their equivalent of a Trojan Horse to America in the form of a shiny, new, extremely well-crafted, beautiful black man. Its mega-internal speakers broadcast a hypnotic message, heavily reverbed to create a godlike effect and looped 24/7, promising “Hope and Change.”
A “perfect storm” of circumstances led to America’s enthusiastic embrace of the Democrats’ ebony idol Trojan Horse: white guilt, black racism, and perhaps even the popularity of the American Idol TV show. Obama was the first “rock star” American Ebony Idol presidential candidate.
Democrats were elated by their good fortune.
The Democrats keep their R-for-racist branding iron red-hot and ready to apply swift retribution to any feisty, uppity conservative or Republican who dares challenge Obama.
Basking in their tactical genius, Democrats thought, “We did it! We pulled off the perfect exploitation of race to implement our socialistic agenda; a liberal black man in the White House.” Someone at the DNC even broke out their old Commodores record as they partied: “Ce-le-brate good times, C’MON!”
As America slept, one night under the cover of darkness, a hidden door in the ebony idol opened; out rushed an army of vicious liberal minions, freedom-killing mandates, and socialistic policies. Their mission: destroy our capitalist system and massacre America as we know it.
Totally unexpected and to the horror of the Democrats, We The People rose up. Patriots, via divine inspiration, formed the Tea Party. Patriot freedom-fighters began winning skirmishes around the country — governorships in New Jersey, Virginia, and Florida — and defeating the tyrannous teachers’ union in Wisconsin, to name a few. We took the House. We will take the Senate and are predicted to take the White House in 2012.
The Democrats’ ebony idol, their so-called gift to America, has been exposed for the fraud it truly is — a hollow, soulless shell of empty liberal ideology, its internal recorded message malfunctioning and distorted, stuck repeating the phrase, “I blame…I blame…I blame…”
Seeing the handwriting on the wall via polling, the Dems wish they could abandon their disastrous ebony race card for Hillary, their gender card.
But alas, they cannot. After spending the last three years, assisted by their media minions, convincing Americans that any and all criticism of or opposition to Obama is racist, Democrats find themselves victims of their own trap. Fearing the repercussions, Dems do not dare display the slightest abandonment of Obama. I love it! They who live by the race card die by the race card.
Despite the media’s relentless attempts to brand us otherwise, the Tea Party has never been about race. Our focus and sole desire have been to uphold the Constitution and restore our freedom, liberty, and culture. The Tea Party’s goals are much higher than the Democrats’ bottom-feeding agenda of exploiting race for political gain. This is why it is so sweet that they are stuck with their loser black candidate.
You leftists, do not try to spin my comment as being racist. I, along with millions of my white Tea Party brothers and sisters, would gladly cast a presidential vote for blacks such as Herman Cain and Col. Allen West in a heartbeat. So don’t even go there.
Ironically, the Democrats who claim ownership of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shamefully dishonor his dream. The Tea Party, vilified by the Democrats, fully embraces MLK’s dream by judging and selecting their candidates by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Thus, the Tea Party, much-hated by Democrats, is the realization of MLK’s dream. And for the record, MLK was a Republican.
Lets us not forget that MLK’s Niece, Dr. Alveda King to Stood With Glenn Beck at ‘Restore Honor Event in…
Photo: Sarah Palin and Dr. Alveda King, both speakers at GB’s Restore Honor Event on 8.28.10, on the Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s… instead of walking with opportunist Al Sharpton
The Democrats played the ultimate race card — an incompetent affirmative-action president, and now they are stuck with him. The faux finish on their once-shiny ebony idol is rapidly deteriorating, peeling off daily. Come 2012, Obama is a sure loser. “Ce-le-brate good times, C’MON!”
Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American – Co-Chairman of The Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama
Please help me spread my message by joining my Liberty Network. Lloyd is singer/songwriter of the American Tea Party Anthem and author of Confessions of a Black Conservative, foreword by Michele Malkin, author of Culture of Corruption