The Rule of Racial Preferences

Virgil Goode, Front Page Magazine, June 24, 2010

{snip} My former colleague Congressman Steve King (R-IA) recently tried to initiate a discussion, and the Democrats and politically correct Republicans are castigating him.

Rep. King told a talk show host that “the president has demonstrated that he has a default mechanism in him that breaks down the side of race–on the side that favors the black person.” He stood by his remarks stating that there “appears to me to be an inclination on the part of the White House and the Justice Department and perhaps others within the administration to break on the side of favoritism with regard to race.”

{snip}

President Obama supports racial preferences for blacks and Hispanics over whites and Asians in education and hiring. During the 2008 election, the African American conservative Ward Connerly sponsored ballot initiatives in Colorado and Kansas stating “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” Obama opposed the initiatives stating they are “designed to drive a wedge between people.”

During his four years a Senator, Obama never voted against the NAACP’s position on an issue.

Several recent incidents during his presidency provide additional fodder for Rep. King’s statement.

President Obama and Attorney General Holder have sued small towns without even accusing them of disenfranchising blacks, but they dismissed a complaint against voter intimidation against whites during the presidential election.

The Justice Department filed a claim against the town of Lake Park, FL to make the town of 9,000 change from electing their commissioners from an at large seat into gerrymandered districts where “black persons would constitute a majority of the citizen voting age population in at least one of the districts” with the explicit goal of promoting “black electoral success.”

Compare this to how they treated the New Black Panther Party intimidating white voters. {snip} The Justice Department dismissed this complaint without giving any explanation.

The same double standard applies to so called hate crimes. Immediately after assuming office, President Obama promoted a massive expansion in hate crimes enforcement.

While the legislation was being debated Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) asked about both hypothetical instances where whites, Christians, or military members would be assaulted and if such would qualify as hate crimes. Attorney General Holder responded that hate crimes legislation “would not necessarily cover that” and was designed to cover “protected groups.” {snip} In other words: not whites and Christians.

While African Americans have been targeted for violence in the past, today it is whites who are more likely to be victims of interracial crime.

According to the FBI’s latest National Crime Victimization Survey, Blacks were over 50 times more likely to commit a crime against whites than vice versa. There were over 14,000 black on white rapes and the number of white on black rapes was so small, it did not show up on FBI’s statistical samples. That same year, the FBI did not report a single anti-black rape hate crime.

{snip} But the truth is that President Obama appears to be more concerned about stopping virtually non-existent “hate crimes” against “protected groups” than stopping actual committed crimes.

{snip}

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.

Comments are closed.