Democrats Continue to Fight the Good Fight!

In the Age of Obama, racism has no place in America. Therefore, if a white girl wins a beauty pageant at a historically all-black university, it will be celebrated as a historic first; or, not made a big deal of at all, since she would have been judged upon the merits of her beauty, regardless of the color of her skin. As the previous pageant winner, Patrece Parson, expresses it, she was

‘very shocked’ at the judge’s choice of a white woman, adding: ‘We’ve never had one before’.

Hmmm….I wonder if she had the same “very shocked” reaction at the election of Barack Obama to the highest office in the land, as “we’ve never had one before” [i.e., a “black” president].

In Kinston North Carolina, in Barack’s America, comes news of the following:

Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

The Justice Department’s ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their “candidates of choice” – identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.

Ok, not only is this condescending toward black voters, not only is it politically partisan, but it is also absolutely a racist position and attitude for the Justice Department to hold. It’s an outrage! So if most black politicians happen to be in the Democratic Party, voters need to be made aware that the skin color of who they elect is important, as well as party affiliation? What about an individual candidate’s ideas and policy position?

It is a myth that the Republican Party has a greater history of racism. And given the race-baiting, race-profiteering, and racial identity politics that are perpetuated by the Democratic Party, I’d say the Democrats to this day are the ones with a prevalence of racist attitudes. And it is also based upon holding onto political power:

“it is a plain fact of American political life today that Democrats are completely dependent on black votes. The day African Americans stop casting 80 to 95 percent of their votes for Democrats is the day Democrats stop winning elections.”– Mona Charen, Do-Gooders

Whites can migrate from party to party; but blacks are required to register themselves on the Democrat plantation? And if an American town votes to do away with party affiliation in local elections, blacks are basically too dumb not to vote for the candidate who they can identify with ideologically and policy-wise? They have to know who is a Democrat? How condescendingly racist.

Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department’s decision “racial as well as partisan.”

“On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election,” he said. “That is un-American.”

The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well. They bristle at federal interference in this city of nearly 23,000 people, two-thirds of whom are black.

In interviews in sleepy downtown Kinston – a place best known as a road sign on the way to the Carolina beaches – residents said partisan voting is largely unimportant because people are personally acquainted with their elected officials and are familiar with their views.

“To begin with, ‘nonpartisan elections’ is a misconceived and deceiving statement because even though no party affiliation shows up on a ballot form, candidates still adhere to certain ideologies and people understand that, and are going to identify with who they feel has their best interest at heart,” said William Cooke, president of the Kinston/Lenoir County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Mr. Cooke said his group does not take a position on this issue and would not disclose his personal stance, but expressed skepticism about the Justice Department’s involvement.

Others noted the absurdity of partisan elections since Kinston is essentially a one-party city anyway; no one among more than a half-dozen city officials and local residents was able to recall a Republican winning office here.

Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on “what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction” and how it affects blacks’ ability to elect the candidates they favor.

“The determination of who is a ‘candidate of choice’ for any group of voters in a given jurisdiction is based on an analysis of the electoral behavior of those voters within a particular jurisdiction,” he said.

Critics on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are not so sure. “The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism,” said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. “There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates.”

So now instead of being “locked out because of racism”, they are being “locked in”, on account of racism and a desire on the part of Democrats to retain political power over “the black vote”.

Welcome to Barack’s post-racial America: An Obamanation, indeed.