Detroit British-style.

To Americans, this is all painfully familiar 

//Cast your mind back to the Rotherham by-election 21 months ago. The local MP, Denis MacShane, was on his way to prison after claiming public money by deceit. The candidate chosen to replace him, Sarah Champion, had been imposed by Labour’s NEC, prompting half the local party to walk out in protest. National news in the run-up to polling day was dominated by the removal of the children from their Ukip-voting foster home. And yet, even in a by-election when they might have painlessly signalled that they were sick of being messed around, the townsfolk dutifully gave Labour 46.46 per cent of the vote. You can hardly blame Labour for taking such voters for granted.

Any political organisation that lacks an opposition will, over time, become flabby, self-serving, intolerant of criticism, obsessed with its pet dogmas – foremost among which, in Rotherham, is what we erroneously call “anti-racism”.

“Anti-racism” has for a long time been the most powerful card in the Leftist deck, trumping everything else: free contract, free association, free speech. It has been elevated as the supreme goal of public policy. Local councils aren’t there to deliver services, but to “promote inclusiveness”. Universities aren’t there to teach, but to “mainstream diversity” (diversity, of course, referring to outward appearance, not opinion). Businesses aren’t there to make an honest profit, but to “reflect modern Britain”.

It’s easy enough to see how this dogma originally came about. People were reacting against hard, brutal racism of a kind that has become mercifully rare: fellow citizens being denied jobs for which they were qualified, turned away as tenants, called foul names, even physically attacked. These things can still happen, but their rarity now makes them shocking. Labour’s rotten boroughs, though, remain stuck in the early Eighties.//

Newsflash - whitel liberals like feeling superior.

James Taranto writes:

It's not surprising that whites would be more apt to impute racism to blacks than to whites. Thus the partisan and ideological breakdowns are about what one would expect, given that most conservatives, and especially most Republicans, are white.

But the results for blacks are a big surprise. Blacks are more likely (by 7 percentage points) to think most blacks are racist than to think most whites are. Moreover, they are 11 points likelier than liberals (regardless of race) to think most blacks are racist, and 9 points likelier than Democrats. And blacks are 3 points less likely than liberals to think most whites are racist.

All of which suggests that the people likeliest to believe most whites are racist and most blacks are not are those who are both liberal and white. Which reinforces a point we've made often in this column: that a lot of what drives the futile debate over race in America is white liberals' psychological need to feel morally superior to other whites.

The Racist Left.

Ever notice how often the left engages in racism?

The super-PAC, Progress Kentucky, sent a tweet last month criticizing McConnell’s wife, former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao. 

"This woman has the ear of @McConnellPress -- she's his #wife. May explain why your job moved to #China!," it read.  

The tweet linked to a webpage run by local radio host Jeff Rense, which charged that Chao, a native of Taiwan, discriminated against U.S. workers while running the Labor Department in the George W. Bush administration. 

McConnell also addressed the controversy in an interview on CNN's "State of the Union" saying that his 2014 fight had “started early," with “a "left-wing group in Kentucky that has already issued racial slurs against my wife and already questioned my own patriotism."  

The "left is fully engaged in Kentucky and they'd love to take out the Republican leader of the Senate," he added. 

McConnell defended his wife, calling her a “proud Chinese-American.”

Can you imagine this headline/article about any other group?

The Awl publishes:

It's Science!7

Why White People Are Fat, Drunk and Sad

Alex Balk | July 14th, 2011

Finally, an excuse for my obesity, dipsomania and moroseness: "Westerners could be genetically programmed to consume fatty foods and alcohol more than those from the east, researchers have claimed. Scientists at the University of Aberdeen say a genetic switch – DNA which turns genes on or off within cells – regulates appetite and thirst. The study suggests it is also linked to depression."
 

Next up, why some population groups are genetically predisposed to perform as well as other groups in standardized tests of intelligence and are overrepresented in prison populations.

The Clarifying Age.

Glen Reynolds notes the "anti-white man" rhetoric that has been heating up:

SCARY TIMES:“In some ways the anti-white-man rhetoric that has become standard and acceptable lately is the worst sign of all. If the term ‘hate speech’ has a meaning, it most definitely would apply to a great deal of what has been said recently about that despised group. Those who are first to shriek ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ when criticism is launched against a group defined as oppressed (blacks, women) are turning the tables and dissing white men with impunity. It is both hypocritical and vile, and especially offensive when cloaked in the sanctimony of those on the left who believe they occupy the moral high ground (that would be everyone on the left).”

The Obama presidency has certainly been clarifying. Which is probably why gun sales are up.
 

This is a follow-up on this Victor Davis Hanson piece:

 These are the most foreboding times in my 59 years. The reelection of Barack Obama has released a surge of rare honesty among the Left about its intentions, coupled with a sense of triumphalism that the country is now on board for still greater redistributionist change.

There is no historical appreciation among the new progressive technocracy that central state planning, whether the toxic communist brand or supposedly benevolent socialism, has only left millions of corpses in its wake, or abject poverty and misery. Add up the Soviet Union and Mao’s China and the sum is 80 million murdered or starved to death. Add up North Korea, Cuba, and the former Eastern Europe, and the tally is egalitarian poverty and hopelessness. The EU sacrificed democratic institutions for coerced utopianism and still failed, leaving its Mediterranean shore bankrupt and despondent.

Nor is there much philosophical worry that giving people massive subsidies destroys individualism, the work ethic, and the personal sense of accomplishment. There is rarely worry expressed that a profligate nation that borrows from others abroad and those not born has no moral compass. There is scant political appreciation that the materialist Marxist argument — that justice is found only through making sure that everyone has the same slice of stuff from the zero-sum pie — was supposed to end up on the ash heap of history.

"Cornball Brothers."

This is an interesting essay on the elasticity of the concept of race.

In a way it answers the question of why some breakthroughs by some blacks don't get noticed, while others do.

It also is indicative of a sociological phenomenon known in some Latin American countries where people move in and out of racial groups based on their social class.

Some times racism is bad, and sometimes its okay.

And, strangely, when it's bad and it's okay depends on whether the speaker is "our kind of people" from the perspective of the liberal/left.

Speaking of which, sometimes racial breakthroughs are historic and sometimes they get ignored, such as the appointment of the first black Senator from South Carolina by an Indian-American woman governor.

So, for those keeping score, and the left keeps score on this kind of thing, Republicans have the only two Hispanic governors and the only two Indian-Americans and the only black Senator, but they are still the part that is "too white."

Key Constituency of Ruling Party Engages in Racism.

This is a WTF? moment from the episode of Michigan union violence.

Apparently, for some reason, the union members decided that a hot dog vendor was a threat to their right to force people into unions, so they destroyed his hot dog stand while shouting racist slurs. Check out the video at 3:42.




"WTF?" as in "WTF? was the problem with this guy's hot dog stand?"

Two years ago, the media was all over anything that could be portrayed as racism. They couldn't find anything, so they made it up.

But here the media has clear racism and it just doesn't matter.

Obama's post-racial America...

...where discriminating against whites is the hope and change.

James Taranto writes:

"Allegations of racism and other discrimination against San Francisco Housing Authority Executive Director Henry Alvarez are flying in lawsuits filed by his subordinates," the San Francisco Examiner reports. It's a man-bites-dog story inasmuch as Alvarez is black and his accusers are white--the reverse of the usual race-discrimination stereotype.

In one lawsuit, Tim Larsen, a lawyer who works for the authority, alleges that Alvarez "told him to 'stop being so Anglo' and that he 'did not have enough kink in his hair,' " reports the San Francisco Chronicle. The Examiner adds that "Alvarez allegedly asked Larsen to climb a telephone pole to cut down some dangling shoes. When Larsen questioned why he was being asked to do the task when it was clearly not in his attorney job description, Alvarez allegedly replied, 'you and I are like Captain Kirk and Spock; you will never escape me.' "

Then there's this: "Larsen . . . claims Alvarez denied him a promotion based on his race, . . . admitting he would have granted the promotion 'if you had more melatonin in your skin,' according to court documents filed last month. The suit surmises that Alvarez actually was referring to 'melanin,' a hormone that determines skin pigment."
Sounds more like Archie Bunker than anyone from "Star Trek."

"There is sexism and racism in l’affaire Rice — but sadly it is all originating from the Obama administration and its supporters."

Victor Davis Hanson writes:

But in the era of Obama, almost everything can be connected to race. So it was not long before the Black Caucus, the Washington Post, and liberal columnists alleged that racism and sexism drove Rice’s neo-Confederate detractors. President Obama, in his now-accustomed Skip Gates/Trayvon Martin posturing mode, also did his best to inflame the tensions, as he dared critics to come after him instead, as if they were bullies out to pick on a vulnerable black woman — and as if the president himself had not hidden behind Rice, throwing her into the public arena in the first place and then refusing to offer any details of his own reaction to the attacks that might have fulfilled his taunt by redirecting scrutiny onto himself.

There is sexism and racism in l’affaire Rice — but sadly it is all originating from the Obama administration and its supporters. First, having a woman or a minority as secretary of state has been accepted as the new normal for over a decade. Indeed, we have not seen a white male in the office since Warren Christopher stepped down in January 1997. Over that period, Bush’s first secretary of state, Colin Powell, was ridiculed by liberal critics for his misleading testimony about weapons of mass destruction on the eve of the Iraq War; I don’t recall him alleging racism. Vocal liberal senators tore into Powell’s successor, Condoleezza Rice, during her confirmation hearings; throughout her tenure, she was subjected to venomous criticism over her role in the Iraq War. Was Senator Barbara Boxer, who mercilessly grilled her, a racist? A disinterested observer over the last decade would conclude that the chief critics of black and female secretaries of state have been liberal Democrats — with no countervailing criticism of them from the Black Caucus, the Washington Post, or the Democratic party. Note in that regard that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales left the Bush administration under vicious liberal criticism — although not quite as harsh as the vitriol directed at Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Again, their critics were not tarred with allegations of racism or anti-Latino bias.
 

And:

There is nothing in Rice’s past to suggest that her own race, gender, or class was a disadvantage in her cursus honorum. In the nexus of elite universities and Democratic politics — whether Stanford University, the Rhodes Scholarship, or the Clinton administration — being black, female, and elite is far more advantageous that being white, male, and poor. In postmodern America, it is considered noble to prejudge people on the basis of their race and gender, but it can be ignoble to postjudge them on the basis of merit. Note, in this regard, that no one seems worried that Susan Rice and her husband have ample investments — among them energy companies involved in the Keystone-pipeline project — that might have posed a conflict of interest for a high-ranking State Department official.
So what are we left with in this racial psychodrama that is no longer about whether a potential secretary of state serially misled the American people, but rather is about whether to point that out is racist?

We are asked to believe that a multimillionaire African-American woman, who boasts that those who “mess” with her end up badly, is a victim of racism for not being welcomed as a nominee for secretary of state — a position that has not been held by a white male in 15 years — after she went on five television shows the Sunday after the Benghazi attack in an effort to convince Americans of the absurd myth that their ambassador had been killed in the course of a demonstration gone bad, rather than being murdered in a preplanned al-Qaedist hit.
 

We live in Cloud-Cuckoo Land.

Because it's okay when liberal do it...

...John Heilemann Makes Lindsey Graham Joke on ‘Morning Joe;’ Edited Out of 8am Reair

America's New Racism.

According to James Taranto, Obama is institutionalizing racism in so many ways:

The Post focuses on the critics rather than their choice of words. Here's the passage that outrages Jacobson: "Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can't know their hearts. What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy."
 

U.S. House/Wikipedia.org

Rep. Jeff Duncan is suspiciously pale, according to the Washington Post.

 

Let's examine this argument carefully. The Post acknowledges that "we can't know their hearts." But it finds a (literally) prima facie reason to suspect them of invidious motives: Almost all of them are persons of pallor. The Post is casting aspersions on Duncan and his colleagues based explicitly on the color of their skin. And it is accusing them of racism!
 

A couple of other items related to race and politics caught our attention over the Thanksgiving weekend. First, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., an Illinois Democrat and CBC member, resigned from Congress "amid federal ethics investigations and a diagnosis of mental illness," as the Chicago Tribune reports. That sets up a special election to fill the vacancy:

Some Democrats quickly offered to broker a nominee to avoid several African-American contenders splitting the vote in the heavily Democratic and majority black 2nd Congressional District, which could allow a white candidate to win.

This passes with neither editorial comment nor a disapproving quote. It's hard to imagine the same absence of reaction if a group of pols offered "to broker a nominee" with the goal of preventing a black candidate from winning a white-majority district.

Then there's the email from the Obama campaign--yeah, they're still coming, though at a slower pace than before the election--inviting supporters to take a survey. Among the questions: "Which constituency groups do you identify yourself with? Select all that apply."

There are 22 boxes you can check off. Some are ideological ("Environmentalists" and perhaps "Labor"), some occupational ("Educators," "Healthcare professionals"), some regional ("Americans abroad," "Rural Americans"). There's a box for "Women" but none for men, though there's a separate "Gender" question, which hilariously has three options: "Male," "Female" and "Other/no answer." Touré will no doubt soon inveigh against the "otherization" of the Gender No. 3.

What caught our attention were the ethnic categories: "African Americans," "Arab-Americans," "Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders," Jewish Americans," "Latinos" and "Native Americans" (the last, of course, refers to American Indians, not natural-born citizens).

Notice anything missing?

One explanation for the absence of a "white" or "European-American" category (or, alternatively, several dozen specific European ethnicities) could be that whites tend to vote Republican, and the campaign is interested in Democratic-leaning voting blocs. But several other of the Obama survey categories lean toward the GOP, too: "People of faith," "Rural Americans," "Seniors," "Small business owners" and "Veterans/military families." Counterpart groups that are Democratic-leaning or swing-voting are missing from the list, too, including nonbelievers, urban and suburban dwellers, and the middle-aged (though there are categories for both "Young professionals" and "Youth").

The reason for the absence of a "Whites" category is that white identity politics is all but nonexistent in America today. That wasn't always the case, of course: For a century after the Civil War, Southern white supremacists were an important part of the Democratic Party coalition. They were defeated and discredited in the 1960s, and the Democrats, still the party of identity politics, switched their focus to various nonwhite minorities.
Obama's re-election was a triumph for this new identity politics--but the Post's nasty editorial hints at a reason to think this form of politics may have long-term costs for both the party and the country.

Is this what the Civil Rights Movement has come to?

Bernard Goldberg on the use of racism by liberals to protect liberals.

Criticism of white politicians is perfectly legitimate, of course. Just ask any George W. Bush or any other Republican who has ever run for president. But the same rules apparently don’t apply to African American public officials – if they’re liberal African American officials. Liberal elites can say whatever they want about Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, and (soon-to-be former) Congressman Allen West. They’re black conservatives, which means they’re fair game. It’s perfectly permissible to call them Uncle Toms, house Negroes and the like. But utter a discouraging word about a black liberal and you’re in for a heap of trouble

Black liberals must be protected. Their honesty and their competence cannot be questioned. No criticism, no matter how reasonable and legitimate, is permitted. And so, their detractors must be slandered as racists. Liberal African American officials – especially those of the highest rank — can’t be held accountable precisely because they’re African Americans. You get the impression that simply being a black liberal is a kind of get out of jail free card? Oops, is that racist?

Is this what the most important movement of the 20th century — the great Civil Rights Movement — has come to?

To their everlasting credit, liberals were on the right side of the civil rights struggle. So it isn’t difficult to understand their belief that racism lurks just beneath the surface, even in today’s America. But what they seem not to understand is that racism is an ugly thing even when it’s the soft kind, pedaled by supposedly well-meaning white liberals who are too eager to look the other way when black politicians – like every other kind of politician – get into trouble of their own making. Calling critics bigots is not progress. It’s not even liberal.

Are we at the point where liberals believe that "whole swathes" of America are illegitimate because of race and birth?

Liberalism...what a strange, weird trip it's been when an ideology based on rejecting the idea that people are defined by their status at birth finally evolves into a racist system based on birth.

Glen Reynolds writes:

THE WASHINGTON POST FANS THE FLAMES OF RACISM AND SECESSION with this execrable editorial on the Susan Rice confirmation battle:

Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can’t know their hearts. What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy.

Could it be that the Editorial Board of the Washington Post is a pack of pathetic political hacks who’ll engage in racial hate speech in order to advance the White House’s agenda? Apparently, whole swathes of the electorate are illegitimate just because of their birth. If you really believe that, you’re doing more to promote division than anyone who signs a dumb White House petition for secession. Disgraceful.

You wonder if these people even realize the irony of their situation.

Remember When Condoleezza Rice Was Called a ‘House Nigga’?   MSNBC executive and former Newsweek White House correspondent Richard Wolffe spent Monday night parsing the aspects of John McCain’s racial animus. Wolffe seemed even to surprise host Chris Matthews — not exactly shy about identifying racism in the GOP — who asked, incredulously, “You’re saying that McCain is being driven by racial prejudice here?” According to Wolffe, “There is no other way to look at this.” Matthews pointed out the seemingly inconsistent fact that McCain supported Condoleezza Rice’s nomination to the State Department, but Wolffe easily saw past that. McCain’s support for Rice in 2004, he explained, is further evidence of his racism. “John McCain said the people — the Democrats who were questioning Condi Rice’s credential — they were just engaged with bitterness, they needed to move on,” Wolffe said. “Why has he changed his tune? What is it about Susan Rice?” The question, obviously, is rhetorical. Wolffe is not alone. Ohio congresswoman Marcia Fudge noted sorrowfully, “It is a shame that anytime something goes wrong, they [Republicans] pick on women and minorities.” South Carolina congressman Jim Clyburn took things a step further, telling CNN on Tuesday that he hears racial “code words” in Republican opposition to Rice’s nomination. Those are words such as “incompetent.” “These kinds of terms that those of us — especially those of us who were grown and raised in the South — we’ve been hearing these little words and phrases all of our lives and we get insulted by them,” Clyburn said. And hey, what’s being called a “house nigga” when there are racists lurking out there using code words like “incompetent”?

Tribal loyalties.

Victor Davis Hanson reflects on the metamorphosis of liberalism into tribalistic racism:

Yet the new emphasis on tribe is not necessarily a liberal vision. It ignores all human individuality and assumes that friendships, marriages, and alliances will not dare trump racial and ethic solidarity. Ours is now instead a Galadriel’s mirror of the Balkans, of India’s castes, of Rwanda, but no longer of a multiracial melting-pot America, where our allegiances were to be political, economic, and cultural and not necessarily synonymous with how we looked. Obama’s identity politics would create a Frankenstein of patched-together victims, and yet he will rue that it is a different story to use such a creature for constructive purposes. Such monsters are quite valuable when running for office, but can turn on their masters when it is time to govern.

When I eat lunch with a Mexican-American childhood friend, I feel no greater affinity with the white waitress by reason of our shared appearance; in the new America am I to high-five the white stranger in the Selma Wal-Mart, by virtue that, out of hundreds there, we two alone look more alike? I am sorry; I just cannot accept that. I have far more in common with Steve Lara, my friend of 50 years, than a David Gergen or Chris Matthews.

Beneath all the pseudo-healing rhetoric, this is the divisive tool by which Barack Obama ran twice — the hyphenated African-, Latino-, gay-American re-election committees for Obama, the son who might have looked like Trayvon Martin, the people of color who had “the president’s back,” the nation of cowards, the country where we punish our ethnic enemies and fight against the police who all stereotype, in which Joseph Lowery tells us what particular race belongs in hell and Rev. Wright identifies whose chickens must come home to roost and the Rev. Jesse Jackson names the real segregationists who long for the Confederacy. Only in the hyper-racialist America can we take quite distinct Japanese, Filipino, Korean, and Chinese third-generation citizens and create from them the artificial rubric “Asian” in their shared antithesis to “white,” or take disparate Cubans and Mexicans and likewise reinvent them as identical Latinos, or take Jamaicans, Ethiopians, and American blacks and call them all “African-Americans” on the similar logic of not being something equally artificial like white — which I guess covers Americans who used to be Greeks, Irish, Armenians, Jews, Poles, and Danes.
 

And suppose "white" America reverses trend and stops identifying "itself" by class, religion, national origin, profession, etc., but mirrors the manichean worldview of liberalism and starts identifying "itself" as "white"?  Well, then "whites" are simply the super-majority bloc of racial blocs in the United States.  Is that a direction that liberals really want to to go?

Racist Democrats Vote Out Black Congressman.

Why won't Democrats elect Blacks outside of majority Black districts?

Liberal Racism.

With recent examples from last week including Bill Maher's racist schtick to Obama's assocation with racist preachers, the lack of liberal self-awareness of the racism problem in their ranks is something to behold.

Prior to the election, I was puzzled by the factually devoid nature of the accusations of racism against the Republican party and Mitt Romney. For all his sins, Romney was, after all, a governor of the liberal state of Massachusetts, a state not known for its long association with the forces of reaction and racism. After the election and reading my liberal friends expressing gratitude to providence from rescuing them from the clutches of a moderate former governor of the liberal state of Massachusetts, it occurred to me that there was something historical going on.

What that historical thing was, it seemed to me, was the deployment of the same tactic of name-calling and virulent hatred used by Martin Luther to keep his flock from associating with other Protestants or with Catholics. By demonizing everyone else, Luther was able to define a boundary that his followers could see and follow.

James Taranto points out a similar phenomenon going on with modern Democrats:

How do you unite a collection of groups that have disparate and often conflicting interests? By turning them against a common enemy. In an early-morning postelection blog post, former Enron adviser Paul Krugman revealed this ugly truth:

One big thing that just happened was that the real America trumped the "real America." And it's also the election that lets us ask, finally, "Who cares what's the matter with Kansas?"

For a long time, right-wingers--and some pundits--have peddled the notion that the "real America," all that really counted, was the land of non-urban white people, to which both parties must abase themselves. Meanwhile, the actual electorate was getting racially and ethnically diverse, and increasingly tolerant too. The 2008 Obama coalition wasn't a fluke; it was the country we are becoming.

And sure enough that more diverse and, if you ask me, better nation just won big.

The lack of self-awareness here is something to behold. Krugman identifies a racially defined out-group, excludes it from the "real America," and declares the in-group to be a "better nation" than the out-group (which is, in fact, part of the same nation). All this in the name of tolerance.

McArdle cites a demographic reason to think the Democratic majority may not be a durable one:

We're heading for a showdown between the recipients of old-age benefits, and recipients of all the other kinds of benefits. Even after we hike taxes, something has to be cut. I'm betting on the oldsters to win this fight. They're motivated, and they have a lot of time on their hands. And their middle-aged, middle class children will also freak out if you cut their benefits. They will not be nearly as upset if you slash Head Start. But those kinds of decisions are going to set off a sort of Hobbesian war of all-against-all within the Democratic coalition. And the aging of our population is an even more dramatic shift than its increasingly tan hue.

The aging of the population is driven in part by the decline in marriage, which the Democrats have to thank for all those unmarried female voters. As CNSNews.com reported last month: "The birth rate in the United States hit an all-time low in 2011, according to . . . the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. . . . More than 40 percent of all babies born in the country last year, the report said, were born to unmarried women."

It also seems to me that this racial polarization can backfire for more reasons than just the fact that race is only one way to divide up America. It may backfire if race is used as the way to divide America.

Right now, the Democrats are maxed out on the Black vote and nearly maxed on the Hispanic vote. Whatever the demographic projection may be for Hispanics, the fact remains that White voters make up 70 to 75% of the population and that more Whites voted Democrat than minorities.

In other words, there are a whole lot of White voters to vote Republican if the Republican party becomes the avowed "White" party - as it now is in the minds of minorities. Of course, the response I've heard is that's now how things are supposed to be, but this is a naive view insofar as minority groups are explicitly organizing as racial groups. At some point, Whites are going to wake up and say, hey, maybe unlimited immigration that lowers my wages isn't a good thing for me.

What if some demagogue decides, "to Hell with the media and liberal niceties; I'm going to make an explicit racial appeal - a positive appeal that doesn't demonize Blacks or other minorities"?

It seems that playing the racial game is not a good idea if everyone plays it, which is why Martin Luther King, Jr. properly looked forward to a society where race didn't matter, rather than the one we have now.

The open secret is that the Democrat Party is filled with racists.

Bill Maher plays on the liberals' fear of black violence:

Bill Maher on HBO's Real Time Friday might have said one of the most disgraceful things uttered during the 2012 campaign season.

"If you're thinking about voting for Mitt Romney, I would like to make this one plea: black people know who you are and they will come after you"

I said it once, I'll say it again, these people have a problem.

Obama's Apartheid Regime.

If you want to sit behind the president at his campaign speeches, then you better not be a white man.