These are two recent articles one from Washington Times and one from the American thinker. In them I will highlight the terms and phrases in red that are now frequently used by Neocons to engender a sense of victimhood in white "conservative" voters.
PRUDEN: The dark arts of race-baiting
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Race-baiting is an ugly art. But a struggling candidate is often tempted to practice the dark arts. We’re doomed to see a lot of those dark arts between here and November.
Barack Obama and his friends in the mainstream media, so called, can’t believe that anyone could vote against someone as wonderful as he is (and as they are). Only a bigot would vote against such a wonderful president. We’re getting a scary preview of the wrath to come in the reaction to this week’s presidential primary results in Arkansas and Kentucky.
No one has ever suggested that “as Arkansas goes, so goes the nation,” but you might think the 42 percent of the Arkansas primary vote that Mr. Obama didn’t get has rocked the foundations of the republic. That 42 percent in Arkansas is similar — indeed, almost identical — to the vote against Mr. Obama in Kentucky and earlier in West Virginia. Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist, says it’s the result of “race, resentment and fear.” The Klan is coming! The Klan is coming! With tar, feathers and rope.
The anybody-but-Obama voters had a real-live alternative in Arkansas in the person of a Tennessee lawyer named John Wolfe. He actually carried nearly half of the state’s 75 counties. Unhappy Kentuckians settled for an apparition named “Uncommitted.” Earlier in West Virginia the anybody-but-Obama candidate was a convicted felon in a federal pokey in Texas. So it must be about race when voters prefer a lawyer to a man of color. It’s an article of Democratic faith that such bigots have to be Republicans, despite the inconvenient fact that so far the only voters who have voted against the president are Democrats.
Sixteen states have offered Democratic voters an alternative to Mr. Obama, either an actual candidate, “Uncommitted,” or an opportunity to write in someone’s name. So far 15 percent of those Democratic voters have done so. In five states where there has been an actual opponent, 27 percent voted against the president. In New Hampshire, 1 Democrat in 10 wrote in an alternative. Twenty percent of North Carolina Democrats voted for “Uncommitted.” That’s a lot of “bigots.”
Tuesday’s vote against Mr. Obama is actually a protest against the party’s further slide to the left. Not so long ago Arkansas was the most loyal Democratic state, having never voted Republican. Then came the likes of George McGovern, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry, white men all. Loyal Democrats swallowed hard, voted Republican, and waited for Grandpa to climb out of his grave, dusting off his Confederate uniform and looking for a hickory switch. But silence reigned in the graveyards, and old-line Democrats continued to swallow hard and vote Republican.
Some Democrats understand this. “It’s just that [some] voters are down on national Democrats generally,” Martin Frost, a former Texas congressman, tells The Washington Post, “and I don’t believe it’s due to race.”
The Chattanooga lawyer who won the 42 percent in Arkansas with no mention of race goes Tuesday to Texas and another primary. He’s likely to get enough votes to inflict further heartburn at the White House. Unless you’re an FDR or a Ronald Reagan this is what unpopular incumbent president, black or white, can expect. Lyndon B. Johnson was driven out of his bid for re-election in 1968 when Gene McCarthy won 42 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary.
No one doubts that a candidate’s race influences voters, probably more so in the South than elsewhere. But not always. Mr. Obama got his strongest Arkansas endorsement in Little Rock, where the 101st Airborne Division was dispatched by a Republican president to enforce desegregation a half-century ago. In several Little Rock precincts where poor whites and blacks can’t afford to live, Mr. Obama won margins of 90 percent or more. One newspaper columnist called these precincts “a warm liberal echo chamber against the increasingly cold world in much of the rest of Arkansas.” John Wolfe polled his majorities ranging to 75 percent in largely rural counties.
The most pronounced “race-based” voting, in fact, was in predominantly black precincts. One such precinct voted 100 percent for Mr. Obama; percentages in the high 90s were commonplace in black neighborhoods across the state.
Maybe these voters just can’t vote for someone of another race. Or maybe they’re just taking pride in helping a black man do well. Maybe the white vote against Mr. Obama isn’t about race, but reflects rage against an incompetent president who promised to change the old ways and now reveals himself to be just another pol with a Harvard degree and a hustler’s scheme to divide and conquer with the race card. We’ve heard this sad song before.
• Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.
April 13, 2012
Race-Baiting in the Era of Obama
By Lauri B. Regan
On my train ride to work this week, a black man sat near me. He was listening to his music loud enough for anyone in the vicinity to hear. As I pointed out to him that he dropped his ticket, I asked him if he would please turn his volume down since I was trying to work. He refused, told me to move, and actually turned his music up. As the conductor came by, I asked for assistance. The music man started screaming irrationally that he had all sorts of rights, and then came the kicker. "You're complaining because I'm black." When the conductor walked away, the volume of the music went back up -- with a leer telling me to shut up, or else.
Alas, racial tension in this country is not new. What is new is having a president who, for political gain and selfish ideological reasons, is instigating a racial divide that has not been seen for decades. In order to ignite a passion in his base, Obama is intentionally taking this country back to the Civil Rights Era, when violence in the streets was commonplace. But a black person in America in 2012 has every civil right that a white person has -- and then some. Affirmative action has led to black people actually having an easier time accessing certain schools, jobs, and positions of higher authority. (The exception to this seems to be if you want to work on Obama's re-election campaign.)
In the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin shooting, this country is facing a shocking eruption of black hatred of white America. While we expect the likes of Al Sharpton to crawl out from under their rock and ramp up the hateful rhetoric whenever a race-baiting opportunity arises, we do not expect the attorney general to publicly praise Sharpton "for your partnership, your friendship, and your tireless efforts to speak out for the voiceless, to stand up for the powerless, and to shine a light on the problems we must solve, and the promises we must fulfill." In a healthy society, in which the president does not carry racial biases that impact his judgment and ability to function effectively, Obama would denounce Sharpton for the agitator that he is. Obama would take to the teleprompter and condemn all calls to violence, asking for rational minds to prevail.
But we are not a healthy society any longer, for our leaders revel in resentment, and our citizens are divided. We are divided because we have a president who is angry and hostile, juvenile and racist, ideological, narcissistic, and power-hungry. He would rather call police officers stupid when they arrest a black friend than call for civility and calm in the face of public servants doing their job regarding Trayvon Martin's death. The community organizer-in-chief knows well how to stoke racial tension, class warfare, and violence if they will lead to an extension of his power and the transformation of the beacon on the hill for all who strive to succeed in the land of opportunity.
The Obama administration's empowerment of black rebellion began at the very start of his presidency, has grown exponentially since then, and can be seen in all sorts of machinations across the country. The visceral reaction in the black community to the Martin case and the silence from the Justice Department in the face of bounties being placed on George Zimmerman's head, calls for violence by the New Black Panthers (who learned in 2009 that they are immune from prosecution when Holder dropped all charges against them), and mobs taking to the streets are all indicative of what this country will continue to face without the rule of law being enforced -- and encouraged -- by the government.
In the face of the NBP's threats of violence to Zimmerman, Zimmerman's family called on Holder to explain why these militants are getting away with rhetoric that likely constitutes a hate crime. Holder's response was the praising of Sharpton. The NBP's response to Holder's inaction has been to prepare for the next stages of the "race war," including plans to be "suited, booted and armed" and to announce that a "new reality" and "true revolution means some blood shed ... you'll have to cross the red sea ... cross some blood[,]" all in order "to lead to the destruction of the devil's society ... that blond-haired, blue-eyed, sometime brown-eyed Caucasian walking around[.]"
Holder's Justice Department was also MIA when the Sanford Police Department was forced to close due to protests calling for Zimmerman's arrest. "City officials and members of the U.S. Department of Justice observed the demonstration" and apparently did nothing to the students blocking the police department entrance for fear of a violent response. But this is not an isolated incident of police fearing black reprisals. AT reported on an unbelievably offensive incident in which the police told a white stabbing victim that they "don't mess" with a black motorcycle gang. Read the full story with all of the offensive details here.
It is not a far leap to question whether a president who has opted to throw himself into the ring when a black friend is arrested or a black teenager is killed, but who refuses to call for calm when black people beat, threaten, and intimidate innocent white people, may actually be condoning the violence through his silence and inaction. Where is this president's outrage that, in the words of Holder, some of "my people" are fomenting a race war? For while the days of "wilding" disappeared until recentlyi, the days of black leaders calling for violent revolution with a wink and nod from the president look like they are here to stay.
It is the job of the President to help ease the country's pains, not add salt to its wounds. Obama is the first black POTUS, and he is using his bully pulpit to damage the country, not heal it. He should be leading by example, and that means that he should speak to America and request calm and unity.
In response to accusations regarding his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, Candidate Obama took to the airwaves with his famous race speech. Perhaps there was some warning of what we could expect when one revisits his references to the struggles of the black people through "protests on the streets" and "civil war and civil disobedience." As he stated, "[t]his was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us[.]" But Obama later stated that "I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together."
So where is that man today? Where is the uniter who stated that "race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now," that "[i]f we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges"? Apparently, Obama has determined that it is politically expedient to fan the flames and "walk away[,]" for the WH announced that Obama would not be speaking anymore on the Martin case. The leadership that the black community so desperately needs as an alternative to the Sharptons, Wrights, and Farrakhans of the world will not be coming from the president.
Lord knows what vision Obama had for the nation when he promised hope and change, but if Americans do not open their eyes to what is going on around them, we can rest assured that the race-baiting and radical divisions will continue to grow "Fast and Furious." As candidate Obama said:
... we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism[.] ... But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
Read more:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/race-baiting_in_the_era_of_o...
Permalink Reply by something else on 
Permalink Reply by Brandi Parimon on 
