I remember hearing that phrase over twenty years ago as I ran for student government at Illinois State University. A group of black candidates and their supporters were button-holing African-American students, handing them push cards and urging them to “vote your blood” – an appeal to cast a ballot based upon nothing more than the shared race of the candidates and the voters.

Sadly, weÂ’ve got some black Democrats explicitly voicing that same sort of appeal as we approach the 2008 presidential campaign.

Seeking to solidify African-American backing for Barack Obama's presidential bid, Illinois Senate President Emil Jones Jr. told black Democrats meeting here last week they don't "owe" anyone, alluding to, but not mentioning by name, Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Obama, said Jones, "is our son."

In a Monday telephone interview, Jones, Obama's political godfather, told me, "How long do we have to owe before we have an opportunity to support our son?

"And I know that Barack Obama is our son and he deserves our support."
He made a similar race-based appeal to a group of black Democratic activists Friday at a closed Democratic National Committee winter meeting.

Such racism should have no place in American politics, for all that racism-based appeals have been a staple of DemocratICK politics since well before the Civil War. Just as calls to for whites to oppose Obama because of his race are unacceptable, so are the calls for blacks – or anyone else – to support him because of the color of his skin.

Let’s talk about issues, experience, and competence – not bloodlines and skin-tone.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

Sounds like some things never change in the "party of tolerance".

A Democratic love-fest came to a screeching halt Friday after a high-ranking Hispanic party official abruptly resigned amid allegations he used a racial slur during a heated argument with a black aide to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

Alvaro Cifuentes was chairman of the DNC's Hispanic Caucus and is well-known in national Hispanic Democratic circles.

Cifuentes was attending the DNC's winter meeting in Washington, D.C., on Friday when he and the aide got into an argument.

It's not clear what started the fight, but sources said Cifuentes called the aide, who is black, "boy" twice during the confrontation, and two conference attendees were alarmed enough to try and restrain Cifuentes.

Sources said they believed Cifuentes' actions to be physically intimidating, and his words racially insensitive.

DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney confirmed the resignation Friday evening, saying it occurred after a meeting with Dean, the former governor of Vermont. She said that Cifuentes resigned his post as caucus chairman, but remains a member of the DNC.

Asked if Dean forced Cifuentes to resign his post, Finney said: "Gov. Dean and Alvaro had a private meeting this afternoon. Following that meeting, Alvaro attended the Hispanic Caucus meeting, [and] submitted his resignation. It was accepted by the caucus."

First, I don't buy the notion that "boy" is necessarily a racial slur. But if the Democrats truly consider it to be one, why is Cifuentes permitted to remain a member in good standing of the DNC, which is the party's governing body? Why don't Dean and the rest of the top-ranking Democrats insist upon Cifuentes' complete removal fromt he body?

Could it be that racism isn't really that big a deal in the eyes of the Democrats -- any more than it was during the days of slavery, Jim Crow, and massive resistance?

Posted by: Greg at 12:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 325 words, total size 2 kb.

Would a judge ever give a group of white perps this sort of sentence for a hate crime against black victims -- especially if the victims received serious injuries?

Four black teenagers convicted in the racially charged beating of three white women on Halloween were sentenced to probation Friday.

Punishment could have ranged up to confinement in a California Youth Authority lockup until age 25.

The sentences were handed down by Juvenile Court Judge Gibson Lee, who last week convicted nine teens — eight female and one male — of felony assault, with a hate-crime enhancement against all but one.

Sentenced were an 18-year-old youth and his twin sister, who were 17 at the time of the crime, their 16-year-old sister — who didn't receive the enhancement — and another 16-year-old girl. The judge imposed 250 hours of community service, 60 days of house arrest, and anger management and racial tolerance programs.

"It was an awful crime. Terrible, emotional and physical injuries," the judge said.

Before sentencing, the judge reminded the audience that it was a juvenile court. Lee said he "must pick the least restrictive disposition that can lead to the rehabilitation of the minor."

If such a sentence had been handed down to white hooligans who had put black victims into surgery, there would have been riots in the streets -- which, of course, is why these black punks are allowed to walk free with less than a slap on the wrist. All the "juvenile court" rhetoric is a bunch of crap -- as is the near complete lack of coverage by the nation's media.

Want a case for abandoning hate-crime laws? This is it, for it shows that such laws turn the concept of "equal protection of the laws" on its head.

Posted by: Greg at 12:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.