Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World

Most of you are probably familiar with Jeff Foxworthy’s “You might be a redneck” routine.

But how many of you are conversant in the liberal media’s newest game: “You might be a racist”?

The Denver Post ran a front page story on Sunday entitled “Race issue could sway voters” with the obvious implication that anyone who doesn’t vote for Obama is a racist, possibly due to a mental defect caused by the amygdala.

Yes, the Post threw into the article poll results showing that 94 percent of respondents in a 2007 poll said that they would vote for a well-qualified nominee of their political party to be president if that nominee were black.

But they surround that information with quotes from people interviewed for the article such as “There's a small, small percentage of people in this country who won't vote for an African-American for president no matter what” and “They think, 'What's the use, they're not going to let a black man win anyway,'”

And the close the article with a remarkable statement from a black man who says he’d “probably still vote for” Obama even if Obama “didn’t have substance” because the voter had “been through segregation”.

In other words, the liberal media is saying that if you don’t vote for Obama, you don’t feel sufficiently guilty for slavery or Jim Crow or other such injustices even though the vast majority of us had nothing to do with Jim Crow (and obviously not with slavery.)

The Denver Post and the Obama campaign want you to believe that if you don’t vote for Obama, you might be a racist. So you should vote for Obama just to prove to yourself and your friends that you’re not a racist. In an election as close as this one may be in certain key states, even an argument as obviously outrageous as this one could sway enough votes to make a difference.

It’s not new, of course. Back in July, Obama played the race card by saying that he “doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.” In other words, if you vote for a white man, you might be a racist.

If you call Barack Obama a socialist, you might be a racist. It’s irrelevant that Barack Obama has consistently espoused socialist views throughout this decade.

It is one thing for the dominant liberal media to try to influence votes in this way, but it’s another thing entirely for our justice system to be corrupted by this “you might be a racist” thinking.

Yet that is just what seems to be happening. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Justice Department seems not to be investigating charges of widespread election fraud by ACORN, using the excuse that they don’t want to get into litigation so close to an election. Yet they are getting involved in plenty of other election litigation as you read these words…it’s just that that litigation benefits the Democrats.

ACORN is truly a cancer on our society, and Barack Obama and his campaign are deeply connected to the organization. But the Justice Department is caving in to political pressure from John Conyers (D-MI) to ignore the many thousands of fraudulent voter registrations brought in by ACORN. Democrats were outraged at the claimed politicization of the Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales, and they had some legitimate reason to be. The Justice Department is supposed to be a non-partisan enforcer of Federal law. But it’s certainly not behaving that way, with the entrenched bureaucrats there doing everything they can to make sure they keep their jobs by remaining in the good graces of the likely incoming Democratic administration.

The WSJ article notes campaign contributions to Obama by attorneys in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, including Mark Kappelhoff, the head of the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division, giving Obama the maximum legal contribution (and also having contributed to John Kerry and the DNC in 2004.)

Lack of voter fraud enforcement is a big deal. As the WSJ notes, “Vote fraud is real and can affect elections. In 2001, the Palm Beach Post reported that more than 5,600 people who voted in Florida in the 2000 Presidential election had names and data that perfectly matched a statewide list of suspected felons who were barred from voting. Florida was decided by about 500 votes.”

This is far more serious than the obvious bias of the dominant liberal media which has already lost nearly as much credibility with voters as Congress has. This is about outright theft of elections. Liberals continue to cry that George Bush “stole” the election in Florida even though all recounts show that he won. Yet they are utterly silent when real and obvious fraud is occurring as long as they believe it might help their guy. The damage to our nation caused by this blind eye will be long-lasting. One might expect it to generally benefit the Democrats more than the Republicans, but that is hardly an excuse for Democrats to ignore attacks on the most fundamental aspects of our Republic.

Even most liberals probably don’t believe that George W. Bush stole an election; at least they probably don’t believe it anymore. But what’s happening with ACORN leaves open the real possibility of stolen elections, not just at the presidential level.

Unfortunately, it seems that if you investigate a crime whose primary beneficiary is the man who might become our first black president, you just might be a racist.