Playing the "race card."

The two most powerful legal positions in American government are held by African-Americans, so how can the Attorney General tell African-Americans that they will be disenfranchised by voter ID laws?

Which explains Mr. Holder's racial incitement strategy. If Mr. Obama is going to win those swing states again, he needs another burst of minority turnout. If hope won't get them to vote for Mr. Obama again, then how about fear?

Mr. Holder's Council of Black Churches address is merely the latest of his election-year moves that charge racial discrimination of one kind or another. These include voting-rights lawsuits to block voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina, intervention in immigration cases in Arizona, and various housing and lending discrimination suits. Whatever the legal merits of these cases, their sudden proliferation in an election year suggests a political motivation.

The courts will eventually expose much of this as meritless, but it's a shame the media won't call Mr. Holder on this strategy before the election. Imagine the uproar if a Republican AG pursued a similar strategy. It's worse than a shame that America's first black Attorney General is using his considerable power to inflame racial antagonism.

They said that if I voted against Obama in 2008, we would see more blatant appeals to racists.

And they were right!

The Radio Equalizer has caught Al Sharpton accusing Republicans of wanting to exterminate blacks:

AL SHARPTON (36:58): It seems like they [Republicans] act as though, some wiping out of people, some of the right-wing, is all right, it’s not all right to do to any innocent people. If you had war and people that’s one thing, but to wipe out innocent people just because of who they are like what was done in Hitler’s Germany or what was done to Native Americans is not justifiable.

ELINOR TATUM (PUBLISHER, NEW YORK AMSTERDAM NEWS): You know but Rev, I think and what is similar to Hitler’s Germany is that Hitler did not believe those people to be human.

SHARPTON: Right.

TATUM: They believed them to be subhuman and that’s I think the same thing we think people are thinking here is that you know why would they even care about them because they’re not human. And that’s how we’re [Blacks] being looked at and that’s what the scariest part of this whole thing is.

SHARPTON: That’s exactly right. Let go to Tanya in Detroit, Tanya…

The Equalizer also links to this article about how liberal San Francisco has "solved" its problem of racial diversity by essentially driving blacks out of San Francisco:

African Americans are leaving San Francisco because of substandard schools, a lack of affordable housing and the dearth of jobs and black culture, according to a report by a committee looking into the exodus.

The African American Out-migration Task Force, put together by the mayor's office last year to figure out what can be done to preserve the city's remaining black population and cultivate new residents, presented its findings at a public hearing Thursday called by Supervisor Chris Daly.

San Francisco's black population has dropped faster than that of any other large U.S. city's. It went from 13.4 percent in 1970 to an estimated 6.5 percent in 2005, according to the census. Nationally, African Americans make up 12.1 percent of the population.

Much of the blame has been placed on the Redevelopment Agency, which intentionally drove black families and businesses from the Fillmore district in the 1960s and 1970s.

I did not know that, but reflecting on my anecdotal observations, that seems right.

That also fits in with San Francisco's policies that drive out children, condemn Catholics and attack Jews.

Remind us again, why is San Francisco "liberal"?

Because from here, it looks like it is a city that has made itself perfectly inhospitable to a narrow group of elites with a herd mentality.