opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell
2 Feb 2016
After Iowa

Senator Ted Cruz's upset victory against Donald Trump has robbed "The Donald" of his stock answer to any … Read More.

2 Feb 2016
Random Thoughts

Random thoughts on the passing scene: Will this November's presidential election come down to a choice … Read More.

30 Jan 2016
Grow Up!

Of all the many things said about Donald Trump, what was said by Roger Ailes, head of the Fox News Channel, … Read More.

Reverse Racism


Among those who have been disappointed by President Barack Obama, none is likely to end up so painfully disappointed as those who saw his election as being, in itself and in its consequences, a movement toward a "post-racial society."

Like so many other expectations that so many people projected onto this little-known man who suddenly burst onto the political scene, the expectation of movement toward a post-racial society had no speck of hard evidence behind it — and all too many ignored indications of the very opposite, including his two decades of association with the egregious Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Those people of good will who want to replace the racism of the past with a post-racial society have too often overlooked the fact that there are others who instead want to put racism under new management, to have reverse discrimination as racial payback for past injustices.

Attorney General Eric Holder became a key figure epitomizing the view that government's role in racial matters was not to be an impartial dispenser of equal justice for all, but to be a racial partisan and an organ of racial payback. He has been too politically savvy to say that in so many words, but his actions have spoken far louder than any words.

The case that first gave the general public a glimpse of Attorney General Holder's views and values was one in which young black thugs outside a voting site in Philadelphia were televised intimidating white voters. When this episode was broadcast, it produced public outrage.

Although the Department of Justice's prosecution of these thugs began in the last days of the Bush administration, and the defendants had offered no legal defense, the case was dropped by the Justice Department after Eric Holder took over. One of the lawyers who were prosecuting that case resigned in protest.

That lawyer — J. Christian Adams — has now written a book, titled "Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department." It is a thought-provoking book and a shocking book in what it reveals about the inner workings of the Department of Justice's civil rights division.

Bad as the Justice Department's decision was to drop that particular case, which it had already won in court, this book makes painfully clear that this was just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

Despite the efforts of some in the media and in politics to depict the voter intimidation in Philadelphia as just an isolated incident involving a few thugs at one voting place, former U.S.

Attorney Adams shows that these thugs were in fact part of a nationwide organization doing similar things elsewhere.

Moreover, the civil rights division of the Justice Department has turned the same blind eye to similar voter intimidation and corruption of the voting process by other people and other organizations in other cities and states — so long as those being victimized were white and the victimizers were black.

This is all spelled out in detail, naming names and naming places, not only among those in the country at large, but also among those officials of the Justice Department who turned its role of protecting the civil rights of all Americans into a policy of racial partisanship and racial payback.

The widespread, organized and systematic corruption of the voting process revealed by the author of "Injustice" is on a scale that can swing not only local but national elections, including the 2012 elections. The Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder has not only turned a blind eye to blatant evidence of voter fraud, it has actively suppressed those U.S. Attorneys in its own ranks who have tried to stop that fraud.

Even in counties where the number of votes cast exceeds the number of people legally entitled to vote, Eric Holder's Justice Department sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil — if the end result is the election of black Democrats. It has become the mirror image of the old Jim Crow South.

This is an enormously eye-opening book which makes painfully clear that, where racial issues are concerned, the Department of Justice has become the Department of Payback. A post-racial society is the last thing that Holder and Obama are pursuing.

To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is



12 Comments | Post Comment
And the laws passed by GOP controlled state legislatures across the country make clear that the GOP is no haven of universal suffrage. In state after state they have passed laws designed to discourage or limit the voting of the poor, students, and minorities. Under the Bush administration, the US attorneys were pushed to fight the alleged wave of "voter fraud". US attorneys who did not find "voter fraud" were fired. No systematic pattern of voter fraud was ever found and very few individual cases were found. The Big Lie, repeated endlessly by Fox "News" and its ilk is the basis for GOP efforts to disenfranchise groups which have not traditionally supported them.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Mark
Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:19 PM
Hey Mark; care for a little whine with your cheese? And could ya pass the sour grapes? There is no better example of racism on a national scale than Eric Holder and no better enabler than Barak Obama. There is also no better chronicler than Thomas Sowell, so get over your liberal white guilt; the very same guilt that swept Obama into the white house.
Comment: #2
Posted by: D. Howse
Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:49 AM
Hey D.,
As I made no defense of Obama, any white guilt here must be yours. A little projection perhaps? IF, and that is a really big IF, the Philadelphia case is as Adams/Sowell presented, it is a disturbing incident. And IF there is a widespread effort to disenfranchise voters, it should be resisted, regardless of the affiliation of the voters being disenfranchised. But, as the famous "MacDonald's hot coffee" law suit shows, the devil is in the details. (Ignore the commentators, read the case.)
I have not read Mr. Adams' book. It may be the work of an unbiased legal mind, or not. It is interesting that Mr. Adams was "...hired in 2005 by then-Civil Rights Division political appointee Bradley Schlozman, who was later found by the Civil Rights Division's Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility to have violated civil service rules by improperly taking political and ideological affiliations into account when making career attorney hires." (thank you Wikipedia) While this does not prove that Adams is just a right-wing nut job, it certainly raises the possibility. The Wikipedia article on Mr. Adams is interesting. I note in the Wikipedia piece that one of the problems with the Philadelphia case was that the prosecutors could not find any evidence of anybody who was too intimidated to vote.
I have read many of Mr. Sowell's books. I find them to be well researched and carefully crafted. While I do not always agree with his conclusions, I often find his analysis in his books insightful and thought provoking. Sowell the columnist, however, is usually just a political hack with an agenda. GOP, good, Democrats bad, make sure details match agenda. It often doesn't get much deeper than that - almost up there with the work of such right wing luminaries as Chuck Norris and Ollie North.
The nationwide effort to disenfranchise poor, minority, and student voters should be deeply disturbing to anyone who loves democracy more that they love their particular party.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Mark
Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:12 AM
Re: Mark

The laws you refer to aren't really a race issue but a class issue. The very poor are not going to have driver's permits nor will they be able to afford to buy an ID. While I agree that even street people should have the chance to vote, I don't see how it is relevant to this article.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Clucri
Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:29 AM
That portion of my comments may be a bit tangential to the piece, but not much. Sowell is calling attention to "The widespread, organized and systematic corruption of the voting process...on a scale that can swing not only local but national elections, including the 2012 elections." If using the law, allegedly addressing a non- existent problem of "widespread voter fraud", to systematically disenfranchise the voters of the other party isn't "organized and systematic corruption of the voting process", I don't know what is. That is, I believe, relevant, to the article. Teasing apart race from class might be a bit challenging in this case.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Mark
Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:04 AM
Re: Mark Hi Mark, I find it curious that in your list of officially disenfrancised voters, you omit military personel serving oversees voting by absentee ballots. You should be careful, such an omission of voters who tend to lean right might lead others to question your impartiliaity. Your proverbial slip is showing.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Jennifer
Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:19 AM
That was not a slip. I am unaware of any CURRENT issue with military voters and their absentee ballots. (I do recall that being raised as in issue in 2000 in the Florida vote mess. I would enjoy talking about the 2000 Florida GOP and the disenfranchisement of 3% of the states black voters by inflating the felon list, etc, but that is old news and off topic.) If there is still a problem with absentee votes from military personnel it MUST, of course, be fixed. I believe that our democracy is stronger with EVERY citizen voting, regardless of political leanings. The GOP in many state legislatures are CURRENTLY working hard to disenfranchise traditionally democratic voters. Does that concern you? At least a little bit?
Comment: #7
Posted by: Mark
Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:56 PM
This is a well written article and brings up some important points. However, I disagree with the title and some of the content, at least in syntax.

There is no such thing as "reverse racism" or "reverse discrimination." Racism is racism and discrimination is discrimination, no matter who is discriminating against who.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Brad
Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:25 PM
Disenfranchised? Really? Sorry about all the poor driving around without a driver's license (illegal) or not having the ability to forego smokes for a valid ID card. Another lame excuse by another guilty liberal. I've always loved Thomas Sowell from the moment I first stumbled upon his commentaries in a local business paper. This guy gets it. What is tragic is that the DEM party continually shows opposition to mandatory ID/driver's license presentation at voting precincts. They want to open the door for the possibility of fraud. They encourage those to skirt around the issue any way they can without getting caught. The GOP wants to close the voter fraud door in all 50 states, as it should be in this country, in order to assure the public that elections cannot be rigged. We have enough corruption and corrupt politicians with opposing ideologies as it is, so why not set restrictions and limitations for all in order to minimize the inevitable backlash or suspicion? Sounds reasonable to anyone but a liberal. Why is that? It's because they depend on this sort of thing to get elected. The people are waking up and it will be up to the DEMs to lie, cheat and steal votes. The people don't want any part of liberal ideology because they know it will bankrupt the country. We have irreconcilable differences in this great country created and perpetrated solely by the DEM party who wants to enter the global communistic realm and exert their power OVER the people.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Suz
Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:55 AM
Saw a picture in the paper, WSJ, yesterday that showed a voter in Liberia holding up a voter ID card. In Liberia the middle class and upper middle class would marvel at what our “Poor” have and that woman looked like she was not particularly well off. In order to ensure voter fraud is minimized there must be some form of identification otherwise it would be easy to cast a vote for another person and a picture ID is the best method, ask the Liberians.

The WSJ also ran an article some time ago about voter fraud in Alabama where Democrats were mailing absentee ballots to the same address and they were all filled out by the same person. The investigation resulted in arrests and convictions. This is what worries me about Oregon, I believe, conducting some elections, this year I believe, completely by mail. There is no verification of the voter. When I voted absentee, in primaries, a little over four years ago I was a registered voter, had the ballot sent to my home and my wife sent it to me. It was handled timely and there were no problems but they could not possibly have known it was me voting or someone else.

Asking someone to show that they are who they claim to be is not asking too much. As far as no actual “harm” caused by the NBPP, of course not. They wouldn't actually hurt anyone unless they did file a complaint. That's why it is called intimidation. Intimidation kept certain people away and kept them from complaining. And since so many municipalities restrict the right of people to carry firearms for protection it does cause one to pause when you see such thugs lurking outside the polling station.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Ed Boyle
Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:57 AM
There was no evidence of "widespread voter fraud" when the Bush administration made the topic the top item on the agenda for nations US Attorneys. Those who pointed out this inconvenient fact and suggested that they should instead focus on, say, actual crimes being committed, were promptly canned. The rest went to work and found? No evidence of widespread voter fraud. (Yes, individual cases of voter fraud have been uncovered. These included a SF Bay Area Police Chief who registered to vote using his work address so his home address would not be public.) Why would the administration risk appearing to be ineffective in their use of US Attorney's time - to be "soft on crime" as the saying goes?
The answer is simple. The target was never "widespread voter fraud". It was giving Fox "News" enough BS about "widespread voter fraud" to run so that GOP controlled state governments would have political cover to pass laws to discourage traditional democratic voters. For this to be done, the public needs to think that voter fraud might be a significant enough problem to justify laws making it harder to vote. Was the effort effective? See the previous two comments. Do the new laws say "poor, minority, and student voters may not vote"? No. That would not get past the courts. They just just throw in enough roadblocks to these groups to significantly reduce their numbers. You do not have to keep all of the other side's supporters away from the polls to skew election results your way, just enough. This game should horrify anyone who truly loves democracy.
If you want to see the game at it's most obvious, look to Texas. The DMV ID requirement to vote has two exceptions: elderly and concealed gun owners. Gosh, I wonder if those two groups typically vote democratic or republican?
Comment: #11
Posted by: Mark
Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:51 AM
I firmly believe in EQUAL RIGHTS. But NOT special rights.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Carol G.
Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:56 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Thomas Sowell
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 8 Feb 2016
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 6 Feb 2016
diane dimond
Diane DimondUpdated 6 Feb 2016

28 Oct 2013 Throw the Rascals Out?: Part II

25 Nov 2008 "Jolting" the Economy

13 Aug 2012 The Paul Ryan Choice