The American population is about 12% black. Therefore, if blacks had proportional representation in the United States Senate, there should be 12 black senators, and all 12 probably should be Democrat since blacks vote 90% to 95% Democrat.

Yet today there are zero blacks in the Senate. And in the last 100 years, there have been a grand total of only two black US senators elected out of the hundreds of senators who have served. Those two were Edward Brooke, a moderate Republican from Massachusetts who served 1967-1979, and Carol Moseley Braun, a liberal from Illinois  who served 1993-1999. There has been one mulatto senator – Barack Obama, the liberal from Illinois.

The question is: Since the Democrat party has been the party of affirmative action, ‘inclusion’, quotas and racial preferences, why is not their party in the US Senate representative in any way of the makeup of the American people? Why is it that liberals make laws to make our universities, our workplaces and our neighborhoods numerically integrated while the Democrat party in the United States Senate has been a bastion of segregation?

The answer is quite simple: Liberals make laws for the rest of us, but never abide by those laws themselves. For instance, they support the public schools wholeheartedly but many send their children to private schools. Their environmentalist faction and friends in Hollywood lecture us endlessly about conserving energy, while elitists like John Kerry fly around on their private jets and drive energy-guzzling SUVs. And most importantly, when it comes to power, the White Democrats who run that party do not seem to want black Democrats in the United States Senate.

In fact Democrats do not seem to want any blacks in power in the Senate; just look at their vicious campaign against blacks like Michael Steele of Maryland when he ran as a Republican for the Senate in 2006. Before Steele’s candidacy even was official, two staffers from the office of New York Democrat US senator Charles Schumer used Steele’s Social Security number to obtain Steele’s credit history, which is a federal crime. 

How about Democrats’ harsh treatment of Republican blacks like former football star Lynn Swann who ran for governor of Pennsylvania in 2006; or Ken Blackwell who ran for the governorship of Ohio in 2006, both victims of smear campaigns by Democrats themselves.

Look at the horrible treatment Democrats have heaped on black conservatives like Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, or Condoleezza Rice, our Secretary of State, who has been caricatured in the most ugly way in the liberal media.

They have been singled out for one reason: They are Republicans.

But the basic issue is that, when it comes to power, white liberals want it more than anyone in America and are not going to give it up for political show. Imagine caucasian Dianne Feinstein of the US senate from California saying she was going to give up her seat so that black Willie Brown, the former mayor of San Francisco, could run for it. Imagine white senator Durbin of Illinois stepping down to allow Jesse Jackson to become a US senator.

Not!

Just look at the three news anchors at liberal ABC, CBS and NBC who are whiter than white. Will they give up their chairs in favor of a black?

Never. Never.

Because power is the most important thing for liberals. Just look at Bill Clinton whose whole existence centered on being president, who did everything he could to manipulate public opinion in his favor. Yet Republican George W. Bush once said that if he had not been elected president, it would not have been such a big deal for him, that life would go on.

Now we have the specter of Democrat corruption in full flower in Illinois, and the issue of race being injected into yet another controversy in the Democrat party. When Obama was elected president on November 4, his US Senate seat needed to be filled. In Illinois, the governor appoints someone to fill the seat.

But there’s a little problem: Democrat governor Blagojevich has been arrested on the basis of a criminal complaint because wiretaps showed him discussing plans to sell Obama’s seat to the highest bidder.

Since he has not been indicted, however, Blago is refusing to resign his office, leaving the Democrat party in a quandary as to whether to allow Blago to appoint the next US senator from Illinois. The  US Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada even had said that the Senate, controlled by Democrats, will block any appointment by Blago, while the Illinois secretary of state Jesse White has said he will refuse to certify Burris. Yet Burris is planning to arrive in Washington on January 5 to become a US senator.

On the other hand, Democrats now fear that the Illinois seat might go to a special election in which a Republican might get elected.

So now Blagojevich is stirring the pot not only by refusing to leave office, but by appointing Roland Burris, who is black, to fill Obama’s seat. Burris is the former attorney general of Illinois and thus is a qualified candidate.

And thus Democrats have a huge problem on their hands, which Blago caused intentionally in order to save his own skin: Whether to allow Burris to have the seat, or to fight the seating of Burris and appear racist while trying to appear lawful in refusing Blago’s appointment. Meanwhile the Republicans stand by and rub their hands in glee.

Black Chicago congressman Bobby Rush said early on that Blagojevich should not be able to appoint a replacement for Obama because Blago was seen as crooked. But now that Blaogjevich has sought to appoint Burris, Rush has changed his tune. He said:

“I would ask you the not hang or lynch the appointee as you castigate the appointer and separate the appointee from the appointer. Roland Burris is worthy and he is the only one who can stand in the gap during this time and gather the confidence, re-establishing confidence of the people of the state of IlliRush went on to essentially challenge the United State Senate to not seat Burris – a course of action that the Democratic Caucus has said it will pursue.”

Notice the wording – “hang or lynch”. Rush immediately is playing the race card in order to get Burris accepted. Rush continued:

“There are no African-Americans in the Senate, and I don’t think that anyone, any US senator who is sitting right now would want to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the US Senate. I don’t think they want to go on record doing that.”

And whose fault is that, congressman Rush, that there are no blacks in the Senate?

Rush said he would take the issue to the Congressional Black Caucus, and would lobby US senators as well including Illinois’ Dick Durbin.

“Let me remind you that the state of Illinois and the people of the state of Illinois in their collective wisdom have sent two African-Americans to the US Senate,” said Rush. “That makes a difference. This is not just a state of Illinois matter … but indeed, by this decision, it has tremendous national importance.”

So this situation now may now pit the Black Caucus in the House of Representatives – which includes all black congresspeople including Rush –  against the white power structure that controls the US senate and its Democrat majority.

Will this lead to a racial conflict within the Democrat party? It looks that way. But that would be nothing new. Remember that the Republican party was founded in 1854 as the anti-slavery party; that Republican Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves; that sitting Democrat US senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia once was a Ku Klux Klansman; that Bill Clinton’s mentor, Democrat US senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas was an avowed segregationist.

And from the treatment of Clarence Thomas to Michael Steele to Clinton’s racially-charged remarks against Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential primaries, we know the White Democrats for who they really are: They want black votes to stay in power, but they do not want to share that power with those blacks.

And that is the ultimate problem for the Democrat party.

Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more.