The Obama Administration's Rampant Racism
American Thinker
January 20, 2010
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's remarks during the
2008 presidential campaign that Barack Obama would have a good chance
to be elected because he was "light-skinned" and spoke with
a "Negro dialect" only by choice are ugly and insulting. But
the real consequences of Obama's and Democrats' selective "forgiveness"
of Reid go much deeper and are much more damaging than merely demonstrating
that they're hypocritical and that they apply a political double standard
where criticism of "inartful" remarks is concerned. Taken together
with the actions and comments of other Obama appointees, including especially
Attorney General Eric Holder, they reveal a deep-seated racism that informs
the President's every policy and pronouncement and threatens to turn the
United States into a 21st-century version of pre-Civil Rights America.
The racist bias of the current administration cuts both
ways. The fact that our President accepted Reid's apology as if he (Obama)
were the only one damaged by Reid's remarks speaks to two things: the
President's own narcissism and the fact that he agrees with the underlying
racist premise that speaking with a "Negro dialect" is negative.
Obama was sending a subliminal message to tens of millions of African-Americans
that they weren't damaged by the implication that they're inferior and
not politically marketable as national leaders because they speak differently
from white massas like Harry Reid. Reid's comments were insulting to every
"Negro" in America, and Reid should have apologized to all of
the country's African-Americans and not just to the President.
Obama's spineless and insensitive acceptance of Reid's
apology was tendered without so much as a beer summit of the kind he convened
to repair the damage (to himself) caused by his racially tinged remarks
about Cambridge, Mass., police sergeant James Crowley ("the police
acted stupidly") in the Henry Louis Gates incident. Obama never did
apologize to Crowley.
In addition, the President was one of the leaders of the
lynch mob that eventually succeeded in getting talk show host Don Imus
fired from his post for the sin of calling the Rutgers University women's
basketball team "nappy-headed ho's." Then-candidate Obama declared
that "He [Imus] didn't just cross the line, he fed into some of the
worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with
today in America." Thank God Harry Reid wasn't guilty of that.
By appointing a racist as his Attorney General, Obama
effectively cemented history's judgment of his administration's racialist
policies. Eric Holder, who called Americans "cowards" because
they were unwilling to engage in a public debate about "race,"
has proven himself to be both a coward and a racist. When it's politically
convenient for him to support blacks, he'll subvert the law to do so,
as he did in dismissing the prosecution of members of the New Black Panther
Party for voter intimidation on election day 2008 in Philadelphia. The
Justice Department had won the case by default when the defendants failed
to respond to the charges, and yet, despite the fact that the case had
been won, Holder dismissed the charges against all but one of the miscreants.
The one against whom the charges remained was told, not that voter intimidation
was illegal, but that he had to wait until after 2012 before brandishing
a nightstick at an election site again.
Holder is the Obama administration's "Bull"
Connor. Where Connor called out firemen and policemen to prevent blacks
from demonstrating in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963, Holder tacitly condoned
behavior equivalent to that of Connor's brownshirts by dropping prosecution
of members of the New Black Panther Party when they brandished weapons
and shouted insults at white voters, intimidating them in a way similar
to that of Connor's thugs 45 years earlier. The difference is not in the
degree of the offenses committed but in the fact that, in this case, when
committed against whites the offense doesn't lead to punishment.
Reid, Holder, and Obama all cling to deeply racist convictions,
not only in branding those who disagree politically with them as racist,
but in their own attitudes toward African-Americans, who they see as implicitly
inferior to whites and "light-skinned" blacks. Their selective
condemnation of "racism" by their opponents is deeply disturbing,
because it reveals, without their apparently being aware of it, that they
themselves harbor the same racist convictions as those they excoriate
for being racist.
Don't get me wrong. I think that Obama acted appropriately
in accepting Reid's apology, even though he did so for the wrong reasons.
Whereas Obama uses the accusation of racism politically when it's convenient,
as in Imus's case, he reveals his own racist leanings when one of Democrats'
own commits a racist faux pas. Of course Obama and other racial charlatans
such as Al Sharpton forgive Harry Reid: They feel the same way about blacks
as Reid does. The problem is that the President and his Democratic cronies
don't apply their "principles" even-handedly. Reid's offense
doesn't warrant his being forced to step down, and neither did Don Imus's.
It won't be long - certainly by November of this year at the latest -
that the administration's rampant racism becomes another of the reasons
American voters drum Democrats out of office in droves.
|