If an individual or a group was utterly consumed with concern about a race, and used race as the sole litmus test for evaluating anything, you’d say that such people were racists, wouldn’t you?
If a group was convinced that the only reason anyone could conceivably oppose Obama is the color of his skin, doesn’t that indicate an obsession with race?
If people are willing to ignore violence and bloodshed when one race perpetrates in against another, but only perpetrator of the violence is black, doesn’t that sort of indicates a racial preference that overwhelms rational thought. That, too, sounds like the behavior and attitudes of a racist, wouldn’t you say?
The unfortunate election of Barack Obama has given the left yet another epithet to toss like a grenade into what they apparently consider “uncivil discourse”. The phrase “we need to engage in more civil discourse” has, itself, become a leftist favorite to deflect any criticism of the president or any of his policies. But in addition the Obama presidency has provided the left with an opportunity to accuse any disagreement, on any topic, by not only elected politicians but any citizen of the country with being a racist.
By accusing ordinary people of racism whenever they are critical of Mr. Obama’s behavior, his policies, his selections for Cabinet positions, or anything else connected with the man, the accusers are essentially claiming that Barack Hussein Obama is so perfect, so flawless, so intelligent, so moral, so ethical, so well informed, so utterly wonderful that the only reason to disagree with anything he does can only be, in fact it must be, attributed to racism.
Yet their very use of the term strips bare the pretense that liberals in general, the media, academia, Progressives and Democrats are themselves without any taint of racism. The left is absolutely obsessed with the color of a person’s skin. That sort of obsession must be viewed, by any rational standard, as the very essence of racism.
Because of the tint of his skin tone, it apparently is not possible to disagree with any of Obama’s policies in any area of governance unless you are prepared to be accused of being a direct philosophical descendant of Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Look at the lengths that the media have gone through to avoid the identification of the race of those young men who have participated in the recent beatings and deaths of random whites. Other than identifying the accused as being “youths”, little if any information is provided to the media’s viewers or readers. Of course there is little if any rationale for these senseless beatings. They do not appear to be revenge. They do not appear to have any motive other than the fact that they perpetrators are black and the victims are white. While George Zimmerman is classified as a white-Hispanic (a brand new form of racial identification) who killed a black teen, unless pressed, black on white killings and beating are now considered so normal that the media doesn’t even have to make an effort to hide the race of the perpetrator.
One can only infer that, since the media themselves are so self-evidently free from bias of any sort, they simply assume that their readers will immediately grasp that, absent any sort of racial identification, they are talking about a black perpetrator. Among the even more politically-correct, liberal and doctrinaire media, they probably assume that their readers will assume that the racial group that they are not mentioning are not black, but rather African-Americans.
So who exactly is racially obsessed? The Republican Party was founded to end slavery. The Democrat Party spent a century trying to maintain de facto, if not de jure, slavery. A greater proportion of Republicans in Congress voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights act than did Democrats. A Republican, Eisenhower, appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, and the Warren court directed legal decisions toward freedom and opportunity for blacks in this country.
On the other hand, the Democrats provided us with George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Bull Conner and Robert Byrd.
These rather simple examples seemed to have escaped the latest tirade offered up by Florida congressman Alan Grayson when he accused the Tea Party of being the latest incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan. The fact that Grayson was not immediately castigated by Pelosi, Reid, Wasserman-Schultz or Barack Obama himself indicates that they are in agreement with his comments.
Their agreement with Grayson is not only a display of amazing ignorance, their lack of push-back is not only tacit agreement, but utterly contemptible.