In today’s America, “reverse-racism” (as it’s been called) is regarded as progress. Our country is rife with policies at every level of government that have been designed to offer preferential treatment to minorities out of a warped sense of social justice. In today’s America, one’s racial identity is afforded the utmost importance by those who pretend to be the ones hoping to move-passed racial disharmony.
Culturally, our nation is a mess. White people are often accused of bigotry simply by existing. The radicalized left calls it “white privilege” and no matter what one says or does, a white person is guilty of embracing this supposed privilege.
Meanwhile, racism runs unabated in popular culture and it’s both accepted and condoned. Don’t believe me? How often have we heard someone on TV, movies or in music derided as a “white boy”? Now apply this same standard to minorities. If a character derided another as a “black boy,” it would prompt outrage. But the inverse is, somehow, par for the course.
President Obama has done more to set-back race relations than anybody in American history. Instead of offering a unifying message, the nation’s first biracial president has pushed a message of division. His racial resentment runs so deep that he can’t even help himself when he’s defending his own pick for the Supreme Court pick vacated by Antonin Scalia.
President Obama spoke in Chicago on Thursday and discussed his pick for the Supreme Court nomination, Merrick Garland. While discussing the need for diversity, Obama lamented that, “Yeah, he’s a white guy,” but commented that Garland was an outstanding jurist.
Obama told the crowd that he has been responsible for promoting diversity throughout the federal courts and claimed to have appointed more blacks, American Indians, Asians and LGBT to the bench than any other president.
He, however, maintained that diversity is not his main objective and quipped that he’s never sought to appoint a “black lesbian from Skokie.”
“It turns out that if the process is fair and you are saying that it’s important that our courts are reflective of a changing society, you’ll end up with a really good cross-section of people who are excellent and that’s who we’ve been able to appoint,” Obama said. “And so when I look at Merrick Garland, that was the person that, you know, the difference between the Supreme Court is just a handful of seats come up at any given time now.
“I appointed a Latino woman, another woman right before that. So, you know, yeah, he’s a white guy, but he’s a really outstanding jurist. Sorry.”
In Obama’s America, the president feels compelled to apologize for daring to nominate a “white guy.”
What makes his remarks so disgusting is that they offer a subtle glimpse into his mindset. What Obama is explaining to the crowd is essentially a racist prejudice: “I favor appointing minorities, but damn, Merrick Garland is just too darn good. He needs to be nominated even if he’s just a ‘white guy.’”
Even though Obama defended Garland as “an outstanding jurist,” his comments betray a bigotry. To illustrate this, let’s imagine the inverse occurring at a board meeting: “Hey guys, I know John Johnson is a black guy, but he’s really good at his job. I still think we should hire him.”
What does the above hypothetical sentence indicate? A natural prejudice against “black guys.” It’s the same prejudice present in Obama’s defense of his own Supreme Court pick.