It's been almost 50 years since the Civil Rights Act. A monumental achievement for our society (which was pushed by Republicans I might add). Yet still, to this day, we have cries of racism whenever any opposition to a minority, blacks in particular, is raised. We have cries that our education system is racist. We have cries that Voter ID laws are racist. We have cries that laws made to enforce immigration policy are racist. Heck, there are cries that our nation itself is just inherently racist.
The truth is yes, those examples do point to racism. But it's not the acts that are racist. It's those that are crying racism that are the racists. Welcome to the age of anti-racism racism. What? How can someone that's anti-racist be racist? That doesn't make sense, right? You're right, it doesn't. You see, here's the irony:
Many anti racists are so hyper focused on eliminating any racism levelled against a specific race, that they themselves have become racist to other races in the process.
And even more ironically, they end up being indirectly racist against themselves. For example, education standards have been lowered across the country because they're deemed as racist since blacks and latinos statistically score lower on tests. So think about this a moment. These are objective tests. That everyone has to take. Yet, because an ethnic group scores lower, it's clearly racist. What does say about that race? It's soft bigotry because it's pretty much admitting that blacks and latinos aren't smart enough to pass the same tests that whites (and asians and other ethnic groups) pass. That's much more racist than the initial charge that the tests and standards are racist.
Another example is voter ID law. A very common sense law to reduce voter fraud by asking people to prove who they are when they vote. The fact that I don't have to prove who I am when I vote just baffles me. Considering it's our most sacred right and the only power we have to control our government, one would think enshrining its sanctity would be of the utmost improtance. Yet, because supposedly the law would affect a disproportionately larger percentage of blacks and latinos, it's racist. Again, look at what this is doing. It's pretty much admitting that blacks and latinos live a lifestyle where they don't care enough to have an ID even though an ID is needing for other more mundane activities. It's admitting that these people don't live a responsible enough life to have their own ID. Again, racism against the race they're trying to "defend".
These anti-racist racists have been adept at cowing the majority into feeling guilty over supposedly oppressing a minority. While again, yes, this stuff DID happen in the past. That was almost 50 years ago. It does not exist at even a fraction of the extent today. But yet, due to using the guilt card over and over, we have federal and state programs which give exclusive perks to races that commonly will only be available to one race or simply just exclude whites. How is this not racist?
If there was a scholarship fund set up just for white students, there'd be an outcry. Yet, the same exist for blacks and latinos. And then, what about the asians? I don't seem to see many, if any, asian specific programs out there (though I admit there could be). And even if they were, from a statistical standpoint, it doesn't seem like they need it since they're able to get in on their own individual merits just fine.
And now the reason I bring this all up: our 44th (and current) President of the United States, Barack Obama. Any time someone opposes Obama or his administration, they're painted as racists. Heck, I'll even admit that just a couple years ago, I was one of them. When Mitch McConnell declared that his goal is to defeat Obama and make him a one term president, it was very easy to believe that it was a senator from Kentucky simply saying, "Get that n***** out of the White House!"
Yet, as I started to learn more about Obama's past and his current policies, I can see why many politicians were opposed to him. Simply put he IS the most radical president this country has ever had. And ironically, it's mainly because he's black that he was able to get elected. Whoa, hold on, yes I know this statement is controversial. But hear me out.
Look at Obama's 2008 campaign. He ran on "Hope and Change". This is where the racism comes in. First, anyone who opposed Obama was immediately called a racist. As my girlfriend at the time said "It's about time we let someone other than a crusty old white man run the country". And despite my pointing out his zero substance rhetoric or his ties to Jeremiah Wright, I was considered racist for opposing him. This was so effective, it led to the McCain campaign shying away from the admittedly daunting task of vetting our country's first black presidential candidate.
In concert with this, it was because he was black that allowed him to run on an idealistic rhetoric that never came under as heavy scrutiny as it would have should a white candidate tried to run on it. Because he was black, the standards that we placed on all previous presidential candidates were lowered because holding him to those same standards would be racist.
You may think that's racist of me to think so, but tell me how a presidential candidate with:
- A publicly communist mentor (Frank Marshal Davis) who was on the security index such that if the US ever openly went to war with the USSR, he'd be placed under immediate arrest as a security threat.
- Connections with two of the most infamous homegrown terrorists, self described communists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn.
- Membership in the New Party, a progressive (aka socialist/communist) political party
- a belief in Critical Race Theory that believes minorities should receive preferential treatment over the majority race.
- a racist pastor for 20 years (Jeremiah Wright) that said in a sermon "God Damn America!".
- openly admitted to smoking marijuana in the "choom gang" and also doing cocaine in high school.
- a firm belief in Communism during his college career
Would have been able to get elected, let alone nominated, if they were white? It's very doubtful. While one of these on their own might not be enough, all of these together form a distinct image of a man that doesn't hold to traditional American values. Even though Communism/Socialism's stigma has faded in recent decades, Americans have historically (and rightfully) rejected the doctrine and their candidates.
The Leftists knew this. They saw how even a liberal "war hero" like John Kerry could be defeated at the polls. They needed a candidate that could be shielded from such criticism. So, riding the anti George Bush wave (which they're still riding today btw), it set the stage to place a candidate that could preach a simple rhetoric and be virtually immune to scrutiny thanks to the anti-racism racism in this country.
And once again, if one looks at the whole situation, one has to really see who the real racists are: the Leftists. They exploited their candidate's race to get someone into office to push their radical agenda. How does that speak for blacks everywhere that their most redeeming quality is not their own individual merit, but the color of their skin? It's denigrating to say the least.
While I think it's great that we were able to elect a black president, it'll forever be tarnished as a racial exploit by the Left. And that in itself is a shame of far greater magnitude than that of any true racists out there that might have opposed Obama because of the color of his skin.