Dems talk racial equality but legislate racial preferences

Senator Obama, circa 2004 (tellingly on a stage):
There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.

But President Obama and his allies in Congress see America through racially-tinged lenses. Racial preferences are proliferating, belying the clam that Barack Obama would heal our racial divisions and be our first post-racial President. We should have known that his ideology did not match his inspiring rhetoric - his mentor and moral compass was , after all, was Jeremiah Wright, who preached anti-Americanism and racism in equal measure. Now we see the ideology transformed into policy, as this Washington Post article makes clear:

...many of his appointees have nonetheless been aggressive in pushing a decidedly un-colorblind agenda. For example, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood last year sent a letter to all 50 governors, pressuring them to ensure that federal contracting money be distributed with an eye on race, ethnicity and sex. This year, the Justice Department filed an amicus brief that aggressively defended the University of Texas' use of racial and ethnic preferences in its undergraduate admissions. (That case is being argued this week.) More recently, evidence has surfaced that the administration weighed race in deciding which car dealerships to close.

The administration also has declared that it will be aggressive in filing "disparate impact" complaints. Under this theory, actions that are nondiscriminatory by their terms, in their intent and in their execution are nonetheless challenged if they lead to politically incorrect numbers. Thus, for example, the administration has challenged a physical test for prison guards because, in its view, it was too difficult for women to pass; it likewise has warned schools that their discipline policies will be scrutinized for racial imbalances. Such an approach guarantees the implementation of surreptitious quotas.

[...]

But Congress is much worse. Racially preferential provisions are included routinely in all kinds of legislation, usually with little fanfare. For example, the two highest-profile bills passed in the past year - reforming health care and the regulation of financial institutions - both included extensive racial-preference provisions.

And the Democrats have the audacity to look at many Americans as being bigots and racist.


Senator Obama, circa 2004 (tellingly on a stage):

There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.

But President Obama and his allies in Congress see America through racially-tinged lenses. Racial preferences are proliferating, belying the clam that Barack Obama would heal our racial divisions and be our first post-racial President. We should have known that his ideology did not match his inspiring rhetoric - his mentor and moral compass was , after all, was Jeremiah Wright, who preached anti-Americanism and racism in equal measure. Now we see the ideology transformed into policy, as this Washington Post article makes clear:

...many of his appointees have nonetheless been aggressive in pushing a decidedly un-colorblind agenda. For example, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood last year sent a letter to all 50 governors, pressuring them to ensure that federal contracting money be distributed with an eye on race, ethnicity and sex. This year, the Justice Department filed an amicus brief that aggressively defended the University of Texas' use of racial and ethnic preferences in its undergraduate admissions. (That case is being argued this week.) More recently, evidence has surfaced that the administration weighed race in deciding which car dealerships to close.

The administration also has declared that it will be aggressive in filing "disparate impact" complaints. Under this theory, actions that are nondiscriminatory by their terms, in their intent and in their execution are nonetheless challenged if they lead to politically incorrect numbers. Thus, for example, the administration has challenged a physical test for prison guards because, in its view, it was too difficult for women to pass; it likewise has warned schools that their discipline policies will be scrutinized for racial imbalances. Such an approach guarantees the implementation of surreptitious quotas.

[...]

But Congress is much worse. Racially preferential provisions are included routinely in all kinds of legislation, usually with little fanfare. For example, the two highest-profile bills passed in the past year - reforming health care and the regulation of financial institutions - both included extensive racial-preference provisions.

And the Democrats have the audacity to look at many Americans as being bigots and racist.


RECENT VIDEOS