The Most Equal Comrade out-vulgars himself

For starters, there's the attempt to conflate executive-order amnesty for illegal aliens with the Selma march 50 years ago:

On Friday, President Barack Obama implied that not granting illegal immigrants the same rights as U.S. citizens violates the spirit of the “Bloody Sunday” march 50 years ago, when black Americans were beaten while demanding voting rights they were being denied as U.S. citizens.

Obama, who has enacted two executive amnesty programs for illegal immigrants since 2012, said that deporting DREAMers “is not true to the spirit” of the civil rights movement.

“The notion that some kid that was brought here when he was two or three years old might somehow be deported at the age of 20 or 25 even though they’ve grown up as American, that’s not who we are,” he reportedly said in an interview with Sirius XM’s Joe Madison, according to The Hill. “That’s not true to the spirit of what the march on Selma was about.”

Then, he makes a sweeping assumption that racial bigotry is endemic in post-America's municipal police departments:

President Obama said the type of racial discrimination found in Ferguson, Missouri, is not unique to that police department, and he cast law enforcement reform as a chief struggle for today's civil rights movement.

Obama said improving civil rights and civil liberties with police is one of the areas that 'requires collective action and mobilization' 50 years after pivotal civil rights marches brought change to the country. 

The president made his first remarks about this week's Justice Department report of racial bias in Ferguson, which found officers routinely discriminating against blacks by using excessive force.

The Justice Department refused to prosecute Ferguson cop Darren Wilson despite compiling a 350,000-page report on racial profiling in the Missouri city which 'led to' him fatally shooting unarmed black teen Michael Brown on August 9, 2014.

By the way, about that DoJ report (which, by the overlords' lights, had to come out simultaneously with the finding that Darren Wilson was innocent), Heather MacDonald has a piece at NRO about what a lot of hooey the notion of disparate impact is:

In Ferguson, blacks accounted for 86 percent of traffic stops in 2013 but make up 63 percent of the population, reports the New York Times. Such numbers are meaningless as a measure of police behavior, unless one considers the underlying rate of traffic offenses. If blacks are disproportionately represented among speeders, red-light runners, and drivers without updated vehicle registration, say, then their higher rate of being stopped simply means that the police are applying the traffic laws neutrally to lawbreakers. Do not expect the Justice Department to have performed such an analysis of driving behavior, however. And discovering the underlying rate of driving offenses is just the beginning of the analysis. The demographics of roadways can differ enormously from the residential population surrounding those roadways and even vary according to the time of day and the day of the week. Using a residential-population benchmark to evaluate traffic enforcement — which the Justice Department is certain to do — is illegitimate as either a research or a legal strategy.

The New York Times also notes that black drivers in Ferguson were twice as likely to be searched, even though searches of white drivers were more likely to turn up contraband. Again, such a statistic is meaningless unless one knows the underlying rate at which black and white drivers had outstanding warrants — which will trigger a search — and what their behavior was upon being stopped. The absence of a valid benchmark for evaluating traffic enforcement undercuts any intentional-discrimination claim against the police. But the use of disparate-impact analysis could make it irrelevant to know whether blacks violate the traffic laws at a higher rate; the neutral application of those laws would nevertheless be a form of discrimination if blacks are disproportionately penalized under those laws. If that is in fact the tack that the Justice Department takes in the case, the Department is nevertheless certain to imply that the Ferguson police department is also deliberately discriminating against black drivers, because that is what the Democrats’ base demands. 

Predictably, the New York Times also throws out the hoary chestnut that the Ferguson police department is mostly white in a majority-black town, ignoring, as usual, the inconvenient fact that majority-black law-enforcement bodies have been accused by no less than the federal government of severe civil-rights abuses against blacks. See, for example, the corrections officers and administrators in New York’s Rikers Island jail complex — the local U.S. attorney charges them with having a “culture of violence” against adolescent inmates — the Detroit police department, and the New Orleans police department. Expect the DOJ to make a similar complaint about the racial composition of the Ferguson department. 

The whole point is to involve the federal government in the affairs of towns and cities in post-America. As always, the issue is never the issue.  The issue is centralized control by the overlords.