On Monday’s Special Report, Brit Hume delivered one of the finest commentaries on President Obama’s divisive approach to race relations in America, especially issues related to law enforcement and the black community:

In Dallas, Tuesday, President Obama will be trying to calm racial tensions that his own behavior has done much to aggravate. From his denunciation of the Cambridge, Massachusetts, police as acting, quote, stupidly in the arrest of law professor Henry Louis Gates, to his assertion that the motives of the Dallas cop killer are unclear, they aren’t.

The president has consistently chosen to see things through the eyes of an aggrieved black activist rather than of a president of all the people. He’s not failed to speak out whenever a black is killed by a white police officer, but has said next to nothing about the continued slaughters of blacks by other blacks in the streets of Chicago, Baltimore, and other cities.

He has made his sympathy for the Black Lives Matter movement obvious and never mind that the whole premise of the movement seems to be fallacious. No case has given the movement more impetus than the false claim that Michael Brown was shot down in cold blood while trying to surrender to a cop in Ferguson, Missouri two years ago.

And now a study led by a black Harvard law professor has examined 15 years of crime data from 5 major cities and 2 counties. The study found that while police were more often likely to get physical with black suspects than with white ones, when it came to police shootings, there was no racial bias. Did you hear that, Mr. President? No racial bias.

Hume’s words echo a point I made yesterday in my praise of Rudy Giuliani’s on point performances the past few days:

The fact is no one expects, at this point, for President Obama to do anything other than shake his head sadly about guns, lament that the American people are on his side but evil Republicans and the NRA just love murder too much to relinquish their love affair with guns, and then personally identify with Black Lives Matter, not because he is black, but because he is a Saul Alinsky inspired community organizer who immediately embraces any movement designed to erode the foundations of our country, That’s just what he does.

You see, Obama’s divisive instincts transcend racial issues and permeate every topic he is presented with. He does not view them through the prism of race he views them through the prism of Alinsky. In other words, from the perspective of polarizing Americans into an “us vs them” mentality and using his rhetorical skills to assist in tearing down the foundations of our society so that government intervention is ultimately the only reasonable, viable option.

When you study each of the president’s tactics through this lens, it all makes sense.

But, since we’re talking about race, let’s take a look back:

“The police acted stupidly.”

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

“We may never know what happened in Ferguson.”

“There are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator. ”

“I think it’s very hard to untangle the motives of this (Dallas) shooter.”

And, during the 2008 campaign when the Jeremiah Wright controversy swirled, he threw his own grandmother under the bus:

“The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know there’s a reaction that’s been been bred into our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that’s just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it…”

But after eight years, what has the president done to “break through it”? How has he moved from his entrenched position on race? What has he done to evolve on the issue of race? He began by lecturing our nation about race and referring to hundreds of millions of us as “typical white people” who will react and feel and behave a certain way because they are “typical white people” and today, in Dallas, he will most likely do the same.

And our nation, stitched together in a fragile patchwork quilt of different ethnicities and races will continue to yearn for a leader to emerge who can reject the divisive idea that we must all embrace our differences and strive for a “multi-cultural” America.

The truth is, we must instead embrace what we all have in common, overlook our differences, and unite not behind our multi-cultural differences but our one, American culture.

Multi-racial?  Yes.  Multi-ethnic? Yes. Multi-cultural? No!

One culture… Our American culture.

We have a shared culture. It is found in our language, our food, our national pride, our sports, our films and our sensibilities.

This is why an Italian-American can visit Venice and feel like a foreigner. Sure, he may share some common physical, religious or genetic traits with an Italian, but their culture is completely foreign. Because he is an American.

By embracing what we share in common, we can work to overlook the small things we differ on and unite behind our Americanism, not our hyphenated Americanism.

That solution is much simpler to achieve, actually, but there is no political gain to be made by a leftist community organizer so we won’t hear anything like it today in Dallas. I’d like to think otherwise and I hope I am wrong. But, as a typical white person, I’ve learned to be disappointed in this man.

Obama