REAL RACISM AND ITS LETHAL CONSEQUENCES

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
--Margaret Sanger

With the arrival of the first post-racial candidate, Saint Obama, America seems to have embarked upon yet another "conversation" about race. Of course, the Sainted One wasn't talking about that until we found out what a racist loon his pastor and his grandmother, at least by Obama's reckoning, are.


Still, the call is out to bring Americans together and to try to bury this ugly spectre from our sordid past. Or, at least, that's what the Left is claiming. Truth be told, they would never voluntarily let go of racsim and the power it bestows.


It's remarkable how little attention is paid to the intimate connections between the Left and the Democrats and things like eugenics, segregation, Jim Crow, and slavery. Trent Lott says some nice things about a nonagenarian who once was a segregationist, and he finds himself pilloried. Meanwhile, no one says boo about Robert Byrd, a grand wizard from the Ku Klux Klan, who never renounced his allegiance to that sorry organization.


But this isn't about the pernicious double standards of the day. This about institutional racism and the attempt to breed away black Americans. This campaign was spearheaded by that champion of progressive ideals, the feminists' uber feminist, that stalwart pioneer of women's reproductive rights, Margaret Sanger.


Recent discoveries, thanks to an undercover investigation, have shown shown that, as recently as 2006, Planned Parenthood offices in several states, were eager to accept donations from actors who portrayed themselves as bigots. They said that they wanted their donations to go to only aborting black babies. The worst criticism of these remarks came from an administrator at Planned Parenthood, Lisa Hutton, who smirked and said, "Whatever!" Other officials were even less upset. You can see the video made about this investigation here.


In 2004, World Net Daily reported that several black male employees of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles had filed racial and gender discrimination suits against the organization. It seems that white women were harassing and firing the black men. An attorney for two of the claimants said it's "unfortunate to find out that PPLA, as a chief promoter of 'tolerance and diversity' is engaging in what appears to be a most primitive form of hate against its own employees."


Is it surprising? Well, if you really believe that Planned Parenthood is all about "tolerance and diversity", I find that not only surprising, but disturbing as well.

Planned Parenthood is America's largest provider of abortions. That they also provide for other women's health needs is beside the point. It is a statistical fact that most Planned Parenthood clinics are located in minority and urban neighborhoods.


It is probably not surprising that the Almanac of Policy Issues finds that "The abortion ratio for black women (503 per 1,000 live births) was 3.0 times the ratio for white women (167 per 1,000 live births)." That is a stunning figure, given that the Infoplease.com almanac puts the total percentage of the American black population at 12.7% as of 2002.


For an organization as involved with "tolerance and diversity", this is especially telling. Of course, if anyone was at all familiar with the history of Planned Parenthood, its parent (for lack of a better word) organization (The American Birth Control League) and its founder, Margaret Sanger, there would be no surprise at all.


Margaret Sanger was one of eleven children, born of a devout Roman Catholic mother and a socialist activist father. After an unhappy marriage, she began working on birth control issues, ultimately founding the American Birth Control League in New York City with Lothrop Stoddard and C.C. Little. While Little's career seems to be benign, the same cannot be said for Sanger and Stoddard, both of whom were outspoken proponents of eugenics, the process of improving the human race by weeding out the "lesser" breeds.


Sanger often spoke out against the unbridled reproduction of the poor, the mentally and physically deficient and the insane. Of course, she was also including blacks and Jews in that list of deficient gene donors. Of blacks she said: "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Of birth control, she said its purpose was "to create a race of thoroughbreds."


Sounds rather Klan-ish, doesn't it? Of course, throughout her career, Margaret Sanger was a speaker much in demand at chapters of the Ku Klux Klan, although she herself thought they were rather dullards. Still, they supported her plans to "purify" the race.


In 1939, Sanger founded the Negro Project, garnering support from many of the black churches of the day, despite the sub rosa element of eugenics and the elimination the blacks. Said Sanger about getting black doctors and clergymen on board with the Negro Project:

"I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time Negro physician. It seems to me from my experience ... that, while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table, which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and ... knowledge, which ... will have far-reaching results among the colored people

"The minister's work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Lovely sentiments, no? If you think dear Margaret was beyond the pale, you should get a load of Lothrop Stoddard. This guy's writings were avidly read (and tragically implemented) by Adolph Hitler. Eventually, they became the basis for the philosophy of Pan-Aryanism, which has since been embraced by the White Supremacist movement.


These are the philosophical underpinnings of Planned Parenthood: racism, ethnic purity, white supremacy, forced sterilizations, sneaking their murderous schemes under the noses of the very same black intellectuals that they used as their cover.


And their efforts continue to this day, as evidenced by the opening of this essay. It's hardly surprising that the eugenicists were closely allied with the socialists, the conservationists, indeed, every group that, today, would be called Left wing.

Consider issues beyond birth control and abortion. Al Gore and his Global Warmists would deny modernization to the Third World "to avoid the catastrophe" that industrialization would bring to the world, thereby oppressing blacks and other minorities to squalor, starvation, disease and death. Consider that America's drug laws were largely supported with such racist headlines as "Nine out of Ten Rapes Against White Women in the South are the Direct Result of the Coke Crazed Negro Mind". Consider that, the minimum wage was originally touted as a way "to keep the brown and the Chinese people out of our jobs". Look at affirmative action, which tells minorities that they can't possibly make it in this world without white Liberals to give them extra perks.


Yes, the list just goes on and on. But that's just point. When Liberals call Republicans in general, and Conservatives in particular, racist, they are engaging in the most base projection. They are looking at us, seeing themselves, and blaming it on us.


Yup! The Democratic Party and the Left! The Once, Present, and Future Home of Racism in America!


Copyright April 9th, 2008

THROUGH RACE COLORED GLASSES 2/18/08

A gentleman posted a series of comments on to my column of last week -- "And Now, Back to the Frontrunner". True to form, anonymous didn't waste any time claiming that the GOP and Conservatives (by extension, I would assume, he would also include me) are the home of racism today.


He started out by taking issue with the Democratic Party's historical relationship with various racist policies in America's past, to wit: slavery, Jim Crowe, the Klan, segregation, etc. His comments seemed to have exposed a bit of racism on his part however: "...see, when they [the Democrats, I think] moved away from that [racist policies, maybe?], all the honkies went GOPiggy."


In later posts, he referred to Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice as "Toms". So, apparently, his racist views aren't just aimed at whites, but also to blacks who don't stay on the Democratic plantation regarding "proper" Liberal ideology.


I thought that today, I would expand upon my claim that it is really the Democratic Party, with its irrational addiction to identity politics, which is the racist party, as opposed to the color blind Conservatives, who look at people as individuals, regardless of the color of their skin.


How can the Democrats be racist? I mean, more that 90% of the black vote goes to the Democrats every time. What is it about them that would make me think the Party is racist?


First, a bit of history:

• The Klan was started by the Democratic Party to undo or minimize the efforts of Reconstruction.


• Jim Crowe laws were promulgated by Democrats.


• Lyndon Baines Johnson, during the 1950's, spent most of his congressional career obstructing the Civil Rights Act, a bill that was supported, by the way, by Dwight Eisenhower.


• It was Eisenhower who sent the troops into the South to enforce desegragation.


• John F. Kennedy had his brother, Bobby who was then the head of the Justice Department, spy on Martin Luther King in an effort to discredit this Civil Rights pioneer.


• Democrats resisted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Al Gore's Dad led that obstruction. Had it not been for Republican support, it would never have passed.


• More recently, we have Sen. Robert Byrd, who has never renounced his membership and leadership in the Klan. Strom Thurmond, on the other hand, not only quit the Klan very publicly, he switched parties to distance himself from them.

Other, superior minds than my own, have catalogued the specific policies which, while ostensibly claimed to be helpful to minorities, actually did them more harm than good. I suggest the writings of Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, and Charles Murray for a more indepth look at Liberal calumny diguised as "compassion".

And to the specious claims that it is the Conservative end of the political spectrum that is the new home of racism in America? Let's look at a few examples:

• Opposition to affirmative action? That's merely discrimination against other folks, rather than traditional discrimination. (More on this later)


• Failure to embrace identity politics? I thought that was what Martin Luther King was talking about: "...judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character..." What's racist about that?
  
• Tax cuts? Despite the claims of Rep. Charlie Rangel (D.NY) -- "It's not 'spic' or 'nigger' anymore. They say, 'Let's cut taxes.'" -- tax cuts have absolutely no racial or ethnic component. In fact, tax cuts are good for minorities in that they spur the economy and create more jobs, while allowing wage earners to actually keep more of their money.
  
• And what is so racist about appointing the first and second black Secretaries of State, not to mention the first black female National Security Advisor? Not even Bill Clinton, dubbed by Toni Morrison as "America's first black President" can make that claim.

No, anonymous doesn't recognize any of these things as being color blind. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice are nothing but Uncle Toms, in anonymous' exalted opinion. You see, they have strayed from the Liberal Plantation of Thought Control to actually embrace individual effort and an escape from identity politics.

Now, for more on affirmative action. This is nothing short of tit-for-tat, "You-hit-me-I-hit-you" childishness. Worse, it doesn't even strike at the actual perpetrators of the crimes committed against American blacks in our past. It is merely striking out at anyone who who looks like the real criminals, most of whom are, thankfully, dead.

Consider it this way: Let's say that my great-great grandfather robbed banks. This information was widely known and documented but, for whatever reason, he was never prosecuted or imprisoned for his misdeeds. Now, 100 or more years later, we are finally going to do something to set this terrible injustice right. So, we are going to put you in jail, since my ancestor is beyond the ken of our justice system.

Wouldn't that, in an of itself, also be an injustice? After all, neither you nor your ancestors robbed any banks. Why should you have to pay for the crimes of someone else's ancestors?

Well, the same argument can be made about affirmative action. While I am white, my ancestors weren't even in America during the days of slavery, nor were they involved in any of the Jim Crowe laws. I have never engaged in bigotry and, to the best of my knowledge, neither have any of my ancestors. So why should I have the deck stacked against me to right some wrong that had nothing to do with me or my ancestors?

And what does affirmative action say about the folks it purports to help? "You're too stupid and too incapable to deal with life on life's terms, so we enlightened Liberals are going to help you." Wow! That's uplifing, isn't it? No wonder Thomas Sowell often expresses gratitude that he was educated before it became cool to like black people!

Someone (I forget who, but it wasn't me) once said that affirmative action is the ultimate in masochism, since it forces someone who thinks you're a turkey to hire you anyway. How true that is!

Look, racism is not only bad, it's stupid. I don't want to see any kind of racism, whether we're talking about the Bad Old Days of Jim Crowe or the supposedly enlightened days of affirmative action.

Furthermore, I have decided to limit anonymous and his postings to avoid giving a forum to his bigotted and scatological screeds. If he wants wants to make a point or an argument and can control his demons, then, by all means, he will be heard.

If not, I reserve the right to silence him on my blog. Let's just hope he can act like an adult.

Copyright Feb. 18th, 2008

AND NOW, BACK TO THE FRONTRUNNER

Today, I'd like to examine Barak Hussein Obama a little more closely than I had in Obama Where Art Thou.

Having already outlined his biography, let's examine the man as a candidate. He is young, energetic, and articulate. I won't go so far as Joe Biden, who said Obama was "clean". I doubt that he was talking about personal hygiene. Although, with Biden's track record for unfortunate comments, maybe he was.

Obama is a stunning speaker. He has, as the Irish like to say, "The Gift of Gab". His speeches seem to move people in a way that neither McCain nor Hillary can. He is a welcome change, in a rhetorical sense, from the linguistic manglings of President Bush or the holier-than-thou intonations of John Kerry. And he is (Thank God!) not at all shrill like Hillary.

His technique of speaking is reminicent of Martin Luther King, Jr. His youth and his energy calls to mind John F. Kennedy, as do his looks. Compare this to Hillary. It's been said that a man could listen to Hillary promise him a million dollars, and all he'd hear is his ex-wife yelling "Have you put out the garbage yet?"

That is only the style, however. What of the substance? Well, that is a question, isn't it?

Obama speaks of "Change We Can Believe In." He believes in "The Future" and "All Americans Uniting." His supporters echo his slogan, "Yes We Can."

"Change"? What kind of "change"? What does he see in our "future", of which he is wont to tell us he looks toward?

What are his policy proposals? There, he's a little bit vague. During the primaries, he, Hillary and Edwards vied for who would raise taxes the most and fastest. They argued about who's Universal Healthcare plan would have the most mandates. And all three want to punish Big Oil, Big Pharmaceutical, and Big Insurance -- everything, in fact, but Big Government. And for a while, it seemed, they were in a race to see who would get out of Iraq first, although only Edwards would suggest a date for that withdrawal. In short, if you heard Edwards or Hillary, you've heard Obama's proposals. They are all interchangeable.

What Barak Obama does is use his soaring rhetoric to hide his extremely Liberal (face it, he's a Stalinist) ideology. He doesn't speak about his policies in detail because then everyone would know he isn't the "Agent of Change" he portrays himself to be. His policies are nothing but warmed over Socialism.

One need only to read his speech today in Janesville, Wi.:

• Universal Healthcare, whether Hillary's or Obama's, would be a Marxist nationalization of one of the largest parts of our economy.


• He describes the current mortgage troubles as if they were President Bush's fault, rather than the result of government forcing lending institutions to write bad loans, lest they be accused of "red lining".


• He is a master of the rhetoric of class warfare, pitting us against the rich and the corporations, never mind that they provide the investments and the infrastructure of our economy.


• He wants to subsidize what he calls "working families" with tax credits and federally funded daycare, all while punishing the achievers who actually made the jobs held by "working families".


• He proposes to "reform bankruptcy laws" to protect "victims of predatory lending".


• Obama wants a "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank" spending billions, and payed for by surrender in Iraq.

Friends, this is all boilerplate Liberalism, the kind that Democrats have been spewing since George McGovern. The only difference is that Barak Obama looks and sounds better than McGovern.

But, really! All he offers are platitudes. He is like the Miss America constestant that says "All I really want is world peace."

Barak Obama is an empty suit, nothing more. He offers loads of style, mounds of soundbites, and inspires much enthusiasm. But he says nothing new.

Last December, the Boston Globe asked Obama a series of questions regarding the Constitution, the Congress and the powers of the presidency. His answers were stunning, not only in their Liberal naivete, but in their total ignorance of just what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court has to say on these issues.

Let us not ignore the question of race. Obama has been quite successful running as an American, avoiding the issue of race as much as the Clintonistas will allow. It is noteworthy that, among the Republican candidates, no one has so much as mentioned his race. Although Mike Huchabee was reprehensible when he maligned Mitt Romney's Mormon faith.

But among the Democrats? Pennsylvania's Gov. Eddie "Don't Call Me Fast Eddie" Rendell had the temerity to say "...I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate." This is stunning, aside from the obviously libelous and inflamatory denouncement of white America, when one considers that he is talking about the frontrunner of the Democratic field. I've already cataloged other instances of this sort of Liberal racism in previous columns, so I'll just leave it at that.

My friend, Evan Sayet, wrote today: "Whites WILL vote for a black man so long as he's not running as a black man." He's correct. Previous black Democratic candidates (Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, for instance) ran on the idea that America is racist and they were rightfully rejected. Obama, as Liberal as he is, doesn't, and that gives him traction outside the black electorate.

What Barak Obama proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that America is no longer the racist nation portrayed by Civil Rights, Inc. A truly racist country would never have a black candidate do so well. This is especially true given his success in a Party that has its roots in the Confederacy and the Klan.

Of course, Obama is still wrong in so many ways and with so many issues. He is, before his blackness or lack thereof, still a Liberal. And his administration would be catastrophic for our country, despite all his talk of hope and change. If he is defeated in his quest for the White House it won't be because of racism, at least not from the Right. It will be because the electorate looked at his ideas and found them wanting.

Given the almost certain nomination of John McCain as the Republican presidential candidate, I am still certain that either Obama or Hillary will become our next president. McCain is too distrusted by the Republican base to beat Hillary, and Obama is far too shiny and new compared to McCain.

Of course, as noted yesterday in Through Race Colored Glasses 2/12/08, Hillary just might tear the Democratic Party apart along the fault lines of race and gender.

As I said yesterday: "Ah! Life is good!"

Copyright Feb.13th, 2008

THROUGH RACE COLORED GLASSES 2/12/08

One of the many joys in my life is to watch Political Correctness run, head on, into itself. This year's presidential election is perhaps the most extreme case I've seen in my life.

Political Correctness (or "PC" for the remainder of this column) is strictly in the province of the Left. In simplest terms, it is a form of thought and speech control, wherein any deviation from the precepts of PC are to be met with howls of "Racist, Homophobe, Misogynist, Zenophobe!" Or, in other words, anyone who disagrees with a Liberal.

For instance, if we were to point to the serious troubles in the black family, we are told that we are "blaming the victim". Similarly, if you took the trouble to examine the actual statistice that undermine the theory of the Glass Ceiling for women, you are obviously lying, since the oversimplified statistics show just a ceiling.

Another way of looking at PC is that it is completely given over to identity politics, or the issues of people as part of ethnic groups or some other such artificial division, rather than as individuals.

In New York City, we have the very Liberal Mayor Mike Bloomberg going on a very PC war on tobacco, banning tobacco from almost every enclosed public space. Yet, in Astoria, Queens, he is unable, or unwilling as a leading proponent of PC, to confront the proliferation of Arab coffee houses that feature hookahs, or waterpipes, for the tobacco enjoyment of their patrons. This has become a bone of contention for restaraunts and bars in the area that aren't Arab-centric. Neighborhood bar? Outside with your cigarettes! A hookah? Sure, no problem! Go ahead and light up!

But the most amazing collision of PC with itself has been in the Democratic primaries of this presidential election season. On the one hand, we have Hillary Clinton, formerly the annointed candidate of the Democrats and her identity group of women and feminists. On the other, we have Barak Hussein Obama with all the hopes and dreams of Liberal blacks and other minorities. Suddenly, we find the Democratic Party and the Left in collision with themselves, all thanks to looking at life and politics "Through Race Colored Glasses".

Hillary Clinton, by past record, shouldn't have any troubles like this. After all, Toni Morrison, in 1998, had already crowned her husband, Bill as America's First Black President, citing his upbringing in a single-parent family and his serial adultery as credentials. (Personall, if I were black, I'd be insulted by this.) Hillary, Bill, and even that tree, Al Gore, have all spoken before black audiences, often, embarrassingly, adopting the speaking style of black preachers.

Now, though, Toni Morrison is endorsing Barak Hussein Obama. What's Hillary to do? Oh, sure! She can get Andrew Young, that icon of the Civil Rights Movement and former ambassador to the United Nations, to point out, simultaneously, Obama's youth and Bill's "blackness" saying: "Bill is every bit as black as Barack. He's probably gone with more black women than Barack." But this just doesn't seem to be enough.

Obama, meanwhile, has identity politics troubles of his own, albeit minor troubles. His leading star-power endorsment is Oprah Winfrey. Now, Oprah, while herself black, isn't perceived necessarily as black. She is the uber fem, the avatar of WOMAN. This makes her something of a feminist icon, since she is also the richest woman in America. The British Times Online, however, reported last month on the backlash from women and feminists (these are not necessarily the same folks, although most feminists are women) calling Oprah "a traitor to her gender", by not supporting the female candidate.

So here we have the Establishment Civil Rights guys (Jackson, Rangel, Young etc.) lining up behind Hillary along with the Feminist intelligentsia. Meanwhile, the younger Turks are ginning up for Obama, notably the Hollywood set. Throw in the Kennedy's for a little Establishment gravitas, if you will, and we have the Democratic Party in extreme meltdown mode.

Today is the Potomac Primary and it looks like Hillary is about to get her clock cleaned. Obama is running away, apparently, with the Democratic votes. But don't you dare think that Hillary is going to go off and lick her wounds. Rush Limbaugh, today, made the prediction that, whoever wins in the primaries, Hillary will be sure to get the nomination.

And if she does, what happens in the Democratic Party?

Let's imagine, for a moment, that Obama wins the majority of delegates to the Democratic Convention. Florida and Michigan, punished by the DNC won't have their delegates seated at the convention, based upon rules agreed to by all the Democrat candidates. Does anyone seriously believe that Hillary won't demand that those delegates be seated and counted as hers? After all, they were won by Hillary since she "just didn't have time" to remove her name from the ballots in accordance to the DNC's decision. And just who runs the DNC? Why it's the Clintons, since Bill was their most recent president.

Now let's imagine the response by black Democrats to the usurping of the primaries by the white candidate. Hmmm... Not pretty would be my guess!

Of course, if anyone in the Democratic Party had any sense at all, not only would they be Republicans, they would see this sort of happy nonsense coming a mile away. These are the logical results of identity politics and PC. This is the direct result of looking at people as groups, rather than individuals. These are the fruits of looking at life "Through Race Colored Glasses".

Ah! Life is good! I love watching the Left crash on the rocks of their own irrationality!

Copyright Feb. 12th, 2008

NOW IT'S A HORSE RACE!

Alright! Now we've got a horse race! The results of the Florida primary are in and we've narrowed the field. John McCain narrowly defeated Mitt Romney, while Hillary trounced Barak Obama. These results prompted Rudy Giuliani to drop out of the race, throwing his support to McCain, while John Edwards threw in the towel and has not endorsed anyone at this writing.

Unfortunately, for both winners, this was a pyrrhic victory at best.

Hillary may have won in Florida, but to what avail? The Democratic National Committee had already declared Florida's primary null and void, since the state moved its primary date up before February 5th. In true Clinton form, Hillary is now trying to back out of that agreement and wants the delegates awarded to her.

Let's say that Hillary succeeds in her bid to aquire the Florida delegates. Add this insult to the injury of playing the race card against Obama. How will the black vote, reliably Democratic, be affected? Would it be unreasonable that many would think that the white candidate effectively did an end run around the black candidate? What would that do to Hillary's image as the wife of "The First Black President", as Toni Morrison so famously dubbed Bill? Don't forget what Hillary did to Carl McCall in New York, effectively ending his burgeoning political career for her own Senatorial aspirations. Once again, it seems, the Democratic Party is going back to its segregationist roots to marginalize a viable black candidate.

Apparently, the Democratic Party is incapable of truly representing the black vote, taking their near monolithic support completely for granted. They can only lie about Republican policies and make ever emptier promises to do better than the last time blacks supported them. One can only hope that, sooner or later, people wake up to the institutional racism of the Democratic Party. I, however, will not hold my breath. I'd thought I'd seen the cracks before, only to find out they were minor and quickly healed.

And where does John Edwards (he of the silky locks and womanly charms) throw his support? After all, he is the leading candidate of the Trial Lawyers. Granted the Trial Lawyers will be happy with any Democrat. But would they be better off with Hillary or Obama? This will be very interesting to watch.

For the Democrats, we have the spectacle of watching two of their premeir identity political groups facing off against each other. It's kind of fun watching the Feminists cry foul when Ted (It took nine hours to open a lady's car door) Kennedy endorsed Obama. Similarly, we find the Old Guard of the Civil Rights Movement line up behind Hillary, while Oprah stumps for Obama. Perhaps it's time for me to revisit "Through Race Colored Glasses".

Speaking of Uncle Ted, it's been said that his word is gold among Hispanics. Would this hurt Hillary's chances further than an erosion of black support? Don't you just love when Political Correctness and identity politics run into themselves in such a spectacular fashion

Many on the Left seem to be tiring of the nefarious methods of the Clintonistas. Even the Legacy Media has taken to pointing out the misdeeds of Bill and Hillary. Bill's astounding claim that he never supported the Iraq war was too much even for those Liberal sycophants. His red-faced, finger wagging tirades on the stump for his putative successor are getting rightful criticism from all sides as well.

Still, the Legacy Media downplays the internecine fighting, the callous gender and racial attacks, to focus on "The Demise of Conservatism". To help that along, they have shamefully attacked the Mormon faith on every show, from newscasts to historical documentaries. Then they downplayed Mike Huckabee's Christianity, since his Liberal ideals are more in tune with their own.

Meanwhile, ponder this: if Conservatism is on the decline, why, then are both McCain and Romney trying to claim the Reagan mantle? Why, in his victory speech, did McCain preposterously state that he "is the Conservative who can unite the Republican Party"? Furthermore, his aides are telling anyone who would listen that McCain is going to "do outreach" to Conservatives. Why would that be necessary if Conservatism is in decline?

Let us consider CNN's exit polls, as interpreted by blogger Joshua Trevino:

Romney won pro-lifers.
Romney won the mainstream religious. (Huckabee won
the very religious--less than one-fifth of the pool.)
Romney won the Protestants.
Romney tied Huckabee with Evangelicals.
Romney won the pro-GWB voters.
Romney is the primary second choice of Giuliani voters,
Thompson voters . . . and McCain voters.
Romney won the immigration hard-liners.
Romney won the upper-middle class, earning between
$100,000 and $200,000 annually.
Romney won the terrorism-oriented voters.
Romney won the self-identified conservatives and the self-identified
very conservative.
Romney won the values-oriented voters.
Romney won the white voters.
Romney won the tax-cutting voters.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these the same issues Conservatives are most concerned about? How, then, can McCain claim to be "the Conservative Candidate"?

Here's another question: Why is Mike Huckabee, with no money and not even placing in the primaries, still in the race? Mark Levin makes a convincing case that there is a deal in the works. Huckabee siphons off enough of the Christian and social Conservative votes from Romney and, in return, McCain makes Huckabee the Vice Presidential candidate in November. I can find no fault in this reasoning, since Romney's and Huckabee's votes (as evidenced by CNN's exit polling) combine to be a decisive defeat for McCain in Florida.

Rudy Giuliani has become a real disappointment to me. Beyond the fact that his campaign strategey (putting all his eggs in the Florida basket) was flawed, he further showed that his Conservative bleatings on the campaign trail were nothing more than pandering. This is demonstrated by his immediate endorsement of McCain. After all, Rudy and McCain share much the same disdain for Conservatives. I point you to their careers in elective office. McCain voted against every tax cut that came before him. Rudy supported Mario Cuomo and Mike Bloomberg in New York, two very prominent Liberals. McCain wanted to turn America into a "sanctuary city", just as Rudy did with New York City. Both have been very Liberal on social issues, swinging to the Right only in this election cycle.

Similarly, the disappointing Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to endorse McCain. I guess that Arnold, being a Kennedy by marriage, has finally drunk the Kool Aide. I would be surprised if, in the near future, Arnold leaves the Republican Party, a la Mike Bloomberg.

Speaking of Bloomberg, there are still rumblings about his possible third party candidacy for the White House. Hmmm... It's almost as if there were a conspiracy out there...

Well, perhaps there is! After all, the Republicans have their elites, just as the Democrats. These "blueblood", so-called "Rockefeller" Republicans are better known among Conservatives as RINOs, though they would probably prefer the title "Establishment". They were never comfortable with Conservatives, as evidenced by the 1976 primaries, when they blocked Ronald Reagan and we got stuck with Jimmy Carter. These are epitomized by folks like Christie Todd Whitman, who famously wrote the whiney tome. "It's My Party Too!" Both of the Bush's are of this ilk, as seen by their rather more Liberal policies. These folks aren't comfortable with any true Conservative. They are the purveyors of "Comprhensive Immigration Reform", expanded entitlements, higher taxes and Democarat-Lite social policies. Hence, their support for McCain and their disdain for Romney.

So what do we have? We have a Liberal Republican garnering the support of the "Rockefeller" wing of the GOP, using a Liberal evangelical Christian to siphon off votes of the more Conservative candidate, to drive a stake into the true base of the Republican Party, the Conservatives.

I dunno! I think I may have to rethink my party affiliation!

Copyright Jan. 30th, 2008

Looking Through Race Colored Glasses

Today, the Washington Post published an analysis of the fallout from Michigan voters approving Proposition 2, which will end all racial preferences in hiring and promoting employees, contracting, and entry into schools. The vote was decisive, fully 58% of voters agreed that affirmative action should be banned. But don't worry, my Friends on the Left! The government of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers has rushed into the breech to save racism --Sorry! I meant equal opportunity for minorities.

I know that some folks might question my Politically Incorrect humor in that last sentence, so let me explain. I am a Conservative. I freely admit it. I am not a racist. I have no opinion, one way or the other regarding anyone's race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Of course, I expect the for same for me in return.

I believe that racism is not only wrong. It is stupid, stupid, stupid. It makes no sense personally, economically, or politically.

Therefore, I am steadfastly opposed to affirmative action in all its ways, shapes and forms.

Why? Because affirmative action is nothing less than racism and discrimination. It is wrong and stupid whether it is expressed against blacks and other minorities or against white males.

I happen to be in good company, since Michigan and California both agreed with what I wrote above. Indeed, they agree in overwhelming numbers.

Now, the Left, as is its wont, is trying to find ways around the Will of the People. The ACLU, no surprise, is wading in with litigation that will attempt to slow or reverse implementation of Proposition 2. Kary L. Moss, the executive director of the ACLU in Michigan describes a series of "both offensive and defensive lawsuits" to determine the bill's meaning for Michigan

Kwame Kilpatrick, the mayor of Detroit, is trying to limit city contracts to only those from within the city, which is 80% black. As much as he doesn't like what the voters want, though, his spokesman, Matt Allen, seems to think it's all a done deal: "As of December 22, there can be no more gender or race preferences."

According to the Washington Post, analysts believe that racism, and fear that whites are losing out in a state where the economy hasn't been quite as strong as elsewhere, was what tipped the balance in favor of Proposition 2. Linda Parker, Michigan's director of the Department of Civil Rights claimed that proponents "sold a bill of goods to Michigan voters, and played into the fears we have".

Look, here's the problem with what Ms. Parker said: she is playing upon the stereotype that anyone who's opposed to affirmative action (or anything promoted by the Left) is full of hate, fear, bigotry, and evil. Ms. Parker, in other words, is engaging in stereotyping in a racist and bigoted manner.

How dare I say that? Easily! I look into myself, and see the lie that Ms. Parker and all those Nanny Staters on the Left tell themselves and the undereducated.

In 1994, one of Newt Gingrich's advisers describe affirmative action as a form of sado-masochism in that you get to force someone who thinks you're a turkey to hire you anyway.

There is another way to look at affirmative action. Let's say that my great-grandfather was a known bank robber. It was an established fact that he robbed banks but he was never brought to justice. He died unpunished for his crimes and this was a great injustice. Therefore, we are going to put you in jail to make up for the injustice of my great-grandfather's life of crime. This will make me feel better, since I wouldn't have the guilt of my forebear's sins. And you will feel better since you are helping to correct the tragic injustices of the past.

And Liberals will feel better because they have found a whole new victim class to exploit and ensnare on their plantation of the Nanny State.

Repeating a theme which I will visit time and again in this blog, a truly free market would eliminate the effects of racism exposing the economic stupidity of bigotry.

Consider this thought experiment: You and I each own a business, selling widgets, say. We are competitors, each vying for a larger slice of the economic pie. I, for the purposes of this experiment, am bigoted against, say, purple people. I won't buy from them regardless of the price they offer, I won't sell to them regardless of how much they'd pay, I won't hire them regardless of how little they'd work for. You, on the other hand, only care about the green of the money. You'll buy from anyone who'll give you a good value for a good price. You'll sell to the highest bidder, regardless of color. And you'll hire the workers who give you the best return for your investments in their labor.

Now comes the crunch: Which one of us will still be in business ten, twenty, thirty years down the line? You, of course! You will out compete me at every turn. You will collect profits while I pile up debt.

So then, in a free market, what power did my bigotry bestow upon me? Absolutely nothing! That is the beauty of free markets. It equalizes everyone in terms of of opportunity, rather than the color of their skins or their gender, or... uhm, just about any other way the Left would like to divide us.

And what does affirmative action offer? Well, it offers hopelessness to their "favored" minorities, who are taught that they can not do for themselves without the Left's programs, it balkanizes us from each other in that we now become hyphenated Americans, and it cheats everyone because the incompetent are promoted beyond their abilities.

All of the above reasons are why affirmative action is stupid. Morally, it is every bit as reprehensible as the racism it seeks to remedy.

Bigotry, regardless of the motivations, is stupid and immoral. So let's put away our Race Colored Glasses!

Copyright Nov. 18th, 2006