Posted on 12/30/2003 12:14:06 PM PST by mrustow
Some Republicans now say that affirmative action is here to stay, so the best we can do is to "contain" it. That means limiting affirmative action to blacks and American Indians. (Many Republicans have long felt that way, but some are now actually talking containment.)
Containment is surrender. This ain’t the Cold War; this is the war for the Constitution. It’s also a low-intensity (increasingly, high-intensity) race war. But the containment strategy is worse than a straightforward surrender. For while GOP operatives intend all along to surrender for what they think is a fair price, they seek to deceive Republican voters into thinking that the operatives will resist the expansion of affirmative action.
In her betrayal of precedent and the Constitution alike, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor enshrined the notion of “diversity” in constitutional precedent. (But then, Pres. Bush argued for “diversity” before Justice O’Connor did.) Under diversity plus the now common perversions of the 14th Amendment (the rights of some groups to privileged treatment before the law), you cannot limit affirmative action to blacks and American Indians. So, either you do the right thing, and fight affirmative action every step of the way, or you make those less wealthy and well-connected than you, bend over and take it.
Indeed, as an astute correspondent observed,
“Politically speaking, it isn't remotely likely that the Bush administration would get behind an effort to limit AA to blacks and American Indians. The group Bush and Rove are trying to court - and also use to prove their non-racist credentials to politically moderate suburban whites who might otherwise be influenced by their PC liberal neighbors - is Hispanics, and they would not benefit from such a containment policy.”
(Note, too, that the well-to-do "conservative" whites courted by the GOP, whose operatives apparently think -- to paraphrase Steve Sailer -- that some groups’ votes count more than others -- want to maintain an endless supply of illegal immigrant nannies, housekeepers, cooks, gardeners and employees for their businesses, all of whom they can pay less and abuse more than American workers -- the same status quo sought by the well-to-do, "progressive" whites the Democrats are courting. Meanwhile, the white American working and middle classes are going broke, paying for illegal immigration.)
If we go back to circa 1970, we see that containment was one of the original rationalizations for affirmative action – ‘It’s just for blacks.’ (And then, "blacks" meant American-born blacks, not West Indian, Caribbean, South American or African-born, immigrant blacks.) Similarly, over the past few years, I have heard talk of “outreach” as some sort of “substitute” for affirmative action. That’s another rehabilitated, 1970 rationalization for apartheid, without even changing the term. There can be no outreach, because the very act of reaching out to blacks would itself constitute a racial preference, but more importantly, it would give cover for the same old apartheid system. It was ruses like “outreach,” “remedial education,” etc. that got the ball rolling in the first place. (A few years ago, Liddy Dole screwed up and got it right, in responding to critics of affirmative action, “But what about outreach?” For her, the two were synonymous.) I would appreciate it, if folks bandying about terms like “containment,” “outreach,” etc., would just come out of the closet, and admit that they support affirmative action. That way, they cause less mischief.
But they won’t come out. I think such folks are GOP dead-enders, who will do anything to ensure that the nation does NOT confront racial and ethnic apartheid, as long as they think this will help George W. Bush get re-elected in 2004, and thereby help them feather their own personal nests. Remember, party propagandists talk in terms of principles, but think in terms of dollars and cents; the rest of us pay the tab. The technical term party insiders would use to describe those paying for their cozy little set-up is "losers."
Republican operatives have also decided that illegal immigration is here to stay, so the best we can do is to legalize, er, I mean, contain it. Following lead lemming Karl Rove, the dead-enders still fantasize that they can win over Hispanics, even though as Steve Sailer and Sam Francis have repeatedly pointed out, no evidence supports such fevered dreams. The President has just unveiled his new amnesty program for 9 million-13 million illegal immigrants, not counting their kin (all of whom - illegals and kin - will immediately be privileged over native-born, white citizens), and the tens of millions of new illegals the amnesty will inspire to invade America. And in the age of the "matricula consular," new "relations" can be manufactured and sold at will.
We are already hearing the equivalent of "containment" talk surrounding this newest amnesty, similar to the talk that was used to sell the 1986 amnesty. Then it was "secure borders," "stiffer sanctions for employers hiring illegals," blah blah blah. Now it's "stricter entry controls, including increased use of technology at the border," "steps toward better enforcement of current visa restrictions and reporting requirements," blah blah blah. The mixture of irrelevance -- because illegals sidestep official entry points -- and contempt for citizens' intelligence, has Rove's fingerprints all over it.
And I'm not even getting into the countless illegal stealth amnesties that have been smuggled in behind the back of the American people since 1986.
Why prosecute wars overseas to defend America, if you are willing to surrender to Vicente the Conqueror, and every other nickel-and-dime-store, banana republic leader, on your own shores?
The dead-enders desperately want to suppress a national debate on such controversial questions. They are content to blindly follow the Bush brothers, who have outdone the Democrats in their support of affirmative action. (The Democrats only knew how to support affirmative action variously through criminal conduct and rationalizations that even the leftwing federal bench found increasingly incredible. Conversely, in Texas and Florida, the supposedly far-right Bushes developed methods of stealth affirmative action that were acceptable to the federal bench.) And so, the GOP is heading lemming-like off the cliff, with millions of amnestied Hispanics due to join Hispanic citizens, in voting 2-1 Democrat, and disgusted whites staying home from the polls, or voting for a Sovereignty Party or suchlike.
GOP dead-enders are saying, in effect, ‘To hell with the Constitution, and to hell with the equal protection of the laws for whites who cannot afford pricey attorneys, cannot afford to either move out of school districts being destroyed by blacks and immigrants or send their kids to snobby private schools, or get their kids into overpriced, private universities (OPUs), in spite of radical affirmative action (diversity). And guess what? Millions of whites will say, "To hell with the GOP!" And good riddance to the privileged cowards and opportunists who live off the party. They are no better -- and ultimately no different -- than the well-to-do lefties who cheer on a gang of blacks mugging a lone white.
So George W. Bush will win in 2004 … and in 2008, people will be talking about GOP “midgets.” In the meantime, if any Republican approaches you with talk of “containment,” go for your wallet with one hand, and your gun with the other.
HA!!
Ummm.
...of course you really meant capitulation.
Then, when one of the supporters needs, say, a brain surgeon, they should be compelled to use one who got through medical school on Affirmative Action.
Need an architect? Only an AA architect for supporters.
Need an engineer? Ditto.
In other words, if less than the best is good enough for the rest of us, the AA-supporters should put their dollars, selves, and families where their mouths are and commit to using mediocrities.
But these elitists demand nothing but the best, don't they? This is hypocrisy shouted out loud, but nobody notices. Let's notice, and bring upon them the logical outcome of their stated preferences.
--Boris
Play their game. I am not taking away YOUR preference. I just don't think we should punish anyone by denying it to them, too.
Voila! Affirmative Action is gone because, now, everyone has the same preference!
I agree with your statement.
And it has been proven to not be difficult. allow me to reiterate from a previous post ....
Let us visualize a real live controlled border. That would require a fairly large construction project to build semi-sunken border stations at one mile intervals from end to end across the southern border with Mexico. By placing them at one mile intervals no point on the border is more than 30 seconds from a border station. By sinking them into the ground, one level is completely protected against almost all man-portable weapons and the second level (ground level) can be bermed on three sides except for the horizontal observation and firing ports along the east, south and west sides. the north side would extend out to include a 3 sided, covered bay where the interceptors will sit at the ready.
Each such station will be staffed by five three man teams. As this is a closed border plan, there is no need for more than three per station. Allowing 5 shifts per station, the three normally needed for 24 hour staffing at 8 hour shifts, plus two ?weekend? shifts that could rotate out with a weekday shift, giving the week day workers opportunity for time off, vacation, backup for sick days, etc.
Then there is the eternal question, how much?
Ahhhhhhhh, there is the beauty. ZERO. This will not add a single dime to the budget. WHY? The money is currently being pi$$ed away for nothing and where it is going will only get worse. Allow me to rub salt here . .
""When approving the Medi care bill last month, Congress allocated $1 billion to help border hospitals cover those costs. President Bush is expected to sign the bill Monday.""
Which he did. So the money is there, it is just being spent in a reactionary mode. In a proactive mode most of the money will only be spent only in the first year, after that the cost would drop dramatically.
OK, lets do the numbers.
1330 miles from Atlantic to Pacific ='s 1330 stations.
1 station initial construction 165,000
1 electronics and weapons 40,000
3 trucks @ 40,000 each 120,000
15 staff, 5 shifts at 3 per shift 630,000
utilities (water, electricity) 12,000
Total for one station for the first year (including construction)
$967,000
Total for the 1330 stations required
$1,288,044,000
and that is including construction cost.
After the initial construction,
Back out 90% of 165,000 to = 16,500, or annual maintaining
apply the same 10% maintaining to the other front end expenses
and the total annual bill is . . . $870,352,000
Case Closed.
The only reason the border is NOT closed is the fed WANTS the criminal invaders here.
the only question is . . . WHY?
Many will argue that they are just poor "immigrants" and we should welcome them. We already welcome immigrants, NOT illegal border busters. If they are "immigrating" why are they crossing the border at night, paying other criminals thousands of dollars each to smuggle them into the u.S.
SMUGGLING IS NOT IMMIGRATING.
And as for this BS about them only committing a mistomeanor by crossing the border illegally, there is another school of thought. Lets take a look at that, shall we?
Just a thought, what if the IRS began to receive reports regarding the transfer of funds to locations outside of the united States and it became apparent that is is a nationwide trend.... therefore invoking conspiracy laws.
Say for example, an individual living in the united States ILLEGALLY had conspired with other individuals living in the united States ILLEGALLY to create a hideout from the investigative branch of INS or whatever the heck they are called these days. They have rented the hideout under a fake name and all of the conspirators chipped in to pay the rent on the hideout. Then, in order to avoid local law enforcement agents, all of the ILLEGAL Aliens live in the hideout, thereby circumventing the reporting regulations for an alien ILLEGALLY living in the u.S. That would be a crime, right?
OK, let's say those same aliens living ILLEGALLY in the u.S. all had jobs and because they are paying very little to support themselves, (they are all living in the hideout, thereby paying 1/5 to 1/10 what the average American pays in rent and lest than 1/20 what the average home owner pays in monthly mortgage payments) they are sending regular sums of money out of the county, money that was earned during the course of ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, i.e. not reporting there illegal status, hiding their address from law authorities, and falsifying federal IRS forms with fake SS numbers. This would all constitute crimes, right? Well, what kind of a crime?
STRUCTURING, IE money laundering......
4.18.1956(a)(1)(B)(ii) Money Laundering-Illegal Structuring,
18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii) See Statute
[Defendant] is charged with violating that portion of the federal money laundering statute that prohibits structuring transactions to avoid reporting requirements. It is against federal law to engage in such conduct. For [defendant] to be convicted of this crime, you must be convinced that the government has proven each of the following things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that [defendant] entered into a financial transaction or transactions, on or about the date alleged, with a financial institution engaged in interstate commerce, involving the use of proceeds of unlawful activities, specifically, proceeds of the [insert crime here(illegal alien) ];
Second, that [defendant] knew that these were the proceeds of unlawful activity;
Third, that [defendant] knew that the transaction or transactions were structured or designed in whole or in part so as to avoid transaction reporting requirements under federal law. ------- The defendants are also charged with knowingly conducting and attempting to conduct financial transactions that involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, knowing that the transactions were designed in whole or in part to avoid a transaction reporting requirement and while conducting and attempting to conduct such financial transactions, knowing that the property involved in the financial transactions represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii).
The Treasury Department has published a booklet entitled, "Money Laundering: A Banker's Guide to Avoiding Problems," which contains a list of suspicious activities that the Treasury Department says fit the profile of a "money launderer." These activities include: 1) Paying off a delinquent loan all at once; 2) Changing currency from small to large denominations;3) Buying cashier's checks, money orders, or traveler's checks for less than the reporting limit (i.e., under $10,000); 4) Acting nervous while making large transactions with cash or monetary instruments; 5) Opening an account and using it as collateral for a loan; 6) Presenting a transaction that involves a large number of $50 and $100 bills; and 7) Presenting a transaction without counting the cash first. . . .
"Structuring" is defined by the IRS as any effort to avoid reporting cash or other monetary transactions over $10,000 by breaking them down into smaller "related" transactions over any 12-month period (defined by USC 31, Sec. 5322-5324-Money Laundering Control Act of 1986, as amended). A structuring violation carries with it a criminal penalty with a mandatory prison term, heavy fines, and confiscation of structured funds and money "connected" to them. (A civil penalty of a $25,000 fine with confiscation of structured funds also exists.) Monetary instruments included in structuring are cash, cashier's checks, money orders, and traveler's checks.
"Structuring" is now defined as money laundering, and is a criminal offense. You can now go to jail for dealing in cash to protect your financial privacy, if the IRS thinks you're trying to hide or structure your transactions or monetary instruments.
It seems to me that that the above is describing a nationwide conspiracy of ILLEGAL ALIENS that are defrauding the government and a guilty of a long list of federal conspiracy crimes.
It also occurred to me that the crime was committed, or rather, under the definition of conspiracy, the crime began when the illegal alien set foot on u.S. territory with the intention of getting a job "that nobody else wanted."
Well well, let us review the facts.
1. All the illegals KNOW what they are doing is against u.S. law.
2. The border an be closed for .10 cents on the dollar of what it costs PER YEAR, that would be 22 Billion, due to their presence. It would cost less than 2 Billion to close it.
They are in fact criminals and were felons by their own admission the moment they set foot on u.S. territory. What the government is thinking by allowing this to go on in the face of such universal opposition of the wishes of the Americans will be political genocide if just one of the annual two million criminal border crossers are involved in a major terrorist event. That is not pubies or dems, just politicians and gubbermnt in general.
NO reason to not close the border.
MANY reasons to close the border NOW.
Does this current government really believe all Americans are so stupid as to let this go on?
the only question is . . . WHY?
Cheap labor that drives all American wages down plus a steady stream of new voters wanting handouts from the nanny state.
Its a win for the Democrat AND Republican parties.
Of course it might be the death of our Republic but both parties could care less about that.
Good idea --- it's so great EVERYONE should have some --- even whites.
It's one thing though to justify Affirmative Action because a group faced discrimination for decades in the past --- but to then give it to people who barely stepped foot in this country is completely absurd. Why in some town in Kansas are there no Mexican presidents of banks when there were no Mexicans period 30 years ago there? Now the minute they arrive they expect complete equality in everything.
Jim has warned me to restrain myself when commenting on this eventuality, and I will do that very thing to the letter.
With that said, I have no doubt everyone now knows exactly what I think of the demise of the Republic.
TLI
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.