The only reason La Raza Unida could take power in California is because a coalition of “moderate” Republicans who are terrified of being called “racist” (including President Bush) and anti-American leftist Democrats have failed to enforce our immigration laws. And even our legal immigration laws have been weakened by the passage of Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act, which nearly every Republican voted for out of (you guessed it) fear of being called “racist”.
In other words, the politicians empowering La Raza are the same ones who would be the first to scream “racism” at the sight of a Rebel Flag.
If La Raza does come to power in California, and given current trends it probably will, what would be the point of keeping it in the union? Our hack politicians didn’t flood California with third worlders out of pure stupidity alone. Granted, many of them are stupid, but there’s more to it than that. They wanted to change the demographics of the United States to make our land more open to centralized government and to create a massive dependent class in “need” of government services. Instead of the people selecting their leaders, our “leaders” are selecting their constituents. Many of our politicians don’t like the traditional population make-up of the U.S., so they’re replacing it with a new one composed of people with no traditions of ordered liberty, federalism, independence, etc.
California is the template for what they want to do to the entire country. California went Republican in every presidential election from the end of the New Deal through 1988, with the sole exception of the 1964 Johnson landslide. It elected Ronald Reagan twice as governor. Now it’s degenerating into a socialist wasteland which the GOP can’t win. Oh, a “moderate” guy like Arnold can occasionally win due to his action film star popularity, but otherwise the state’s lost to the far left wing of the ‘Rat party.
What would really be the point of keeping California in the Union? So that it can send two ultra-leftist senators to Washington? So that it can send forty or fifty or sixty (in coming decades as the population continues to swell) leftists to the U.S. House? So that it can provide a guaranteed fifty or sixty or seventy electoral votes for the leftist Democrat presidential candidate?
Lincoln fought to keep the South in the Union because he knew the South wasn’t hostile to the founding principles of the United States. If anything, Dixie was viewed as being obsessed with those principles, which is why it’s always been such a patriotic region. In contrast, who in their right mind would want a massively populated La Raza enclave in our midst?
Lincoln fought to keep the South in the Union because he knew the South wasn’t hostile to the founding principles of the United States. If anything, Dixie was viewed as being obsessed with those principles, which is why it’s always been such a patriotic region.
Actually, no. Lincoln "believed that the South wasn't hostile to the founding principles of the United States," that is to say that the people of the South still believed in American values, but he knew that the leaders of the secessionist movement had already abandoned some of the key principles of the founding.
He fought because he thought the rot didn't go all the way down. That may not have been the right conclusion to draw in 1860, but in the very long run he were probably right about that.
But maybe Southerners who believed in the founders' principles submitted to a Confederate leadership that didn't accept or understand or know those principles because of the particular situation of the time: when people felt their region was threatened and it was hard for many to separate out slavery and freedom.
But you've got kind of a skewed view of U.S. principles. Do we take the founders as slave owners or as people who believed that slavery was wrong and would some day be abolished? Was the South more devoted to the principles of the Declaration of Independence in 1950 or 1960 than the North was? You're saying that Southerners tend to be more supportive of foreign wars, but is that all there is to being an American?