Washington Down, King Up--GOP Out

Pledging to win a larger share of Hispanic and black votes, The Republican National Committee completed its winter meeting. This fateful decision could mean either the end of class and race political war in the U.S. or the demise of the Republican Party.

The outcome depends on how Republicans approach the task. The GOP can base its appeal to minorities on assimilation to American culture, on the promise of an opportunity society based in low taxes and decreased regulation, on respect for parental authority and a reduction in government intrusion in family affairs, and on respect for individual achievement and self-reliance.

If Hispanics and blacks desire a free and independent life, they will respond positively to the offer.

The alternative approach is to compete with Democrats in offering income support programs and race-based preferences.

The first approach would not only rally the demoralized Republican constituency, but also provide a test whether immigrants are committed to American principles or to income redistribution. The personal income tax burden rests on 32 million taxpayers (primarily white males), who deserve to know whether they have a future different from tax slavery.

The alternative approach--pandering, preferences, and handouts--will destroy the Republican Party.

Many of the Republican Party’s natural constituents are disgusted and alienated by the party’s wobbly principles and refuse to vote. Experts have pointed out that had Bush received 2 or 3 percent more votes from the white population, he would have swamped Al Gore in the electoral college. If Bush competes for minorities on the Democrats’ terms, he will lose more white votes than he will gain minority votes.

Moreover, whatever handouts the Republicans offer, the Democrats will offer more. Two political parties competing to redistribute income and expand minority privileges would spell the swift end of the U.S.

Most immigrants to the U.S. are poor and uneducated. They are tax-users. Sensing the white guilt that weakens resistance to income redistribution, organizations that speak for immigrants lobby for more benefits. Large and concentrated immigrant populations, combined with the emphasis on multiculturalism, make assimilation difficult.

Fearing that a principled approach to minorities will fail, GOP pandering has already begun. Witness President Bush’s plan to legalize millions of illegal Mexican immigrants and to provide food stamps for legal aliens.

Millions of Americans believe that their culture is being overrun from abroad and overturned from within, and that they are forced to pay for their corresponding loss of community and sense of self with their own tax dollars.

Announcing a MLK, Jr., portrait that will hang prominently in the White House, President Bush accepted the replacement of our Founding Fathers with new heroes: “Some figures in history, renowned in their day, grow smaller with the passing of time. The man [MLK, Jr.] from Atlanta, Georgia, only grows larger with the years. America is a better place because he was here, and we will honor his name forever.”

Many Republicans will see in these words the Republican Party’s acquiescence to racial preferences and unequal rights for whites. The war against terrorism and the illusion that the country has pulled together have led Republicans to conclude that they can broaden their political base by betraying the people who vote for them.

Like I said, I got my story from the folks who were there. Including sharing their genes. You want me to defend FDR because some book says that he didn't let Stalin roll over him? Forget it. Case closed. FDR abandoned Eastern Europe to the Communists.

It was truly the seminal event of my life to visit Czechoslovakia in 1972, and have to cross through the frontier. You haven't lived until you've had a Communist soldier rifle through your belongings, looking for prohibited newspapers, magazines, etc. It's even more thrilling to leave the country and have the same soldiers use their Kalashnikovs to check UNDER the train, looking for people trying to escape the Socialist Paradise.

You can read all the books on the "negotiations" that you'd like. My family was there, in official capacity for the State Department. I am telling you what they told me. If you think what happened was something for a little debate, I encourage you to visit Eastern Europe and ask the survivors how they felt about it.

But you ain't NEVER gonna get me to buy the notion that Mr. Roosevelt was just a great guy who got snookered by the mean ol' Stalin.

Just doing a little Google search on the string "sell out at Yalta" produces amazing results. One of them where Roosevelt lamely admits that "I didn't say the result was good. I said it was the best I could do.". That comment is in a softball history by the Democrat Robert Dallek. 'Member him from Impeachment fun? But the best of all is from none other then President of the United States John Fitzgerald Kennedy, speaking in Los Angeles in 1961:

It was not the presence of Soviet troops in Eastern Europe that drove it to communism, it was the sell-out at Yalta.

Here's the link:Kennedy Speech, Nov. 1961

So that's it. You can go to Arlington and argue with Mr. Kennedy. I'll stick with him and what my family told me.

And Lincoln had no right to imprison Mr. Vallandigham.

Ok. You're right, I apparently took Kennedy out of context. So, the fall of Eastern Europe was necessary because the Red Army had reached Berlin and it was a fait accompli. Why yes many people have said that. Gen. Patton didn't want to stop at the Elbe (it's well known). We had A-Bombs, they didn't (and the delivery system: B-29's). FDR simply didn't think it was worth doing all of that, since he was a socialist himself and didn't think that life under Stalin would be all that bad. IT WAS THAT BAD, and people knew it right from the outset. Why do you think Hungary revolted in 1956?

If the USSR was "so powerful", why did they need lend-lease aircraft? The truth is, they HAD ramped up during the war, but nothing like the US. Their first jet engine was a Whittle engine bought from a witless English government. Their A-Bomb...well, you know that story, right?

The point is - again - whenever socialist sympathizers are confronted with the choice of using American power to make the other side blink, they choose to compromise and back down instead. This went on for 40 years. We had a half assed war in Vietnam, because - once again - no credible ultimatum was ever issued. At least not until the Christmas bombing. Which, of course, WORKED (I remember being quite impressed by how QUICKLY it worked). Hell, it worked for JFK in 1961, but as Barry Goldwater pointed out, had he laid down the law in the first place, he wouldn't have had to take us to the brink.

As for "events 25 years later", EVERYONE knew what the communists were like in 1945. Wartime propaganda aside, virtually all Americans knew about the massacre of the Kulaks, the NKVD's methods, the bloodbaths that followed every Communist insurrection.

Did we need the Russians to win? They needed us. Guderian's setback at Stalingrad could have been recovered if there was no Africa front, no bombing from Britain. So I don't feel any great gratitude for the great socialist army. They were grateful for the P-63's - which were ten times better than the Sturmoviks.

So drop the snide "emotional" bit. Were you or any of your family there? My step grandmother is Estonian. She was brought out of the East as a DP (being highly read, you know what that means, right?), and later married my grandfather. Tell her that selling the Baltics into slavery was "necessary" because it was "the best I could do". FDR held all the cards and refused to play them. Communique's from a conference mean nothing. The real talk goes on elsewhere. Yup, I believe in the "secret deals", so don't bother. Czechoslovakia was guaranteed elections, but what happened? Soviet led insurrection, culminating with the murder of Masaryk (a friend of our family. Have his wedding pictures in a family album). Same EVERYWHERE. Explain THAT as "realpolitik". If we bought that line, the Cold War would still be on.

For starters, it is never suggested that Germany could have been defeated without Russia as an ally

What would there have been to defeat? Germany didn't invade the US. They invaded Eastern Europe and Russia ("lebensraum"). They needed us, not the other way around. And you say FDR died before he understood the A-Bomb's power? What, he didn't know about the project? I thought that was Truman's shtick.

Your comment that Communism eventually runs out of gas shows your own callousness. So, the people who have to live under it just have to shut up and wait for the 'inevitable' collapse? How nice that you get to sit in the US and make such judgements. The reality of life under Communism was well known in the 1940's (and is of course why a lot of "isolationist Republicans" could've cared less prior to the war about what would happen to the Soviet Union). FDR had to run propaganda campaigns to get people in the US to even accept the idea that Russia was worth assisting. You know that.

Maybe he started believing his own propaganda, that Russia was just a wonderful place with flaxen haired girls doing heroic socialist labor for the greater glory of their Kolkhoz. And that's my continuing point: he, like you, didn't think that life under Communism was all that bad. Better Red than Dead, right? So why should he push on Stalin? Wouldn't want to make the Great Man upset, right?

You're right, I always mix-up Paulus with Guderian. Early morning with no coffee...read Clark's book a long time ago. Can't remember it all.

If you believe that the Red Army saved the world with their war of attrition then perhaps you ought to hang out on other web forums where 'socialist reality' is considered normal. Many of your comments here have had a triumphal nature about the demise of whites in California, and now you have the old saw about the wonders of the Red Army. Perhaps you and LincolnDefender could hang out on DU, where the greatness of Stalin and the socialist FDR are more appreciated. Say, maybe you actually came from there, huh?

Seriously, don't argue with me. Go read the original historial materials. It's all there, much on the web. Make up your own mind, after you have read the materials

And like I said, I already heard the story from my family and friends, many of whom had to live under the government instituted in the aftermath. I was lucky enough to meet them and speak with them in hushed tones in the wonderful world that was inflicted on them. My mind is made up! They were sold out.

As far as waiting for the Soviet Union to dissolve being preferable to nuclear war, my response it that in the late '40s, they could not wage nuclear war. We had it and they didn't. You say the Republicans stopped Truman? Let me tell you about my Air Force friends who were cocked and loaded in their B-29's waiting to head to Manchuria when Mr. Truman said don't go. Their opinion was that they would have destroyed Mao's warmaking capability and ended the war. But once more, a Democrat weakling trembled in the face of socialist resolve. Always worried about the paper tiger USSR. Maybe you could quote me some official histories about how the Intelligence Officers who were involved at the time were all wet and the fifth columnists in the State Department were right.

But lastly I will again tell you that I knew or am related to people who were there, and they tell me different.

I just give you the facts. Facts are obstinate things, they won't go anywhere, no matter how you try to "spin" them out. You can obviously intepret my facts in any manner that you wish and imply my motivations to be anything you want. As for hanging out at DU, well , I was more of a democrat before the Inheritance Tax fight. Bush and the Republicans wanted to kill the tax and the democrats wanted to keep it. Clinton even veteoed the House once to keep the tax. The end of the inheritance tax is a big thing for me as it saves me about $800,000. For someone like me, that's a lot of money. I became a Republican real fast. If the democrats take over, they may find another way to bring some form of the tax back. As far as where I'm from, I was born in India and came here 30 years ago. We came to this country to become multi-millionaires and we have done so. Indirectly, or perhaps directly, America is responsible for our success.

Groovy man. Congratulations on all the moola you made. Interesting that you just now switched to the party of fiscal responsibility when your wallet was threatened. By the way, thirty years ago there was a war on, and a lot of my friends were fighting in it. I'm sure you volunteered on arrival, thankful to be in the land of self dtermination, right? I mean, to protect the notion of private property and self determination, of course.

My family came here from Ireland, Scotland and Germany over 250 years ago. 300 years ago in my Stockton line. Nobody came here to get rich; most were religious protestors, Baptist Bretheren and Huguenots. We were happy to not have people putting guns in our faces over our religion. It's why my family fought in the Revolution (the American one, not the Russian), the Civil War, the Mexican War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam....without any promise of riches, any hope of big rewards. I have to ask you: would you be here if you couldn't get rich? Would you fight if there was only a depression to come home to? Millions did. It's the reason the economy here is so great, at least right now. They created the conditions that you enjoy. But you seem to be...against us. How curious. Just wondering...What would you do if there were a draft? That's been reintroduced into the Congress. Would you stay? Would you put your sons into it? Who will fight to protect your property - white boys from the South? Or you and yours? What would you sacrifice?

My little war with LincolnDefender stems from my family's firm belief that you don't compromise with murderers. We think that many recent president's have done just that. But Reagan showed the US that standing up to filth was the right approach. The walls came crumbling down.

Right now, you're dollars mean something. But in the not too distant future, when ethnic Mexican's outnumber asians and whites in CA and TX, and maybe in AZ, UT and NM, what will the money mean? Will they vote to let you keep your $$, or will they discover that they can vote to take them away? The WASP's - we used to be called "Americans" - believed in self-reliance and thrift. Think that's gonna last? Think the system that let you get where you are is going to stick around when we're gone, and a foreign populace is the majority? That's the subject of the article this thread discusses. They're pointing out that the ideals that were "American" are being supplanted. I'd really love to know. Maybe you can enlighten me, 'cuz I'm just a dumb American guy who ain't as hip as Y'all. Now that you're here, and you see how the demographic war is going (the Mexicans are winning here), what sort of world do you think it will be?

Maybe you should buy gold.

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.