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.
How Illegal Immigrants are Bankrupting and Disenfranchising the American Middle and Working Classes
While I cannot foresee myself voting against Pres. Bush in 2004, I am seriously considering not voting for any presidential candidate.
LOL!
Same here. That's why I'm considering withholding my vote for President next year. Giving these gutys blind support will just result in us getting kicked in the teeth, again and again. I won't vote against Bush, but I might not vote for him.
And I love that tag -- but then, you already knew that!
LOL!
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
Bump to that!
approbation (&pr@U"beIS@n) [a. Fr. approbation, ad. L. approbQtiZn-em, n. of action f. approbQre: see prec.] †1. The action of proving true; confirmation, attestation, proof. Obs. 2. The action of formally or authoritatively declaring good or true; sanction. 3. a. The action of expressing oneself pleased or satisfied with anything; or the mere feeling of such satisfaction; approval expressed or entertained. b. on approbation: on approval (see approval b). †4. Probation, trial. Obs.
1393 Gower Conf. II. 86 With calcination Of verray approbation Do that there be fixation.
1533 More Debell. Salem Wks. 1006/1 And in approbacion of hys other saying, conclude and say thus much ferther.
1611 Shakes. Cymb. i. iv. 134 Would I had put my Estate+on th' approbation of what I haue spoke.
a1718 Penn Life Wks. 1726 I. 152 So great an Approbation of their Impostures.
1502 Ord. Cryst. Men (W. de W.) i. v. (1506) 48 Charyte, by some approbacyon, is ayenst ye fader.
1529 Petition in Froude Hist. Eng. I. 194 Summoners, appraysers, and other ministers for the approbation of Testaments.
1613 Shakes. Hen. VIII, i. ii. 71 By learned approbation of the Iudges.
1713 Lond. & Country Brew. iv. (1742) 320 Dry their Malt according to the London Brewers Approbation.
1839 Keightley Hist. Eng. II. 57 Received the royal approbation.
1548 Udall, etc. Erasm. Par. Rom. ii. 29 (R.) God+whose approbation is perfite blisse and saluacion.
1652 Needham tr. Selden's Mare Cl. Ded., So rare a Jewel as this, which hath drawn+the Approbation of All.
1708 Ld. Sunderland in Ellis Orig. Lett. ii. 401 IV. 252 They hope what steps they have made will meet with your approbation.
1711 Budgell Spect. No. 77 35 Those Nods of Approbation which I never bestow unmerited.
1806 Metcalfe in Wellesley Disp. 810 Something more than cold approbation is required to foster great minds—the approbation should be hearty.
1827 Hare Guesses Ser. ii. (1873) 549 Approbation speaks of the thing or action+Praise is always personal.
1880 L. Higgin Handbk. Embroidery 101 Designs on paper are not supplied under any circumstances nor can work be sent out on approbation.
1901 Strand Mag. XXI. June p. i/2 (Advt.), The London Shoe Co. Ltd. Goods sent on approbation.
1920 Conquest Jan. p. viii, Please send these books on Approbation.
1603 Shakes. Meas. for M. i. ii. 183 This day, my sister should the Cloyster enter, And there receiue her approbation.
1654 Goddard in Burton's Diary Introd. (1828) I. 169 The ejecting of scandalous ministers+[and] the bringing in of them that have passed an approbation.
======================================================
†oppro"bration (In quot. erron. -bation.) [ad. L. opprobrQtiZn-em, n. of action f. opprobrQre to reproach, taunt, f. ob- (ob- 1b) + probrum infamous act, infamy.] Reproaching, taunting, reviling.
c1616 Chapman Hymn to Hermes Poems (1875) 296 Such a one In all the art of opprobation As not in all the Deities I have seen.
1623 Cockeram, Opprobation, rebukefull, sprightfull.
Neither side is calling this an affirmative action fight. O'Brien said the group doesn't oppose affirmative action, as defined by using extra measures to recruit underrepresented minorities. The words "affirmative action" are not even contained in the ballot proposal.
Is a citizens' movement for a ban on AA being hijacked by a stealth AA supporter?
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.