|
|
| |
POLITICALLY CORRECT DISCRIMINATION
|
|
If a white man commits a crime against
a black man, he should be more severely punished
for it because it is a "hate crime." If
a black man commits a crime against a white man,
it should not be punished more severely because
that would be discrimination.
Everybody got that?
|
WITH ENEMIES
LIKE THAT...
|
|
I cannot imagine a Bush running without
Reagan beating a grownup in a presidential election,
but if it can be done, it will be done by his enemies.
The media has some fascinating ideas about Bush's
weak points. They are saying that Bush will be unpopular
because Texas carries out the death penalty. Most
people support the death penalty. Media is jumping
on Bush for opposing gun control. Fighting gun control
is an issue which unites the Republican Party's
conservative base like no other.
On a CNN debate, Mr. Fonda's "political expert,"
Bill Schneider, was charmed by a new label. He called
the Bush campaign, "The Bob Jones Redemption
Tour." It turned out that the person who coined
that phrase happened to be the very Democrat who
was on that same program.
With the title, "Bob Jones Redemption Tour,"
Schneider is saying that neither his friends nor
his master would vote for the conservative image
Bush projected in the South Carolina primary. Bush
must move to that magic "middle of the road,"
where his father and Dole were, to be a winner like
they were.
But the result of this "extremist" image
that the media has put on Bush has been a steady
rise of Bush in the polls. This doesn't surprise
me. "Middle of the roaders" never win
presidential elections on the Republican ticket.
The elder Bush ran as Reagan's heir in 1988 and
won. He ran as a moderate in 1992 and lost, as did
Dole in 1996.
And, as I keep pointing out, in the real world,
people actually elected to the Senate or to Congress
have voting records that are clearly liberal or
clearly conservative. "Middle of the road"
is simply something the Schneiders of the world
use to pull Republicans left. As a strategy, it
doesn't work in real elections.
So why are Bush's enemies helping him so much?
The media have been using this "middle of the
road" nonsense for a long time to pull Republicans
to the left, but they never BELIEVED it. The problem
is that if a whole group of people keep saying something
over and over, many of them are going to begin to
believe it. This seems to have happened to the media.
They are portraying the son of one of history's
great political wimps as just the opposite, an extremist
in favor of capital punishment and against gun control.
As a direct result, Bush is rising in the polls.
But many in the media have actually swallowed their
own "middle of the road" nonsense. They
actually believe that this sort of "pro-gun,
pro-death penalty" labeling will hurt Bush.
With enemies like that, he doesn't need many friends
to get elected.
|
|
|
CAN
A MELTING POT REALLY EXPECT LOYALTY?
|
|
The retired Army colonel who has just been
arrested for decades of giving secrets to the Soviet Union
is the latest in a long line of security problems. The
high rank of that colonel was not higher than the civilian
rank of the CIA spy Aldrich Aimes, a White Anglo Saxon
Protestant from a good family.
Even liberals are admitting that Alger Hiss, one of the
most privileged people in America in his time, was a Communist.
In a Clintonesque twist, Department of Energy hard drives
with secrets on them that everybody had been searching
for turned out to be in an obvious place, a place that
had been searched before. Shades of billing records!!
Then there is Jonathan Pollard, who gave the most sensitive
secrets to Israel, and was sentenced to life imprisonment
for it. Instead of being embarrassed by such spying, the
Israeli government is regularly demanding that Pollard
-- whom it regards as merely a Jewish patriot -- be released.
The main argument for Pollard's release on the part of
Alan Dershowitz and Pollard's other defenders is that
he "just spied for Israel." Obviously, there
is nothing wrong with giving secrets to one's real country
if you are a part of a melting pot to which one has only
theoretical loyalty.
It is hard for those of us who were born here, and whose
loyalty is a natural one, to understand these reasons.
But you have to remember that none of these people think
of America in the same terms we do.
On September 19, 1998, in "Why
I Will Not Denounce Southern Racism or American Imperialism,"
I said
"...only a clown can be loyal to a melting pot. By
definition, a melting pot is nothing specific. Anyone
who can be deeply loyal to nothing specific is in urgent
need of psychiatric care."
Anyone who is charged with enforcing a liberal governmental
policy must BELIEVE in that policy. Congress would raise
Cain if a person charged with enforcing the Federal fair
housing law turned out to be someone who didn't believe
in it. But I watched the head of Jimmy Carter's Immigration
and Naturalization Service declare that, if it were up
to her, America's borders would be open and anybody who
came here could stay. She felt no loyalty or obligation
to the people who were already here (Please see July 3,
1999 article, "Why Wordists Love to Say, 'That's what America Is All
About'").
To a liberal, and therefore to a respectable conservative,
no one owes loyalty to the PEOPLE of the United States.
The United States, they tell us, is just a set of principles.
It is a country that consists entirely of words. During
the Vietnam War, peace marchers felt that the Viet Cong
were upholding true American principles, so they marched
with the Viet Cong flag. Likewise, when Caesar Chavez
led his Hispanic workers to strike in the United States,
he made their symbol the flag of Mexico.
Millions of liberals joined in Chavez' farm workers grape
boycott, and not one of them objected to the use of a
foreign flag as their symbol. I cannot imagine that anyone
who has attended an American university could find this
the least bit surprising. The old patriotism is "out
of date." The idea that we are a particular people
who deserve a special loyalty is an attitude now denounced
as the idea of anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
It is no accident that just such an old-fashioned loyalty
was the basis of America's battle against Hitler. While
we all knew that Hitler was a dictator, we did not declare
war on Germany because of that. It was only when American
soil was attacked that the United States declared war
on Japan.
And it was then Germany, as an ally of Japan, which declared
war on the United States. The United States did not declare
war on Hitler. The left, including the Communist Party,
was happy to encourage this old-fashioned patriotism as
long as it served the interests of their Great Hero and
Ally, Joseph Stalin. Loyalty to Americans as a particular
people did not become out of date until it was turned
against the Communists in the late 1940s.
If you insist that your country is nothing but a set of
"principles" -- words -- then you cannot denounce
someone who is giving secrets to a country he feels has
even more American principles than America does. A Communist
certainly believes that. A leftist will not admit that
Cuba is any less American than America is. Who can argue?
By definition, all those principles are strictly a matter
of opinion.
As always, liberals and therefore respectable conservatives,
pull out Hitler to justify their position. Hitler, they
say, talked about "Blood and Soil," so anyone
who says America is more than a private opinion is anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
But the fact is that the United States did not enter World
War II until American soil had been attacked, and American
blood spilled.
|
|
|
| |
Home
| Current Articles | Article Archive | About
Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links
| Privacy
Policy
|
|
|