The absolute refusal of the government and the media to discuss any hate crimes against whites seems to have been noticed. So
the authorities decided to charge a black man who set about murdering whites with "hate" crimes. They decided to charge one black person once with a hate crime, so they would look fair.

This is an old ploy. The American Civil Liberties Union defends the Klan or the Nazis from time to time, while devoting almost all of their resources to the political left.

This is called "tokenism" when whites do it in hiring minorities.

So while the government and the press concentrate entirely on "hate" crimes against favored minorities, they can always use this
one case to prove they are fair.

But the timing of this one-time charging of a black with a hate crime could not have been worse. It coincided with a very unexpected development in the latest celebrated case for gun control. A six-year-old boy shot a little girl at school. Like most people, I assumed it was accidental.

It turns out that the little six-year-old black boy hated the little six-year-old white girl.

The boy's home was a crack house, and the gun was not there by chance. Nor was his ability to kill deliberately. This turned out to be another instance of the normal situation: a black-on-white hate crime.

This is NOT the lesson the press wanted.

The whole idea was that this innocent little boy had taken a strange weapon to school and a tragic accident had occurred. Instead, we have another illustration of what the token "hate" charge against the black man was supposed to hide: the fact that almost all real hate crime is black-on-white. Black on white crimes occur hundreds of times daily, and every white person in this country is afraid to venture into black areas precisely because we are all aware of this fact.

In 1972, the American Independent Party got over a million votes in the presidential election. Its presidential candidate, John G. Schmitz announced, "We have a balanced ticket. I am Catholic, and my running mate is anti-Catholic."

As I noted in my 1976 book, A Plague On Both Your Houses, "Such combinations have been routine in American political history." For decades in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the Democratic Party was made up largely of extremely Catholic Irishmen from the North and anti-Catholic fundamentalists from the South.

The Founding Fathers, and every political generation of American politicos since, has had the wisdom to realize that the political system that has the power to ban anti-Catholics from citizenship also has the power to ban Catholics. In the real world, the danger to the very existence of every faith in this country is not Bob Jones University. It is Political Correctness.

Just about every Catholic in this country who might vote Republican is fully aware of just how fanatically anti-Catholic liberals and Political Correctness freaks are. If they didn't realize it before, the rhetoric of the pro-abortion forces and the "women's movement" have made it very, very clear.

Americans of all faiths realize what I just said is true.

So why aren't Republicans saying it?

Instead, when Bill Press demands that a former Republican National Chairman declare Bob Jones to be "un-American," he does what all Republicans do. He simpers and agrees.

The Democrats in Congress are embarrassing the Republicans with demands that the Congress condemn Bob Jones University. Of course they are. And they will continue to do so as long as the Republicans keep simpering and being embarrassed about George W. Bush's appearance at Bob Jones.

Democrats are the opposite of respectable conservatives. Liberals are serious professionals. When they get a hook into conservatives, they keep it in and twist it for all it is worth. As long as Republicans simper and apologize, the issue won't go away.

"The coward dies a thousand deaths. The hero dies but one."

If Republicans took a hard stand against Political Correctness, they would come out on top. Bob Jones' father's comment about Catholicism and Mormons was about their religion. He said they're cults. So what? That is the whole point of religious freedom: you can say bad things about other people's religions.

That is what Bush was thinking when he went to Bob Jones in the first place. But now that he has been criticized by liberals, it would take guts to say that. And "a courageous respectable conservative" is an oxymoron.