Ethics News
Racism
>> = Important Articles; ** = Major Articles
Supplemental Articles in a separate file (click here to read)
>>Race and Resentment (townhall.com, 100504)
>>Race and Politics (townhall.com, 100406)
>>Race and Politics: Part III (townhall.com, 100408)
>>Race and Politics: Part IV (townhall.com, 100809)
**Christian Group Denounces ‘Anti-Freedom’ Agenda at U.N. Racism Conference (Christian Post, 090422)
**Throw Grandma Under The Bus (Ann Coulter, 080319)
**The Race schools: Your tax dollars at work (townhall.com, 060712)
==============================
by Thomas Sowell [KH: black economist]
Recent stories out of both Philadelphia and San Francisco tell of black students beating up Asian American students. This is especially painful for those who expected that the election of Barack Obama would mark the beginning of a post-racial America.
While Obama’s winning the majority of the votes in overwhelmingly white states suggests that many Americans are ready to move beyond race, it is painfully clear that others are not.
Those who explain racial antagonisms on some rationalistic basis will have a hard time demonstrating how Asian Americans have made blacks worse off. Certainly none of the historic wrongs done to blacks was done by the small Asian American population who, for most of their history in this country, have not had enough clout to prevent themselves from being discriminated against.
While ugly racial or ethnic conflicts can seldom be explained by rational economic or other self-interest, they have been too common to be just inexplicable oddities— whether in America or in other countries around the world, and whether today or in centuries past.
Resentments and hostility toward people with higher achievements are one of the most widespread of human failings. Resentments of achievements are more deadly than envy of wealth.
The hatred of people who started at the bottom and worked their way up has far exceeded any hostility toward those who were simply born into wealth. None of the sultans who inherited extraordinary fortunes in Malaysia has been hated like the Chinese, who arrived there destitute and rose by their own efforts.
Inheritors of the Rockefeller fortune have been elected as popular governors in three states, attracting nothing like the hostility toward the Jewish immigrants who rose from poverty on Manhattan’s Lower East Side to prosperity in a variety of fields.
Others who started at the bottom and rose to prosperity— the Lebanese in West Africa, the Indians in Fiji, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, for example— have likewise been hated for their achievements. Being born a sultan or a Rockefeller is not an achievement.
Achievements are a reflection on others who may have had similar, and sometimes better, chances but who did not make the most of their chances. Achievements are like a slap across the face to those who are not achieving, and many people react with the same kind of anger that such an insult would provoke.
In our own times, especially, this is not just a spontaneous reaction. Many of our educators, our intelligentsia and our media — not to mention our politicians— promote an attitude that other people’s achievements are grievances, rather than examples.
When black school children who are working hard in school and succeeding academically are attacked and beaten up by black classmates for “acting white,” why is it surprising that similar hostility is turned against Asian Americans, who are often achieving academically more so than whites?
This attitude is not peculiar to some in the black community or to the United States. The same phenomenon is found among lower-class whites in Britain, where academically achieving white students have been beaten up badly enough by their white classmates to require hospital treatment.
These are poisonous and self-destructive consequences of a steady drumbeat of ideological hype about differences that are translated into “disparities” and “inequities,” provoking envy and resentments under their more prettied-up name of “social justice.”
Asian American school children who are beaten up are just some of the victims of these resentments that are whipped up. Young people who are seething with resentments, instead of seizing educational and other opportunities around them, are bigger victims in the long run, whether they are blacks in the US or lower-class whites in the UK. A decade after these beatings, these Asian Americans will be headed up in the world, while the hoodlums who beat them up are more likely to be headed for crime and prison.
People who call differences “inequities” and achievements “privilege” leave social havoc in their wake, while feeling noble about siding with the less fortunate. It would never occur to them that they have any responsibility for the harm done to both blacks and Asian Americans.
==============================
by Thomas Sowell
Few combinations are more poisonous than race and politics. That combination has torn whole nations apart and led to the slaughters of millions in countries around the world.
You might think we would have learned a lesson from that and stay away from injecting race into political issues. Yet playing the race card has become an increasingly common response to growing public anger at the policies of the Obama administration and the way those policies have been imposed.
When the triumphant Democrats made their widely televised walk up Capitol Hill after passing the health care bill, led by a smirking and strutting Nancy Pelosi, holding her oversized gavel, some of the crowd of citizens expressed their anger. According to some Democrats, these expressions of anger included racial slurs directed at black members of Congress.
This is a serious charge— and one deserving of some serious evidence. But, despite all the media recording devices on the scene, not to mention recording devices among the crowd gathered there, nobody can come up with a single recorded sound to back up that incendiary charge. Worse yet, some people have claimed that even doubting the charge suggests that you are a racist.
Among the people who are likely to be most disappointed with the Obama administration are those who thought it would usher in a post-racial society. That they wished for such a society is a credit to their values. But that they actually expected a move in that direction suggests that they ignored both Barack Obama’s history and the heavy vested interest that too many people have in race hustling.
This is just one of many areas in which this country is likely to pay a very high price for the fact that too many voters paid attention to Obama’s rhetoric while ignoring his actual track record.
However soothing the Obama rhetoric, and however lofty his statements about being a uniter rather than a divider— both racially and in terms of bipartisanship— everything in his past fairly shouts the opposite, but only to those who follow facts.
Has he been allied with uniters or dividers in the past? Do Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Father Pfleger sound like uniters?
What has his administration done— as distinguished from what the president has said— since taking office?
It has dropped the prosecution of black thugs caught on camera stationed outside a polling place intimidating voters.
Obama has promoted to the Supreme Court a circuit judge who dismissed a discrimination lawsuit by white firefighters, whose case the Supreme Court later accepted and ruled in their favor.
He preceded this appointment by talking about needing people on the court with “empathy.” That is a pretty word but the ugly reality is that it is just another euphemism for bias. For generations, white Southern judges had all kinds of empathy for other white Southerners, which is to say, bias against blacks.
The question is whether you want equal treatment or you want payback. Cycles of revenge and counter-revenge have been at the heart of racial and ethnic strife throughout history, in countries around the world. It is a history written in blood. It is history we don’t need to repeat in the United States of America.
Political demagoguery and political favoritism have turned groups violently against each other, even in countries where they have lived peacefully side by side for generations. Ceylon was one of those countries in the first half of the 20th century, before the politics of group favoritism so polarized the country— now called Sri Lanka— that it produced a decades-long civil war with mass slaughters and unspeakable atrocities.
The world has been shocked by the mass slaughters of the Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda but, half a century ago, there had been no such systematic slaughters there. Political demagoguery whipped up ethnic polarization, among people who had co-existed, who spoke the same language and had even intermarried.
We know— or should know— what lies at the end of the road of racial polarization. A “race card” is not something to play, because race is a very dangerous political plaything.
No dogma has caused more mischief— and, in some countries, tragedies— than the notion that there is something strange and wrong when some groups are “over-represented” or “under-represented” in some occupations or institutions.
This dogma is so widely accepted, and so deeply entrenched, that no one asks for evidence and no speck of evidence is offered.
Moreover, tons of evidence to the contrary are ignored.
Over the centuries, and in countries around the world, all sorts of groups have been disproportionately concentrated in particular occupations and at different income levels, and have had radical differences in their behavior, from rates of alcoholism to rates of crime and infant mortality.
Often some minority, with no political power, has outperformed the dominant majority in lucrative or prestigious professions— the Tamils in colonial Ceylon, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, the Chinese minority throughout southeast Asia, the Huguenots in France, the Ibos in Nigeria, the Japanese in Brazil, the Lebanese in West Africa, the Jews in medieval Spain. The list could be extended almost indefinitely.
Yet, through sheer assumption and repetition, the opposite view— that any “under-representation” of any group in desirable situations or their “over-representation” in undesirable situations must be due to the way they are treated by others— has become the prevailing dogma of a secular religion.
Not only the media and politicians, but intellectuals and even the highest courts in the land, presume discrimination when some groups are “under-represented” in an employer’s workforce or are “over-represented” among children disciplined in school. Tests that show some groups more proficient than others are declared to be “culturally biased.” Higher infant mortality among some groups are assumed to be society’s fault for not providing “access” to prenatal care for all.
A major factor in the housing boom and bust that created the present economic predicament was massive government intervention in the housing market, supposedly to correct discrimination in mortgage lending. How did they know that there was discrimination? Because blacks were turned down for mortgage loans at a higher rate than whites.
It so happens that whites were turned down for mortgage loans at a higher rate than Asian Americans, but that fact seldom made it into the newspaper headlines or the political rhetoric. Nor did either the mainstream media or political leaders mention the fact that black-owned banks turned down black mortgage loan applicants at least as often as white-owned banks did.
There was never the slightest reason to expect the different racial or ethnic groups in the United States to have the same credit ratings or the same behavior or performance in any other way, when both racial and non-racial groups of various sorts have for centuries had radically different patterns of behavior and performance in countries around the world.
The difference between per capita income in Eastern Europe and Western Europe has long been greater than the difference in per capita income between blacks and whites in America.
Yet, despite the fact that group differences have been the rule— not the exception— in all sorts of times and places, many people in these places and times have pointed to such disparities in their own country as evidence of something strange, if not sinister.
An extremist movement began in Bombay (now Mumbai) when a journalist hyped the fact that the indigenous people of the region were almost totally missing among the business elites of that city. The seeds of a disastrous civil war in Sri Lanka were planted by politicians who hyped the fact that the Tamil minority was over-represented among the owners of businesses and among university students. A military coup in Fiji was provoked because the descendants of people from India were likewise doing so much better than the indigenous Fijians.
Not all of this was simply a matter of intellectual confusion. Political power was the pot of gold at the end of this rainbow. Race hustling can also be a lucrative occupation, as Jesse Jackson — among others— has demonstrated in the United States. As long as we keep buying it, the hustlers will keep selling it.
==============================
by Thomas Sowell
The blatant and undeniable fact that different racial, ethnic and other groups have had radically different economic and intellectual achievements for centuries, in countries around the world, has led to widely varying theories and widely varying political and other reactions.
A hundred years ago, during the Progressive era in the United States, the dominant explanation was that different genes made different races either more capable or less capable. Similar views prevailed on the other side of the Atlantic, among people on both the left and the right, many of whom urged eugenics, in order to prevent “inferior” groups from reproducing.
The problem with this explanation was that it ignored the great changes in the relative positions of races over the centuries. In medieval times, Europeans could not match the achievements of the Chinese, but in later centuries their relative positions reversed— and there was no evidence of any fundamental change in the genes of either the Chinese or the Europeans.
Much was made of the fact that, within Europe, “Nordics” were prospering more so than the peoples of Mediterranean Europe. But, a thousand years earlier, the reverse was true. A 10th century Muslim scholar pointed out that the farther north you go in Europe, the more pale the people become and the “farther they are to the north the more stupid, gross, and brutish they are.”
However much such words might be dismissed or condemned today, there is no reason to say that these words were untrue as of the time they were said. So many things that have been said about race may have had some basis as of a given time, even if the sweeping conclusion that these are immutable traits does not stand the test of time.
Today’s racial dogmas are no more realistic, when they try to dismiss or downplay behavioral and performance differences among racial and ethnic groups, blaming different outcomes on the misdeeds of others. Nothing is easier to find than sins among human beings. But the fatal misstep is to assume that those sins must be the reason for the differences we see.
The more fundamental question that almost never gets asked is whether there was ever any realistic basis for expecting different racial, ethnic or other groups to all have the same skills and orientations, even if they all had the same genetic potential and there were no injustices.
Those who see differences among groups as being due to environment, rather than heredity, too often think of environment as the current immediate surroundings. But a major part of any group’s environment is the culture that they have inherited from the past.
One of a number of factors that has made Western Europeans more prosperous than Eastern Europeans is that Western Europe was conquered by the Romans, so that Western European languages acquired Roman letters, centuries before the languages of Eastern Europe had written versions.
Being conquered by the Romans was one of those historic happenstances with enduring consequences. For those who were conquered, it could be a traumatic experience, for the Romans could be both brutal and oppressive.
Their abuses in Britain caused a massive uprising of the Britons, who were slaughtered by the thousands. Nevertheless, even such a British patriot as Winston Churchill said, “We owe London to Rome.”
The enduring cultural advantages that the peoples of Western Europe acquired as a result of being conquered by Rome in no way justifies the Romans morally. But the fact is that the advantages that Roman civilization brought to Western Europe allowed Western Europeans to advance earlier and faster in a wide range of endeavors.
In a similar way, the fact that people of African ancestry in the United States have a far higher standard of living than the people of African ancestry still living in sub-Saharan Africa, is due to injustices and abuses inflicted on black Americans’ ancestors.
Causation and morality are two different things, however much they get confused today by politicians and the media.
==============================
by Thomas Sowell
One of the most ominous developments of our time has been the multicultural dogma that all cultures are equal. It is one of the many unsubstantiated assertions that have become fashionable among self-congratulatory elites, with hard evidence being neither asked for nor offered.
But, however much such assertions minister to the egos of the intelligentsia and the careers of politicians and race hustlers, the multicultural dogma is a huge barrier to the advancement of groups who are lagging economically, educationally and otherwise.
Once you have said that the various economic, educational and other “gaps” and “disparities” of lagging groups are not due to either genes or cultures, what is left but the sins of other people?
Sins are never hard to find, among any group of human beings. But whether that actually helps those who are lagging, or just leads them into the blind alley of resentment, is another question.
None of this is peculiar to the United States or to our times. In centuries past, it was common in parts of Eastern Europe for Germans or other Western Europeans to be a majority of the population in various Eastern European cities, while the Slavic majority predominated in the surrounding countrysides.
Even in times and places where the Germans and other Western Europeans were not a numerical majority in Eastern European cities, or in Baltic cities like Riga, they were clearly an economic and cultural elite in business, industry and the professions.
They simply had the skills and education that most of the indigenous peoples of Eastern Europe and the Baltic did not have.
At that point, the German language, like other Western European languages, had a vastly larger store of written knowledge than the languages of Eastern Europe, which developed written versions centuries later than the languages of Western Europe.
One obvious way for individuals born into the local indigenous culture to advance themselves was to acquire the language and culture of the Germans, using the skills and knowledge available in that language to advance themselves. This is what many did.
What this said was that cultures were not equal, at least not at that point in history, and contrary to the multicultural dogmas of our time.
Nor was this path to individual and group advancement peculiar to Eastern Europe. In 18th century Scotland, the great philosopher David Hume urged his fellow Scots to learn the English language, in order to advance themselves, individually and collectively.
The net result was that Scotland went from being one of the most backward countries on the fringes of European civilization to being one of the most advanced countries in the world. A wholly disproportionate share of the leading British intellectuals from the mid-18th century to the mid-19th century were of Scottish ancestry, and the Scots ultimately surpassed the English in medicine and engineering.
Unfortunately, most intellectuals in most lagging groups did not urge taking the path that David Hume urged upon the Scots. More commonly, the intelligentsia have promoted the path of resentment of those on whom history had bestowed a more productive culture.
A rising, indigenous educated class in 19th century Bohemia and Latvia, for example, resented having to become culturally German in order to advance. Moreover, they resented Germans and worked to get their compatriots to resent Germans as well, even though the cultural disparities at the heart of economic and other disparities were not created by the Germans but by the Romans, centuries earlier, when they invaded Western Europe and put the stamp of their culture on that region.
But explanations of group differences based on historic or geographic happenstances do not provide emotional fulfillment. Some preferred theories of genetic differences and others preferred seeing the poverty of some as being a result of the sins of those who were more prosperous.
Multiculturalism enshrines the sins and grievances approach— and paints the poor into a corner, where they can nurse their resentments, instead of advancing their skills and their prospects. The beneficiaries are politicians and race hustlers.
==============================
A Christian human rights group expressed “grave concern” on Tuesday for the future of individual freedom as a number of states at the U.N. Durban Review Conference pushed agendas that seek to protect religions and governments at the expense of the rights of individuals.
“It is scandalous that a U.N. Conference on Racism has been hijacked by states who are pursuing an altogether different agenda threatening the very idea of individual rights,” said Tina Lambert, advocacy director of Christian Solidarity Worldwide. “In seeking to protect ‘religion’ from defamation it is clear that existing international human rights protections will be undermined, specifically freedom of religion and freedom of expression.”
Prior to the Durban Review Conference in Geneva, members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) had introduced and backed a resolution that denounces defamation of religion.
Critics of the resolution, including more than 180 non-government organizations, warn that it could be manipulated to justify anti-blasphemy laws and intimidate human rights activists and religious dissenters. Instead of protecting adherents of religions, including those of religious minorities, the resolution protects religions themselves, they say.
Despite strong protest from NGOs around the world, the U.N. Human Rights Council adopted the resolution on March 26.
At this week’s U.N. conference, a number of countries are advocating similar measures for “combating defamation of religion” instead of focusing on the official theme of tackling racism, the human rights group complained.
“CSW calls on all remaining conference participants to honor their obligations to protect human rights and their responsibility to secure freedom of religion and freedom of expression for all people,” Lambert urged.
On Sunday, the Christian human rights group attended the Geneva Summit, an unofficial preliminary summit for human rights NGOs, which takes place a day prior to the April 20-24 conference.
The controversial U.N. anti-racism conference was boycotted by the United States, Israel, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Poland and Germany over anticipated offensive remarks about Israel and the Holocaust.
As expected, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ranted about Israel on Monday, calling it a “paragon of racism” founded on “the pretext of Jewish sufferings” during World War II, according to the Washington Post.
Ahmadinejad’s comments prompted several European diplomats to walk out of the opening session.
==============================
Obama gave a nice speech, except for everything he said about race. He apparently believes we’re not talking enough about race. This is like hearing Britney Spears say we’re not talking enough about pop-tarts with substance-abuse problems.
By now, the country has spent more time talking about race than John Kerry has talked about Vietnam, John McCain has talked about being a POW, John Edwards has talked about his dead son, and Al Franken has talked about his USO tours.
But the “post-racial candidate” thinks we need to talk yet more about race. How much more? I had had my fill by around 1974. How long must we all marinate in the angry resentment of black people?
As an authentic post-racial American, I will not patronize blacks by pretending Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is anything other than a raving racist loon. If a white pastor had said what Rev. Wright said — not about black people, but literally, the exact same things — I think we’d notice that he’s crazier than Ward Churchill and David Duke’s love child. (Indeed, both Churchill and the Rev. Wright referred to the attacks of 9/11 as the chickens coming “home to roost.”)
Imagine a white pastor saying: “Racism is the American way. Racism is how this country was founded, and how this country is still run. ... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority. And believe it more than we believe in God.”
Imagine a white pastor calling Condoleezza Rice, “Condoskeezza Rice.”
Imagine a white pastor saying: “No, no, no, God damn America — that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people! God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human! God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme!”
We treat blacks like children, constantly talking about their temper tantrums right in front of them with airy phrases about black anger. I will not pat blacks on the head and say, “Isn’t that cute?” As a post-racial American, I do not believe “the legacy of slavery” gives black people the right to be permanently ill-mannered.
Obama tried to justify Wright’s deranged rants by explaining that “legalized discrimination” is the “reality in which Rev. Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up.” He said that a “lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families.”
That may accurately describe the libretto of “Porgy and Bess,” but it has no connection to reality. By Rev. Wright’s own account, he was 12 years old and was attending an integrated school in Philadelphia when Brown v. Board of Education was announced, ending “separate but equal” schooling.
Meanwhile, at least since the Supreme Court’s decision in University of California v. Bakke in 1978 — and obviously long before that, or there wouldn’t have been a case or controversy for the court to consider — it has been legal for the government to discriminate against whites on the basis of their race.
Consequently, any white person 30 years old or younger has lived, since the day he was born, in an America where it is legal to discriminate against white people. In many cases it’s not just legal, but mandatory, for example, in education, in hiring and in Academy Award nominations.
So for half of Rev. Wright’s 66 years, discrimination against blacks was legal — though he never experienced it personally because it existed in a part of the country where he did not live. For the second half of Wright’s life, discrimination against whites was legal throughout the land.
Discrimination has become so openly accepted that — in a speech meant to tamp down his association with a black racist — Obama felt perfectly comfortable throwing his white grandmother under the bus. He used her as the white racist counterpart to his black racist “old uncle,” Rev. Wright.
First of all, Wright is not Obama’s uncle. The only reason we indulge crazy uncles is that everyone understands that people don’t choose their relatives the way they choose, for example, their pastors and mentors. No one quarrels with the idea that you can’t be expected to publicly denounce your blood relatives.
But Wright is not a relative of Obama’s at all. Yet Obama cravenly compared Wright’s racist invective to his actual grandmother, who “once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”
Rev. Wright accuses white people of inventing AIDS to kill black men, but Obama’s grandmother — who raised him, cooked his food, tucked him in at night, and paid for his clothes and books and private school — has expressed the same feelings about passing black men on the street that Jesse Jackson has.
Unlike his “old uncle” — who is not his uncle — Obama had no excuses for his grandmother. Obama’s grandmother never felt the lash of discrimination! Crazy grandma doesn’t get the same pass as the crazy uncle; she’s white. Denounce the racist!
Fine. Can we move on now?
No, of course, not. It never ends. To be fair, Obama hinted that we might have one way out: If we elect him president, then maybe, just maybe, we can stop talking about race.
==============================
By Michelle Malkin
Top White House adviser Karl Rove traveled to Los Angeles this week to pay homage to the anti-immigration enforcement lobbying group for Latinos: the National Council of La Raza.
“La Raza” is Spanish for “The Race.”
It’s bad enough the White House lent its prestige to The Race’s annual conference. But did you know the Bush administration has forked over millions of federal tax dollars directly to The Race?
According to GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood of Georgia, The Race snapped up $15.2 million in federal grants last year alone and more than $30 million since 1996. Undisclosed amounts went to get-out-the-vote efforts supporting La Raza political positions. The U.S. Department of Education funneled nearly $8 million in taxpayer grants to the group for a nationwide charter schools initiative.
Among The Race’s most infamous government-funded charter schools is La Academia Semillas del Pueblo, the Los Angeles public school that teaches “Aztec math” (ancient dot math is the new math) and the Mexican indigenous language of “Nahuatl.” The ethnic separatist principal of the school, Marcos Aguilar, told a sympathetic UCLA interviewer:
“We don’t want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don’t need a White water fountain. . . . We are not interested in what they have because we have so much more and because the world is so much larger. And ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction.”
That’s the tip of the iceberg. I found dozens of other publicly subsidized charter schools sponsored by The Race and funded with our money, including:
— Aztlan Academy in Tucson, Ariz. According to The Race, the school’s success rests on “Aztlan’s ability to integrate a meaningful Chicano Studies program into their lives, language, and academics, as a means of developing their intellects as well as their pride and self-esteem.” The school’s name — a reference to a mythical swath of the vast Southwestern U.S. expanse, which Latino activists claim is their rightful homeland and which they seek to reconquer for Mexico — says it all.
— Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Ariz. Who needs the three R’s? At Mexicayotl, it’s all about the three M’s: me, me, me! The school’s program is “structured and developed around the concepts of identity, culture, and language.” Second mission: supporting local ethnic lobbying efforts “to right social injustices by educating the community and helping create social change.” Under “greatest achievements,” the school’s website lists its participation in a “Peace & Dignity Run”; its visit from Rigoberta Menchu (the Marxist academic fraud from Guatemala who lied her way to a Nobel Peace Prize); and its sponsorship of the local annual Dia de los Muertos (the Mexican holiday).
— The Dolores Huerta Preparatory High School in Pueblo, Colo. It’s named after the far-Left Latina labor union activist who recently railed that “Republicans hate Latinos,” praised illegal alien marchers and screeched that “We didn’t cross the borders, the borders crossed us” in a hate-filled tirade before Arizona students.
— Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in St. Paul, Minn. Board of Directors member Louis Mendoza, an activist Chicano Studies professor, pushed the school to lobby for the federal DREAM Act (providing in-state tuition discounts to illegal alien students not available to legal non-residents). The school’s website features one flag on its front page: the Mexican flag.
The White House will tell you that the National Council of The Race is a “moderate,” mainstream civil rights group. But there’s nothing “moderate” about The Race’s advocacy of driver’s licenses and in-state tuition discounts for illegal aliens. Or its opposition to strengthening security for identity documents and improving cooperation on immigration enforcement between state, local and federal enforcement immigration officials. Or its all-out war on the House GOP’s border security and enforcement-first bill passed last December.
President Bush pays lip service to immigration enforcement and assimilation, while the White House sends Karl Rove to make nice with the separatist leaders of The Race and the Bush Education Department showers our tax dollars on radical Reconquista schools. It doesn’t add up.
Unless, of course, you’re using Aztec math.
==============================
Supplemental Articles in a separate file (click here to read)