Race Cards and Speech Codes

By Patrick J Buchanan

"Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

So said Bill Clinton in New Hampshire of Obama's claim to have been a constant opponent of the war. Clinton cited Obama's voting record, which was the same as Hillary's in his early Senate years.

Yet, for this, the ex-president, designated by Toni Morrison as "our first black president," was charged with playing the race card.Clinton spent days explaining the "fairy tale" remark.Came then the morning of the South Carolina primary, where Barack was rolling up a smashing victory. Bill volunteered: "Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina, twice, in '84 and '88. And he ran a good campaign, and Sen. Obama's running a good campaign."That broke it. Bill Clinton was openly "playing the race card."Now, undoubtedly, Clinton was trying to belittle, to diminish the importance of the South Carolina vote for Obama. But why is it racist to say what Clinton was implying: That, in a Southern state where a huge share of the Democratic vote is African-American, a strong black presidential candidate can be expected to do well?Political history proves this. What is racist about saying it?Aware of the truism, every political analyst was looking closely at the racial breakdown of the South Carolina vote.Last week came Hillary's turn. After her victory in Indiana and loss in North Carolina, which pundits said rang down the curtain on her presidential bid, she advanced an argument candidates have used since primary elections began. "I can win -- and my opponent can't."The argument was made against Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan.In an interview with USA TODAY, Hillary argued that the coalition she has put together would be stronger against John McCain than the coalition Barack has cobbled together.She began by relating an AP article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.""There's a pattern emerging here," said Hillary. "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on."This shot Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post into low orbit."As a rationale for why Democratic Party super-delegates should pick her over Obama, it's a slap in the face to the party's most loyal constituency -- African Americans -- and a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry ..."Clinton implies but doesn't quite come out and say ... that Obama is black -- and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist."But Hillary was saying no such thing. Describing her coalition, she was implying that Obama's coalition -- a George McGovern-Jesse Jackson combine embracing 90 percent of African-Americans, plus liberals, students and cause people -- has less chance of beating McCain than does she and her more Middle American coalition.Democrats, not liberal Democrats, are the swing votes who decide presidential races. Here Hillary beats Obama three to two or two to one, North and South.Has she no right to make this argument? Can Brother Robinson explain exactly how Hillary can describe her Ohio-Pennsylvania coalition without using the dread word "white"?Some of the reaction to the Clintons, whose once-universal support among African-Americans has crashed, is due to the immense stake black Americans have come to invest in the Obama candidacy. But some of this is something else, something more sinister.Bill and Hillary Clinton are not playing a race card. Rather, the liberal media and some black journalists with sentimental, emotional or ideological investments in Obama are playing the intimidation card.They are setting limits around what may and may not be said about Obama. They are seeking to censor robust adversarial speech where Barack is concerned, by branding as racists "playing the race card" any who make Barack run the same paces as anyone else.The Clintons are today victims of a double standard that has long been employed against conservatives.Even African-Americans critical of Obama are feeling the lash. In Saturday's Washington Post article, "Black Community Is Increasingly Protective of Obama," reporter Darryl Fears writes, "Standing in the path of Obama's campaign has been dangerous" for prominent blacks.Bill and Hillary have lost luster and sustained damage to their reputations because, in the Democrats' universe, such smears stick. The question for Republicans is whether they will let themselves be intimidated, as they too often are, from using legitimate political weapons to defend what they still have.It is thus a sign of trouble ahead that John McCain declared the Rev. Wright off limits and berated the North Carolina GOP for bringing him up. Let your adversaries circumscribe the content of your campaign, and you usually end up losing your campaign.

Buenos Dias from Northern Mexico.

by Jim Gilchrist

You will not see this heart-stopping photo on the front page of the NY Times or on the lead story of the major news networks. The protestors put up the Mexican flag over the American flag flying upside down at Montebello High School in California .

I predict this stunt will be the nail in the coffin of any guest-worker/amnesty plan on the table in Washington . The image of the American flag subsumed to another and turned upside down on American soil is already spreading on Internet forums and via e-mail.

Pass this along to every American citizen in your address books and to every representative in the state and federal government. If you choose to remain uninvolved, do not be amazed when you no longer have a nation to call your own nor anything you have worked for left since it will be "redistributed" to the activists while you are so peacefully staying out of the "fray". Check history, it is full ofnations/empires that disappeared when its citizens no longer held their core beliefs and values. One person CAN make a difference.

One plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one....... The battle for our secure borders and immigration laws that actually mean something, however, hasn't even begun.

If this ticks YOU off...PASS IT ON!

Jim Gilchrist is the Founder and President of the Minuteman Project

http://www.minutemanproject.com/index.asp

Mexamerica, Here We Come

by Patrick J Buchanan


Have Americans, one wonders, fully reflected on what the Bush amnesty portends for the country their children will grow up in?

Consider what Bush is saying with this amnesty for 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens and his “guest workers” program to allow employers to go overseas and hire people anywhere in the world for jobs Americans will not, or cannot take at the wages offered.


He is saying: I cannot defend our border. I will not enforce the laws. I will not send illegal aliens back. And as I cannot stop this invasion of the United States, I intend to legalize it.


Bush is not only rewarding millions of law-breakers and gate-crashers, he is erasing the border with Mexico. Mexamerica is our future. The United States is going to become a giant Brazil. Bush is saying there is no way to stop it ,therefore, we must embrace it.


Ethnically and racially, this means an America that is no longer a First World country. Third World people of color will be the majority in two decades. Americans whose forefathers came from Europe, 90 percent of the population in 1960, will be a shrinking minority by 2040. For not only are the birth rates of white Americans lower than those of immigrants, the new immigrants will be from the Third World.


Economically, Bush is throwing American workers ,white, black, Asian, Hispanic, into a Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest struggle for jobs with foreigners willing to do sweat-shop labor for wages that cannot sustain an American family.


Winners will be the economic elites who will benefit from low prices produced by cheap labor and from having a vast proletariat to do the chores at their homes, country clubs, ski lodges, restaurants, parking garages, vacation spas and yacht basins.


Losers will be American workers who have to compete for jobs with folks for whom $5.15 an hour is pay undreamed of back home in the Caribbean, Nigeria or Mexico.


Politically, our welfare state will explode. The Bush plan will convert America from the middle-class country we grew up in into a nation with a huge proletariat with a rising claim on our tax dollars for more schools, courts, cops, hospitals, parks, roads and prisons.

If you would know America’s future, look at California. In the 1990s, for the first time since the Spanish arrived, California saw an out-migration of native-born Americans, white and black, along with a huge influx of immigrants, legal and illegal.

We are endlessly reminded how wonderful the new America will be as she becomes more diverse. Californians, who already live in that new America, apparently don’t think so. Every chance they get, they vote to chop welfare and deny drivers licenses to illegal aliens. Now, they are deserting the new California beloved of our elites. If assimilation is working, why are Californians voting with their feet and fleeing to Nevada, Colorado, Arizona and Idaho?


“Who cares where people come from?” comes the retort. “The Melting Pot will make them all Americans, as it did the 18 million who came from Eastern and Southern Europe from 1890 to 1920.”


But those were European peoples coming to a country run by descendants of Europeans. They came to a land that enforced assimilation in its schools. They learned and were taught in the same language, read the same books and magazines, went to the same movies, listened to the same radio, went through the Great Depression together and served in the same Army in World War II.
And after the great wave ended in 1920, we had 45 years of low immigration to assimilate and Americanize the children of the immigrants who had come here.

But America’s population has doubled since 1945. Instead of the 16 million people of color we had in 1960 almost all of whom were black Americans immersed for centuries in American culture – there are 80 million people of color here now, from 100 nations.


Instead of assimilation, we live in an age of racial and ethnic resentments and entitlements, where “multiculturalism” is in vogue and it is “racist” to demand immigrants learn the English language.
But if we no longer worship the same God, honor the same heroes, speak the same language, study the same history, love the same literature or even agree about what is right and wrong, how do we remain one nation and one people?


What do we have in common anymore? If Bush’s ally-ally-in-free immigration policy is embraced, the old America we knew will be nothing more than a global hiring hall and what Teddy Roosevelt called a “polyglot boarding house for the world.”


And if it doesn’t work, there is no going back. It is the end of the America we all loved. Why is President Bush taking this risk with our country?