Posted on 04/20/2012 3:57:46 AM PDT by Kaslin
Author’s Note: I’ll be speaking at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio tonight! The event will start in Harrison Hall, Room 111, at 6 p.m. The speech is called “Three Liberal Assaults on Free Speech (and Three Conservative Solutions).” Because it is about free speech, the speech is free!
In my many years of serving on faculty hiring committees, I have often heard the statement “minorities and women are encouraged to apply.” It usually follows in close proximity to the statement “our institution does not discriminate on the basis of race.” The two statements cannot be reconciled by logic. But, then again, logic is considered a form of white oppression at the postmodern university.
Nor can those hiring statements be validated empirically. Not all minorities are encouraged specifically to apply at my university. Orthodox Jews are not encouraged. White Mormons are not encouraged. And neither are white Hispanics. The fact that “minorities” really means “black” renders the second statement even less credible than the first. We really discriminate when we take affirmative action against discrimination. I hope someday we take affirmative action against illogic.
This practice of establishing certain preferred minorities has been going on for a long time. But, I did not fully understand it until I was asked the following question about the Zimmerman/Martin controversy: “Dr. Adams” asked a former student, “what exactly is a white Hispanic?” Without pausing, I responded “It is a pathetic attempt to say that blacks are the only legitimate minority in America.” Sometimes our most honest responses are given reflexively. And they spur our own thinking, not just that of others.
Make no mistake about it: At issue in George Zimmerman's case is not whether he had a right to shoot Trayvon Martin. It is the future of how race will be viewed in America. That is why Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are clinging on to the Martin controversy.
In their struggle to maintain their racial minority status, race hustlers like Jackson and Sharpton regularly invoke the one-drop rule. The one-drop rule states that anyone who has even a drop of black blood is considered black. The rule was once used by white racists in the South. They thought that anyone who had a drop of black blood was contaminated, so to speak. Just a drop of black blood made them both intellectually and morally inferior.
But, now race hustlers are using the one drop rule to advance their own political agenda. Given that half of black pregnancies end in abortion, Jesse Jackson and his ilk must have some means of keeping their numbers and corresponding political influence from dwindling.
Of course, the one-drop rule operates differently with respect to Hispanics. Black civil rights leaders now want to say that having a single drop of white blood means you are white, not Hispanic. The reason for that is obvious: open-border immigration has made Hispanics the largest minority in America – numerically, if not politically, speaking.
It is also worth noting that these Hispanic immigrants are often Roman Catholic. That means they are less likely to abort their children than someone who practices black liberation theology. It helps explain why Hispanics are now 15% of the United States population while blacks constitute only 12%.
The gradual displacement of blacks as America’s preferred minority is producing a powder keg of racial tension in Florida and elsewhere. So much so that even the normally wise Bill Cosby can’t quite come to terms with it. Cosby wants to think this is all about guns but it isn’t. It’s about race, Bill. And the wave of inter-racial violence in the wake of the Zimmerman release should have tipped you off.
Things are going to get worse before they get better. Mitt Romney is going to choose Senator Rubio as his running mate. He is going to run on a pro-life and pro-gun platform, regardless of his true beliefs, which are virtually indiscernible. And Hispanics will support Romney/Rubio in record numbers.
Eventually, blacks will figure out that the real threat to young men like Trayvon Martin is was not a white Hispanic named George Zimmerman. It was a white supremacist named Margaret Sanger.
George Bush received a lot of Hispanic votes in states where a “Cuban” is a cigar; Mexican-Americans liked him in Texas (for governor & president). He probably got more of the Hispanic vote than any Repub candidate in 20 years, and it went far beyond Florida.
“True, but it wouldn’t have happened without overwhelming cooperation from blacks.”
Absolutely; I don’t absolve blacks from this any more than I absolve whites that refuse to breed. Neither group has any right to complain about what is imported to replace them.
“And the Democrats have been promising them both Most Favored Minority status for 30 years.”
They have problems now in the NYC area, and they’re even more complex - the Caribbean & West African blacks have separate organizations from the American blacks, and they’re vying for the same political positions. Add the Hispanics on top of that, and the promises fall apart...
I agree. Especially when they are often the very same people who keep voting for Democrats.
Gee, that's kinda instrumental. When did you commoditize the human race? Can I buy a couple from you? (I like to hunt, and eat what I kill. It's very invigorating, both physically and spiritually.)
Not nearly as much as they liked Skerry and the Gorebot.
Bush's vote, even in Texas, topped out around 40% (meaning, 60% for the Rats). Furthermore, where he got a split better than 30% (which is typically the top vote a gringo will get from Texican Tejanos, who are Democrats almost to a man, he got it from South American and Central American immigrants and the occasional wandering Cubano. Tejano Democrats vote regularly and monotonously 70/30 Democratic, and they do it generation after generation -- to a degree that has drawn comment from political observers, who call them "culturally conservative" because, among other things, they tend to vote the way their grandfathers did, because their grandfathers did.
The canard that Bush et al. want to be "inclusive" by "appealing to Hispanic voters" is just camouflage for their real position, which is to hold the Government to an Open Borders policy, and "clemently" and "welcomingly" to bring in hordes of Mexicans to crush wages by working off-the-books (and off the company retirement and health plans), flooding community services and schools that are paid for by the voter-chumps.
What "decades"? You talking about the courts that ducked the issue with b.s. rhetoric about "standing"? Nobody has "standing" to challenge a political candidate on anything, something like that? (That seems to be the evolving Obama Doctrine, n/w/s the Dems vigorously challenged McCain on the same grounds.)
Romney/Rubio. R&R...RR Hope those initials serve us well.
“The canard that Bush et al. want to be “inclusive” by “appealing to Hispanic voters” is just camouflage for their real position, which is to hold the Government to an Open Borders policy, and “clemently” and “welcomingly” to bring in hordes of Mexicans to crush wages by working off-the-books (and off the company retirement and health plans), flooding community services and schools that are paid for by the voter-chumps.”
That is at least misprision in office, if not outright treason.
But not in Calif or NY - both with huge Hispanic populations. And pop goes your theory.
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.