Republicans’ New Con Job: The “Containment Theory” of Affirmative Action and Immigration

"What is at stake here is nothing less than the essential nature of the United States...Only the United States takes special pride in describing the American nationality as, by definition, independent of race and blood -- as something that is acquired by residence and allegiance regardless of birthplace or ancestry."

I would amend the above only slightly. But amend it, I must. I would amend the second sentence to recognize two things, to read as follows: "Only those citizens of the Untied States, who have no knowledge of history, the law of nations, the profound personality differences between peoples, or what the Fifth Commandment actually means, take special pride in describing the American nationality as, by definition, independent of race and blood, etc."

Certainly any American who understands history, the law or psychology of nations, or what is involved in honoring one's parentage, understands that the sophomorish view referred to is inane and rationally indefensible, however passionately it may be stated by the indoctrinated.

Incidentally, the United States, correctly, require the plural form of the verb. It is a plural concept, the States that are united.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

So George W. Bush will win in 2004

As a lifetime student of the political processes, I can absolutely assure you that this is very far from certain. There are a great many imponderables. Frankly, I think that Bush will get somewhere between 39 and 61% of the vote, but at this juncture, with a very, very unpredictable 10+ months to go, anyone who tries to be more definite than that is whistling in the dark. For example, Goldwater had already passed JFK in some polls, right before the assassination. He ended up with only 39%. For example, the Senior Bush appeared unbeatable, the year before the election. The rest, there is history. Lincoln appeared headed for defeat in 1864 until some major victories gave him greatly enhanced credibility.

Those who believe that the victory in Iraq will be a plus next year, are not considering all of the factors, there either. For example, the Cox ticket, which reflected the Wilsonian legacy, less than two years after the victory in World War I--I think every rational person will concede that World War I was a bigger event than the war in Iraq--didn't even get near to that 39%, I have given as the bottom of the likely range.

The writer has given rather compelling reasons for many of us to look elsewhere--not in 2008, but starting here and now. He underestimates the power of his own argument.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

I might add to my previous post the reason that I can be more objective on the question of predicting the next election, than can many others. As of now, I do not have a "dog in the fight." I find all of the candidates, being mentioned at this time, in either major party, to be morally reprehensible. There does not appear to be anyway that I can vote for any of them, and thus am reduced to the role of a spectator.

I had hoped that in 2003, President Bush would make some concessions to the Conservatives, who gave him his edge in 2000. I have waited throughout the year, for that concession. There has been none. Indeed, he has only acted decisively and effectively, when he was advancing the ideology of the Left--as with the Medicare drug extension;--as with having Americans, as opposed to Iraqi oil, fund a rebuilding of Iraq;--as with his continued failure to effectively seal the Southern border. I have waited, throughout this year, for some reason to support his reelection, and he has failed to provide it.

While he could use the "bully pulpit" to expand Medicare, and put together a bipartisan alliance to extend that clearly unconstitutional program; he has failed to use the bully pulpit to put together a bipartisan alliance, to get his more Conservative Judicial appointees approved. He has twisted arms for what was important to the Left; he has not twisted arms to put Conservatives on the Bench--his promise in 2000 to all of us.

But enough. He has another 8 hours to demonstrate that he really wants the vote of traditional Conservatives. I will not criticize the man further, at this time.

On the other hand, the entire Democratic field are absurd; one more ridiculous than the next. But America is simply too important to vote for the lesser of two evils. I cannot and will not vote for evil, under any label, for any man to succeed into the office of George Washington, as President of the United States.

William Flax

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.