Readers Weigh in on the Richardson Endorsement
Tuesday July 31, 2007
Background: Why Bill Richardson is the Best Civil Liberties Candidate for 2008
My readers have weighed in on my endorsement of Bill Richardson for the 2008 presidential election, and some of what they had to say was particularly insightful.
The most controversial aspect of my endorsement was the fact that I did not endorse Ron Paul, whose vision of government is smaller than that proposed by any of his rivals but not, in my opinion, more libertarian. kris writes:
But kris brings up an interesting point: Wouldn't an accurate interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Supreme Court already include the most important provisions of the Civil Rights Act? What else could "equal protection" possibly mean, under a post-Brown doctrine that separate is intrinsically unequal, but the end of segregation?
It's an interesting question. Unfortunately, we have never had a Supreme Court that has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in such a way. If we did, civil rights law would be different in many ways, and not just with respect to the Civil Rights Act.
Bill A. writes:
Bill goes on to write:
I don't mean to get all dramatic and accusatory, but I would invite anyone to drive through the low-income neighborhoods in my hometown of Jackson, Mississippi and tell me that racism is just a crime of the heart. I really would. Civil rights law is not about changing beliefs. It's about changing our country so that everyone has a decent shot at the American dream.
Bill goes on to say:
I get what you're saying about moral evolution--about how things like racism and sexism used to be more socially acceptable in polite society than they are now--but civil rights legislation is primarily about more practical issues, like getting a decent education for your kids, and being able to hold down a good job, and being able to rent an apartment without being turned down on account of your race. This stuff is still going on, and we need a president who takes it all seriously.
I don't mean to say by this that there's no way someone with Ron Paul's belief system could address the issue of civil rights. There are many approaches that haven't been tried. But I don't see from his campaign an acknowledgment of the fact that if the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act are indeed scrapped, the problems these pieces of legislation were written to address still exist and are still very much the government's problem, if the purpose of government is indeed to protect individual rights.
NH writes:
NCLR does indeed fund some student assistance programs that are administered by an organization that includes marginal hate group elements, but that's at least two degrees of separation. If we judged other organizations by that strict standard, very few would pass muster.
Don writes a touching and, I think, compelling argument for Ron Paul. I am copying it here verbatim, without comment:
Jack D. goes on to write:
mike writes:
There is no hierarchy of oppression, so it is difficult to know where to focus my energies, but Latino civil rights and gay civil rights have been two longstanding concerns of mine. Does this mean that I'm thinking in groups? I don't think so; I'm thinking of individual Latinos and individual lesbians and gay men in my life whose lives are affected by these policy debates. If I weren't thinking of individuals, I wouldn't have a horse in this race. The emotional connection wouldn't be there.
BHK's remarks also deserve to be quoted in their entirety, without comment:
Hmmm... writes:
Hmmm... goes on to write:
I would have given Ron Paul my wholehearted endorsement if he had established, as a centerpiece of his campaign, a new solution to the problem the civil rights movement has been trying, and is trying, to address. I can think of several ways that this could be done in a right-libertarian Paulian system (which might be a good topic for a future blog post), but Ron Paul himself isn't doing it in his 2008 platform. Maybe he, or one of his protégés, will in a later election cycle. I hope so.
I'm all for new solutions, but first we need to agree that the problem exists.
Marc Scott Emery has a personal story to tell, and I will not cheapen it by attempting to rebut it. Instead, I will produce it as is, verbatim:
Jay Stang writes:
Kevin Parker writes:
Read More:
My readers have weighed in on my endorsement of Bill Richardson for the 2008 presidential election, and some of what they had to say was particularly insightful.
The most controversial aspect of my endorsement was the fact that I did not endorse Ron Paul, whose vision of government is smaller than that proposed by any of his rivals but not, in my opinion, more libertarian. kris writes:
I’m not sure that I’ve heard Ron Paul says that he opposes the 14th amendment.Ron Paul does not, but the Fourteenth Amendment did not end segregation laws in the South. That took the intervention of the federal government through the Civil Rights Act.
But kris brings up an interesting point: Wouldn't an accurate interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Supreme Court already include the most important provisions of the Civil Rights Act? What else could "equal protection" possibly mean, under a post-Brown doctrine that separate is intrinsically unequal, but the end of segregation?
It's an interesting question. Unfortunately, we have never had a Supreme Court that has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in such a way. If we did, civil rights law would be different in many ways, and not just with respect to the Civil Rights Act.
Bill A. writes:
The Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sure did stop racism. Yep.The objective of the Voting Rights Act was not to stop racism; it was to prevent interference with black citizens' constitutional right to vote. The objective of the Civil Rights Act was not to stop racism; it was to end state-sponsored racial segregation. While these two pieces of legislation have so far failed to completely achieve even these two objectives--ask any inner-city black voter who has to leave a voting station because of a four-hour line, or any of the 70% of African-American children who are still being educated in predominantly black schools--the argument can be made that at least the government can no longer deliberately and directly promote these racial disparities.
Bill goes on to write:
Racism is a crime of the heart, and as such legislation can’t touch it.Personal racism is also protected by the First Amendment. The objective of the civil rights movement is not to eliminate personal racism. The objective of the civil rights movement is to prevent people from being harmed by institutional racism.
I don't mean to get all dramatic and accusatory, but I would invite anyone to drive through the low-income neighborhoods in my hometown of Jackson, Mississippi and tell me that racism is just a crime of the heart. I really would. Civil rights law is not about changing beliefs. It's about changing our country so that everyone has a decent shot at the American dream.
Bill goes on to say:
And the thing about women; 100+ years ago, almost no women could vote. Nobody viewed it as a problem then ...That isn't true at all. Have you ever read Abigail Adams' letter to her husband pleading for suffrage? And Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Woman was published right there alongside Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France and Paine's The Rights of Man. No, sadly even our Founding Fathers can't plead ignorance on this one. They denied women the right to vote, and many of them supported women's suffrage without doing anything to actualize it.
I get what you're saying about moral evolution--about how things like racism and sexism used to be more socially acceptable in polite society than they are now--but civil rights legislation is primarily about more practical issues, like getting a decent education for your kids, and being able to hold down a good job, and being able to rent an apartment without being turned down on account of your race. This stuff is still going on, and we need a president who takes it all seriously.
I don't mean to say by this that there's no way someone with Ron Paul's belief system could address the issue of civil rights. There are many approaches that haven't been tried. But I don't see from his campaign an acknowledgment of the fact that if the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act are indeed scrapped, the problems these pieces of legislation were written to address still exist and are still very much the government's problem, if the purpose of government is indeed to protect individual rights.
NH writes:
Not only that, [Richardson] himself is a huge racist, because he belongs to and supports the racist group La Raza. That my friends, is the Latino KKK.I belong to the NCLR myself. It's not the Latino KKK; it's the Latino NAACP. Heck, they've even attracted some controversy by giving out ALMA Awards to white entertainers (in much the same way that the NAACP has attracted some controversy by nominating white entertainers for some of its Image Awards).
NCLR does indeed fund some student assistance programs that are administered by an organization that includes marginal hate group elements, but that's at least two degrees of separation. If we judged other organizations by that strict standard, very few would pass muster.
Don writes a touching and, I think, compelling argument for Ron Paul. I am copying it here verbatim, without comment:
You have indeed done an heavy analysis of the various candidates based on what you believe to be true and what you are personally looking for in a president. Thanks for your efforts. Any candidate who is either a CFR member or attorney should be immediately disqualified as a candidate and never be trusted. They are not motivated to serve the interests of the American people. With these people it’s all about power, money and control of the people. Just do a bit of searching for information about who and what the CFR is and you will know the truth.Jack D. writes:
Sadly, as much as I love Ron Paul and everything he stands for, I believe he will be in great danger (If it even looks like he is getting close to winning.) I believe that the very powerful of this world (globalist, banking interests, military complex, etc.) would never allow Ron Paul to carry out much (if any) of his agenda, even if they had to resort to murder to stop him. I will personally register and vote for Ron Paul because he is the first politician that I have ever heard speak the truth in my sixty+ years of life. I want my freedoms and property rights restored. Only a Ron Paul type candidate could make this dream of mine come true. I will vote for Ron Paul no whether the polls say Ron Paul has a chance or not. By the results of your on-line poll it looks like Ron Paul is doing quite well. I can only hope this translates into real votes at the polls. Ending, a candidate like Ron Paul only comes along once every hundred years or so. I hope that America doesn’t blow the chance to have such a fine and decent man leading this country.
Tom, a little more research please on Ron Paul. I have heard many, many hours of Ron Paul speak about the liberty’s of all people, no matter what color, religion, sexual preference and so forth.Let me take this opportunity to say that I am by no means suggesting that Ron Paul personally accepts a racist philosophy. I am not trying to make him out to be a villain. I am suggesting that his platform does not acknowledge a problem--institutional racism--that the government is obligated to address.
Jack D. goes on to write:
hence the North American Union, brought to us by the CFR which you evidently endorse or are too ignorant to know about.I am familiar with the Council on Foreign Relations as well as the associated Illuminati theories surrounding it, but I have to confess that I don't think it has that kind of power. If Richardson as a CFR member really did have so much influence, why would he be polling in fourth place? Forgive me if this sounds naive.
mike writes:
You seem to be more interested in Hispanic and gay rights then that of all Americans.That is a fair criticism. In the years leading up to the American Civil War, advocates for women's suffrage, such as Susan B. Anthony, largely abandoned their cause to advocate for the abolition of slavery. The suffrage movement did not gain momentum again until the World War I era. They saw suffering, they saw oppression, and they took action--in the process sacrificing their own suffrage movement. Because of their sacrifice, most of these women did not even live to see the Nineteenth Amendment become law.
There is no hierarchy of oppression, so it is difficult to know where to focus my energies, but Latino civil rights and gay civil rights have been two longstanding concerns of mine. Does this mean that I'm thinking in groups? I don't think so; I'm thinking of individual Latinos and individual lesbians and gay men in my life whose lives are affected by these policy debates. If I weren't thinking of individuals, I wouldn't have a horse in this race. The emotional connection wouldn't be there.
BHK's remarks also deserve to be quoted in their entirety, without comment:
What some seem to miss is that what government has the power to do for us, it has the power to do to us. Other candidates may support so-called “civil liberties” but they don’t support the underlying principle of human liberties. Ron Paul at least understands this and whilst he and I (and many others) may not agree on abortion, homosexual relations, and etc. he does not advocate for the sort of power that can take those decisions away from individuals.Again, there are strong arguments for supporting Ron Paul. As I said in my prior blog entry, we all have our individual priorities as voters. For my part, I might personally support Barack Obama--but I cannot in good conscience pretend that he has a better civil liberties platform, across the board, than Bill Richardson. I don't know whether or not he has a better civil liberties platform than Ron Paul; they represent opposite ends of the left-libertarian:right-libertarian spectrum. They are two completely different flavors of libertarian. Richardson succeeds by addressing civil rights concerns without completely sacrificing the Jeffersonian concerns of gun and property rights. No other candidate can make that claim.
I’m not surprised at Ron Paul’s ACLU ratings, among others. The questionnaires that they put out for candidates probe the willingness of the candidate to spend taxpayer money. I am 100% pro-choice, but by the Planned Parenthood questionnaire standard, I am only a "little pro-choice" because I would not spend taxpayer money to pay for abortions or other family planning (or any health for that matter.)
Hmmm... writes:
Ron Paul is the only one who has a spotless record on civil rights. I think trying to equate his position with Jefferson’s less noble sentiments is stretching it a bit.Jefferson's sentiments were fine, but his policy decisions did not completely honor those sentiments.
Hmmm... goes on to write:
I mean we’ve been discussing this issue for decades and the trillions spent to alleviate the "problem" haven’t done anything.This sentence sums up why I can't support Ron Paul: In order to support him, one has to put the problem of institutional racism in quotes when the problem deserves boldface treatment. If we accept the fact that there is no biological reason for racial disparities, then the only alternative explanation is that they can be attributed to the long-term effects of our national caste system, of which slavery was merely a symptom. When you reduce people to property, that isn't a problem you can fix by passing one law. That's a problem you can only fix by changing the foundations of our culture. It is a radical problem and it requires a radical solution.
I would have given Ron Paul my wholehearted endorsement if he had established, as a centerpiece of his campaign, a new solution to the problem the civil rights movement has been trying, and is trying, to address. I can think of several ways that this could be done in a right-libertarian Paulian system (which might be a good topic for a future blog post), but Ron Paul himself isn't doing it in his 2008 platform. Maybe he, or one of his protégés, will in a later election cycle. I hope so.
I'm all for new solutions, but first we need to agree that the problem exists.
Marc Scott Emery has a personal story to tell, and I will not cheapen it by attempting to rebut it. Instead, I will produce it as is, verbatim:
Bill Richardson would not legalize marijuana or any illegal drugs.Mr. Emery, I wish you the best. Your case is a perfect example of the very real damage that the War on Drugs is doing to so many people in this country. Because of our drug laws, we have the world's largest prison population. Larger than that of China. Larger than that of India. Larger than that of North Korea--even counting the gulags. Larger than that of Saudi Arabia--even counting the vice arrests. It is a horrific problem and one that we have a moral responsibility to address.
Prohibition is the worst mass violation of Americans liberty. 55,000 US citizens are in state and federal prisons right now for exclusibvely marijuana-related offences. Another 200,000 are in jails for other drug offences. Every year, 1.5 million more Americans are charged with a drug offence and their families lives are made miserable, and the courts and jails swell and many make a lucrative living as a jail guard, prosecutor, judge, sheriff, rehab worker, urine tester, bail bondsman, etc.
Bill Richardson is good on medical marijuana but has said he opposes any further repeal of prohibition. Ron Paul would repeal prohibition immediately, pardon and free non-violent drug offenders, end the Drug Czar’s office (whose budget Paul votes to rescind every year). This is such a fantastic and enormous difference in the lives of millions of Americans, Ron Paul is clearly the better of Richardson and Paul in regards the liberties of the individual and the power of the state to punish peaceful & honest activities.
Ron Paul would certainly rescind the indictment against me for my seed selling activities that Alberto Gonzales has me being extradited to the US federal court in Seattle for. This is one Canadian who would be much freer if Ron Paul were President. With Bill Richardson, I’d probably still languish in a US federal pen for my entire life for the crime of sending harmless cannabis seeds over an invisible line (The US border) to consenting US adult citizens.
From the bottom of my heart, Go Ron Paul for President!
Jay Stang writes:
I would just like to know one thing: Thomas Jefferson didn’t want women to have the right to vote. Question: where in the Constitution or the Declaration is the right to vote spelled out or guaranteed?It appears in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence--per "the consent of the governed"--and in the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments to the Constitution, both of which refer explicitly to "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote." Article I, Section 2 also specifies that members of Congress shall be elected "by the people." There has been some suggestion in recent years that a more explicit voting rights amendment be passed and ratified, but the U.S. Supreme Court has long unanimously held that existing constitutional language more than adequately establishes the individual right to vote.
Kevin Parker writes:
It’s not simply that their government did not protect their rights. Jim Crow laws in Southern states actively denied those rights. They mandated racial discrimination by private businesses. Let us not pretend that, prior to federal civil rights legislation of the 1960’s, black Southerners were simply the victims of an absence of laws.A valid point, but the laws were symptoms of institutional racism; they were not the disease itself. This is why getting rid of the laws did not solve the problem. It will take generations to completely solve the problem of institutional racism--it will not happen in my lifetime--but if we are to move forward, we need a president who is willing to either defend measures such as the Civil Rights Act, or suggest new alternatives that accomplish the same objectives.
Read More:
Comments
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
One only need to know what they do and who funds them to know they are the Latino KKK.
The NAACP is also a racist group. Imagine if we had a NAAWP? Think about it!
Two wrongs don’t makea right.. watch some videos of LaRaza rallying — suggesting they need to kill all the people in America and take back the land, it’s disgusting. They don’t want to have to emigrate the proper way like the rest of us did, they just want the land back..oh right…
A good article. I’m not sure it was mentioned in this writing, but of course what Dr. Paul is against is enforced diversity, or and laws which breach the freedom of association in the 1st amendment. Lets not forget that any separation between economic and civil liberties in that right was invented by New Deal justices.
But the author is taking a more utilitarian or consequentialist approach, and so will I. Tom, do you feel laws which prohibit racism in job hirings and such things actually work? They must be extremely difficult to prosecute on, and I would have a hard time believing they do not cause further resentment. People can find excuses to exclude those they do not like, for whatever reasons they wish.
I believe democracy is a very poor vehicle for combating racism. The more powerful and less limited the democracy, the more it can institutionalist racism (as was done earlier in our history). At the same time, a less limited democracy cannot solve the racism problem nearly as easily as it can create it. Why? Because democracy is control by a majority. If the majority of the people in a country vote candidates like Bill Richardson into office, it follows that they are not racist. So any work done in a democracy to combat racism is necessarily done against a minority of racists. In America, the more populous north was able to push civil rights legislation on the south through their majority in a democracy.
The only system that I know of which erodes racism at its most basic level (where it is assumed that certain races are genetically inferior), is free-market capitalism. In such a system, it is in the self-interest of even the most racist of capitalist pigs to serve and treat their customers and employees equally. Capitalism is essentially a system of property rights and free trade, and we know that free trade among nations does more to aid peace in the world than any amount of summits, peace talks, or UN sanctions.
I do not believe racism is a major problem in America today. I believe it is something closer to culturism, where people simply prefer to be around others similar to themselves. As each race more or less has its own culture(s), this can appear racist as well. The successful in America are, for the most part, members of the white culture, regardless of their skin color. Tiger Woods, Lewis Hamilton (a rising F1 star), and Bill Richerdson are all part of the mainstream white culture, at least in their public appearances. Do people really believe that institutional racism is still a problem between peoples of the same culture? I for one have never seen it.
I don’t think “culturism” is anything malicious. Its just a natural human desire to want to spend time with people who are similar to oneself. It does lead to people who keep their racial cultures from being accepted by the mainstream (and therefore the wealthy). I for one have a hard time understanding accents, and am horrible with learning other languages. So I’d be less likely to hire a Latino or black person with a thick accent, or even spend much time with them at all.
In my opinion, the best way to counter any -ism is to get the government out of the way of economic progress. When the Irish, Italians and Asians immigrated to America, we had a freer economy (for non-black males) which allowed them to work their way up the social and economic ladder. I believe if we had a similarly free economy today (and if the war on drugs was ended), we could see the same happen for those people originally excluded.
Two of the most devastating programs of the federal government have been the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs. The War on Poverty put an end to strong families among the poor by having the government come in and take the place of the breadwinner. And the War on Drugs created the environment where the poor felt they had a chance to make a good living selling illegal drugs. What they ended up doing was killing each other, as we are now seeing here in Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love. The simplistic, socialistic War on Poverty needs to go away forever. And the War on Drugs needs to do the same. I don’t see anyone doing that but Ron Paul.
“institutional racism–that the government is obligated to address.” Says you. As Ron Paul is a believer in libertarian philosophy your belief that the government should ‘address’ racism at the barrel of a gun is immoral. Unless a person has initiated force, threated force or used fraud against an individual nothing wrong has occurred. Those who have experienced bigotry should be vocal about those who hold those beliefs and have the community ostracize them.
If we accept the fact that there is no biological reason for racial disparities, then the only alternative explanation is that they can be attributed to the long-term effects of our national caste system, of which slavery was merely a symptom.
The only way to explain racial disparities, if we disregard racist arguments, is that it must be from institutional factors? How about “cultural reasons” for racial inequality, based primarily on personal choice? Do you completely disregard these? While there is no legitimate argument to be made for racial disparity based on biology, there certainly is a cultural argument. Blacks, hispanics, and other groups (whites included), have different cultures. You can look at music, music videos, movies, types of recreational activities, food, religion, etc. and see what “groups” often do, culturally. The ‘institution’ doesn’t glorify rap videos or drug dealing, for example, yet certain groups of people certainly do so more than others.
I’m not going to belabor the point, or bog down the comments section with a verbose post, but I really think you should address cultural and other reasons rather than simply state that the “institution” can be the only reason for racial disparity, therefore, any candidate that doesn’t buy into the “institution” argument must be discarded. Becuase how can you explain the number of white people who fair so poorly in this country? It can’t be because of the “instituton,” because according to you, the institution is slanted in their favor. Thus, there must be other reasons why some people fail. Those reasons necessarily will apply to people across the board of all races - unless, of course, you are willing to make some sort of argument that only certain races are predisposed to non-institutional factors.
“Any candidate who is either a CFR member or attorney should be immediately disqualified as a candidate and never be trusted. They are not motivated to serve the interests of the American people. With these people it’s all about power, money and control of the people”
I’m an attorney and am ardant Ron Paul supporter. I don’t think of myself as the prince of darkness this reader describes lawyers as. That was a poorly thought-out comment in an otherwise well written post.
Funny how this article is promoting Bill Richardson and comments on a few others and not one Bill Richardson fan stepped up to the plate or any supporter for any other candidate (As best I know) Tom, I think there is one thing missing in your research that I would almost bet, would bring you completely over to our side. Google the movie “Freedom to Fascism” and or “Fiat Empire” and you will get a better understanding of why Ron Paul’s supporters don’t just support him , they would take a bullet for him.
This is probably the best article about racism I have ever read. The article is about affirmative action in college universities but it applies to society in general as well.
Diversity and Multiculturalism: The New Racism
By Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D., and Gary Hull, Ph.D.
Is ethnic diversity an “absolute essential” of a college education? UCLA’s Chancellor Charles Young thinks so. Ethnic diversity is clearly the purpose of affirmative action, which Young is defending against a long-overdue assault. But far from being essential to a college education, such diversity is a sure road to its destruction. “Ethnic diversity” is merely racism in a politically correct disguise.
Many people have a very superficial view of racism. They see it as merely the belief that one race is superior to another. It is much more than that. It is a fundamental (and fundamentally wrong) view of human nature. Racism is the notion that one’s race determines one’s identity. It is the belief that one’s convictions, values and character are determined not by the judgment of one’s mind but by one’s anatomy or “blood.”
This view causes people to be condemned (or praised) based on their racial membership. In turn, it leads them to condemn or praise others on the same basis. In fact, one can gain an authentic sense of pride only from one’s own achievements, not from inherited characteristics.
The spread of racism requires the destruction of an individual’s confidence in his own mind. Such an individual then anxiously seeks a sense of identity by clinging to some group, abandoning his autonomy and his rights, allowing his ethnic group to tell him what to believe. Because he thinks of himself as a racial entity, he feels “himself” only among others of the same race. He becomes a separatist, choosing his friends—and enemies—based on ethnicity. This separatism has resulted in the spectacle of student-segregated dormitories and segregated graduations.
The diversity movement claims that its goal is to extinguish racism and build tolerance of differences. This is a complete sham. One cannot teach students that their identity is determined by skin color and expect them to become colorblind. One cannot espouse multiculturalism and expect students to see each other as individual human beings. One cannot preach the need for self-esteem while destroying the faculty which makes it possible: reason. One cannot teach collective identity and expect students to have self-esteem.
Advocates of “diversity” are true racists in the basic meaning of that term: they see the world through colored lenses, colored by race and gender. To the multiculturalist, race is what counts—for values, for thinking, for human identity in general. No wonder racism is increasing: colorblindness is now considered evil, if not impossible. No wonder people don’t treat each other as individuals: to the multiculturalist, they aren’t.
Advocates of “diversity” claim it will teach students to tolerate and celebrate their differences. But the “differences” they have in mind are racial differences, which means we’re being urged to glorify race, which means we’re being asked to institutionalize separatism. “Racial identity” erects an unbridgeable gulf between people, as though they were different species, with nothing fundamental in common. If that were true—if “racial identity” determined one’s values and thinking methods—there would be no possibility for understanding or cooperation among people of different races.
Advocates of “diversity” claim that because the real world is diverse, the campus should reflect that fact. But why should a campus population “reflect” the general population (particularly the ethnic population)? No answer. In fact, the purpose of a university is to impart knowledge and develop reasoning, not to be a demographic mirror of society.
Racism, not any meaningful sense of diversity, guides today’s intellectuals. The educationally significant diversity that exists in “the real world” is intellectual diversity, i.e., the diversity of ideas. But such diversity—far from being sought after—is virtually forbidden on campus. The existence of “political correctness” blasts the academics’ pretense at valuing real diversity. What they want is abject conformity.
The only way to eradicate racism on campus is to scrap racist programs and the philosophic ideas that feed racism. Racism will become an ugly memory only when universities teach a valid concept of human nature: one based on the tenets that the individual’s mind is competent, that the human intellect is efficacious, that we possess free will, that individuals are to be judged as individuals—and that deriving one’s identity from one’s race is a corruption—a corruption appropriate to Nazi Germany, not to a nation based on freedom and independence.
Racist is simply a scarlet letter selectively given to white Gentiles who act collectively, and never to Jews and nonwhites when they act collectively.
Given the predatory nature of our species, a race that faces punishment for acting collectively is at an extreme disadvantage, and properly called a beta race.
Bill Richardson is in bed with the rascist organization La Raza.
He favors rewarding illegal alien “lawbreakers” with amnesty. What about the rights of the U.S. Citizens?
Your endorsment shows clear hostility to the sovereignty of the U.S.
I could never vote for him. He is also a globalist and wants to create the NAU.
Bill Richardson is the most experienced and solid candidate on either side. If Democrats pass him by, they will lose in November, and theyll deserve it. Their pet partisan “frontrunners” Hillary and Obama are unelectable, and Dems will find out why if they stick with them. Its called Vulnerability to the Republican Attack Machine, a force you know exists but somehow think you can kill by being the “kinder, gentler alternative”. Someone needs to write “Presidential Elections for Dummies” and give one to every Dem in the country.
Wise up, Dems, or youll deserve no sympathy. You wont have Al Gore to play the martyr for you this time.