From: lunallena917@webtv.net   
      
   Challenging the Racist Democrats   
      
   By David Horowitz   
      
   Everybody knows -- but no one wants to say -- that the Democratic Party   
   has become the party of special interest bigots and racial dividers.   
   It runs the one-party state that controls public services in every major   
   inner city, including the corrupt and failing school systems in which   
   half the students -- mainly African American and Hispanic -- are   
   denied a shot at the American dream.   
      
   It is the party of race preferences which separate American citizens   
   on the basis of skin color providing privileges to a handful of   
   ethnic and racial groups in a nation of nearly a thousand. The   
   Democratic Party has shown that it will go to the wall to preserve the   
   racist laws which enforce these preferences, and to defend the racist   
   school systems that destroy the lives of millions of children every   
   year.   
      
   On the other side of the aisle, the Republican Party has shown itself to   
   be tongue-tied and lame-brained when it comes to opposing this racist   
   stain on American life. Republicans rarely mention the millions of young   
   victims claimed by the Democrats' racist school policies every year.   
   They are too cowardly to openly challenge race preferences   
   that constitute a true American apartheid. Consequently, for nearly a   
   decade it has been left to one man and those he inspires to take on   
   these injustices and he is doing so again in the upcoming California   
   recall election.   
      
   Ward Connerly has placed Proposition 54 - - the Racial Privacy   
   Initiative -- on the October California ballot. The new law would bar   
   the government from inquiring into a citizen's racial identity. The   
   Constitution does not mention race or use the words "black" and "white"   
   to describe its citizens. The census was devised by the founders to   
   set the number of congressional districts, not to balkanize America into   
   racial categories. Democrats have turned it into a system to define   
   Americans by skin color. Every Democrat legislator and every so-called   
   "liberal" spokesperson is opposed to Connerly's proposition because it   
   would threaten their apartheid programs. The time has come to challenge   
   this system and set Americans -- particularly African and Hispanic   
   Americans who its prime victims  free.   
   [The following editorial appeared in the Wall Street Journal on April   
   4]:   
      
   The Color of California   
      
   As if the unprecedented effort to recall California Governor Gray Davis   
   isn't enough excitement for one special election, the campaign promises   
   some racial fireworks as well.   
      
   Sharing ballot space on October 7 with Mr. Davis's would-be successors   
   will be Proposition 54, also known as the Racial Privacy Initiative. The   
   measure prohibits state and local government entities from collecting   
   and using racial data. It reads, in part: "The state shall not classify   
   any individual by race, ethnicity, color or national origin in the   
   operation of public education, public contracting or public employment."   
   For champions of identity politics, and the media are certainly among   
   them, these are fighting words.   
   The main proponent of Prop. 54 is Ward Connerly, the University of   
   California Regent behind the state's successful Prop. 209, which banned   
   public-sector racial discrimination in 1996 and prompted copycat   
   initiatives elsewhere in the country, most recently in Michigan.   
   Mr. Connerly has said the goal of his current initiative is to get the   
   state government "out of the racial classification business" and move us   
   one step closer to a colorblind government. The backers of Prop. 54, he   
   says, "seek a California that is free from government racism and   
   race-conscious decision making."   
   That sounds like a core American aspiration, or at least it was until   
   racial preferences became a political industry. Mr. Connerly can take   
   comfort in the fact that many of his current critics -- educators, civil   
   rights groups, Democratic public officials, liberal journalists -- also   
   predicted catastrophe if Prop. 209 passed. They claimed, for instance,   
   that minority enrollment at state   
   universities would plummet without racial preferences. It didn't happen.   
   Both minority enrollment and, more importantly, minority graduation   
   rates, have increased.   
      
   Now these same folks are claiming that if Californians aren't forced to   
   check off some hyphenated-American box on a government form, medical   
   research will suffer and anti-discrimination laws will go unenforced.   
      
   Not true. The Racial Privacy Initiative makes exceptions for data   
   collection in both areas. If black mothers in Oakland are suffering   
   uniquely high infant-mortality rates, nothing in Mr. Connerly's measure   
   would prevent a proper response. Nor would it have any bearing on the   
   large body of federal law -- the Voting Rights Act or the No Child Left   
   Behind Act -- that require the collection   
   of racial data for enforcement purposes.   
   Some of our friends (scholars James Q. Wilson and John McWhorter) object   
   to Prop. 54 on the grounds that racial statistics are essential to   
   social scientists like themselves. They have a valid point that   
   statistics showing racial progress can rebut political demagogues.   
   But that must be measured against the damage done by explicit state   
   endorsement of racial categorization. As for the statistics, Prop. 54   
   affects only state entities. Reams of racial data would continue to flow   
   from federal agencies -- like the Census Bureau and the Education   
   Department -- or any nongovernment sources in California wishing to   
   provide such information.   
      
   It is true that these limitations make Mr. Connerly's crusade largely   
   symbolic. Still, the reaffirmation by American voters that racial   
   distinctions should be irrelevant to government policy would be welcome   
   right about now. All the more so given the U.S. Supreme Court's recent   
   decision to uphold racial discrimination at the University of Michigan.   
   The decision effectively requires the   
   nation to view itself (at least for another 25 years) through a racial   
   prism that many Americans already find obsolete. In the name of   
   "diversity," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has cast her lot with the   
   grievance groups who profit from racial balkanization.   
      
   As opposed to legal and business elites, average Americans are showing   
   an increasing uneasiness with traditional racial categories. The   
   demographic trends are illustrative. According to Joel Kotkin of   
   Pepperdine University, nearly a third of second-generation Asians and   
   Hispanics -- the largest ethnic minority -- marry out of their ethnic   
   group.   
      
   In 1997, one in seven babies born in California were to parents of   
   different races. The 2000 Census offered 63 different ways to   
   self-identify and found that 40% of people under 25 belong to a racial   
   or ethnic category other than "non-Hispanic white." What box does Tiger   
   Woods check, and why should he have to check one?   
      
   A nonpartisan Field Poll released last month shows California voters   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)