Rev. by Hugh Murray
Why was I
disappointed with this book? True, it is
not a light read. Describing debates to
enact laws, the laws as enacted, the agencies to enforce those laws, the
pressures by lobbyist organizations to construct “satisfactory” regulations of
the laws, all this can be tedious. My
disappointment comes from his predictions however – Hugh Davis Graham, an
expert on civil rights and immigration policy, in a book published in 2002, in
his qualified, academic manner (one as interrupted as this sentence), implies
the demise of affirmative action and mass immigration BECAUSE of the
contradictions in the convergence of these two reform programs.
This is also
a disturbing book for it illustrates how little power American citizens have
over our government. Graham describes
the combined effects of two major reforms of the mid-1960s – the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and the Immigration Reform Act of 1965.
As a
consequences of these reforms, by the year 2000 some 26 million immigrants from
Latin America and Asia immediately qualified for affirmative-action (hereafter
AA) preferences over native-born white citizens.(p. 195) That is, foreigners of color were given
preferred chances at university admissions, scholarships, jobs, promotions,
small business loans, and contracts over native-born white citizens. The book was published in 2002, so today the
number of foreign immigrants is even higher who receive these privileges that
may be denied to American citizens. Worse, in 2012 President Obama declared his
semi-amnesty for illegal aliens who arrived when they were young, are under 30,
etc. The result of this Presidential
edict will be not only that some million illegals jump to the front of the
immigration line; they jump to the front of the employment line due to AA
preferences for persons of color.
In his
introduction, Graham asks, “Why did immigrants qualify for AA benefits at
all?”(11) Though he goes into great
detail, often wearisome recounting laws, court cases, lobbying groups, and
although he is honest at depicting some of the negative results of these
policies, overall his answer to his question is unsatisfactory. “The primary fault lay not with the lobbyists
but with a shortsighted, horse-trading system of policymaking grounded in the
dynamics of client politics and the imperative of incumbent reelection.”(188) This cumbersome answer is inadequate.
Graham, an
expert on civil rights policies, is aware that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did
not require hiring for racial balance in the work place, quotas, or for this
policy’s more modern title, “diversity.”
Indeed, the 1964 law made quotas illegal, and hiring for racial balance
was also illegal according to the bill’s spokesmen enunciated during the
debates in Congress prior to passage. A
major reason for enactment of the 1964 law was to destroy the system of
legalized segregation then prevalent in the South. In employment, discrimination was to be
eliminated by hiring on merit and not intentionally rejecting someone because
of their race, ethnicity, religion, or even sex. Merit hiring was to be the solution to the
problems of segregation and discrimination.
The passage of the legislation was the culmination of the decades’ old
struggle by liberals to treat people “without regard to race, creed, or color”
(a phrase that epitomized the ideal, and even used by the NAACP from its early
days and remained on its website long after the organization scorned that
ideal). This is why, prior to passage of
the law, at the 1963 March on Washington Martin Luther King in his “I Have a
Dream” speech spoke of a time when his children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by
the content of their character. Passage
of the 1964 law was meant to enshrine that ideal and make it possible to
achieve.
After
passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, one problem quickly rose: for many
jobs, Blacks were not as well qualified as whites. The bottom line was that many Blacks were
incapable of competing with whites for jobs “playing by the same rules.” (This
phrase was used by President Obama in 2012 in his State of the Union address, in
his Democratic Party convention speech, and in the first debate with Republican
candidate Mitt Romney. Obama is a
staunch extender and enforcer of AA, which insures that we do not play by the
same rules; there being different rules for different groups.) There were different explanations for the
Blacks’ failure. Some blamed it on poor
schooling, some on poverty, some on “cultural deprivation,” others on genetics
and low IQs. The excuses were numerous,
but the reality was that Blacks as a group were failing in qualifications and
failing to be hired as they had hoped.
Though in the South, Black
segregated schools were materially inferior to those of white pupils (as
Southern schools, in general, were materially inferior to Northern ones), things
were often quite different in the North, where even in the 19th
century W. E. B. Du Bois had attended the same schools as did the whites, and
this would be true in the 20th century for prominent figures like
Malcolm Little – Malcolm X.
Prior to
1964 in many Northern states with Fair Employment Policy panels, new problems
were already surfacing. Some Blacks who
were not hired for certain positions believed the reason was racial
discrimination. However, employers could
point to examinations, on which Blacks often performed poorly, or background
checks revealing problems such as failures in school, truancy, even criminal
records, all making these applicants objectively less qualified than the whites
who were hired. The discrimination these
Blacks complained of was rational rather than racial. There seemed to be no doubt that as a group,
Blacks were not doing well academically, even in Northern schools. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who would later
become a Democratic Senator for New York, wrote: “…the New York City school
system, which had ‘transformed two generations of Jewish immigrants into the
intellectual elite of the world’s most powerful nation, [was not]…able to bring
its black students,…up to grade level’”(Graham, The Civil Rights Era, pp. 310-311).
Interestingly,
Moynihan was also one of the speech writers for President Lyndon Johnson, who
in 1965 gave the first national presentation in his address at Howard
University to justify racial preferences for Blacks. In that address Johnson asserted: “…freedom is
not enough…You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains
and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say,
‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have
been completely fair.’”(Convergence,
77)
While in
the legally segregated South, many civil rights protests had been non-violent,
or had sparked violence that originated with white protestors, white mobs, and
white sheriffs, in the North Black protest suddenly morphed from peaceable to
violent to riotous. Beginning in 1965
with the riot in the Watts section of Los Angeles, Black riots soon spread
throughout the North. By 1968 riots left
250 Blacks dead, 8,000 wounded, 50,000 arrested in more than 300 riots in which
an estimated half million Blacks had participated in burning and looting,
The
unquestioned assumption of the liberal ideology has been that since all people
are basically equal, and all groups of humans are basically equal, then all
should be hired in all professions at about an equal rate. When Blacks are not so employed, there must
be something wrong. Blacks and their
allies in the media and academia demanded answers as to why they were not hired
in proportional numbers. Suddenly,
scholars were forbidden to maintain that the reason for Black failure might be
genetic (those who made such claims, including a Nobel laureate and other
prominent figures, were quickly isolated, denounced, and occasionally
physically assaulted inside the academedia complex). Meanwhile, the liberals, including a judge in
an important case, maintained that the reason Blacks could not compete was
because they were “culturally deprived.”
I recall a Black colleague sneering at that explanation – what do they
mean, “culturally deprived”? Blacks
certainly had their own culture. They
may not have known as much about white culture, or they may have consciously
rejected it. But they were hardly
culturally deprived.
Other
excuses abounded. The 18-year-old failed
a test because his great, great, great grandfather had been a slave; or someone
had called him a n_____; or “Amos n Andy” were his only television role models,
or whatever. Under Democrat President
Carter, EEOC leader Eleanor Holmes Norton had her own solution to the problem –
Blacks could not pass the examinations because the exams were racist. She began a war on testing, and used the full
power of the federal government to prevent tests from being used in hiring for
most positions. She would allow tests
only if Blacks could pass at the same percentage rate as whites, so exams had
to be so diluted to the point that only idiots would fail. As almost everyone would pass, then all were by
definition “basically qualified,” and the government could force employers to
then hire by quotas or face huge fines for discrimination. The objective ceased to be to hire the best
qualified, but to hire instead the “basically” qualified (or unqualified)
minority or woman. Because more Blacks
than whites had failed high school, or had criminal records, the EEOC also sought
to prevent employers for most positions from inquiring into the backgrounds of
applicants, for that too might have a disparate impact on hiring Blacks by
quota.
When the
federal government required that firms hire by racial quota, Blacks were
hired. Some were good workers. But some were only “basically qualified” or
less, frequently absent, on drugs, lazy, bullying, or even violent. Hiring such workers demoralized the rest of
the workforce and production declined.
City factories closed or moved to the suburbs or to other countries. In the suburbs, there were fewer Blacks, and
infrequent public transportation made such employment opportunities often
inaccessible to inner-city residents. So
fewer Blacks were hired.
Meanwhile,
the same liberals who had assured Americans that the Civil Rights Act of 1964
was not a quota bill, had also assured Americans that the Immigration Act of
1965 would not result in massive increase of newcomers nor would it change the
basic ethnic character of the nation.
Yet, rather quickly, there was a decline in immigration from Europe, the
ancestral home of most Americans in 1965.
In 1960, before immigration reform, America was roughly 90% white and
10% Black (Info Please: 88.6% white; 10.5 Black; 0.9 others). After the Immigration Reform Act of 1965,
millions of immigrants began to enter the US from Mexico, Latin America, the
West Indies, and Asia.
In the
debate over the immigration bill in 1965 Democrat Sen. Sam Ervin of North
Carolina had warned that the proposed law was a mistake and would result in a
major shift in America’s population, but a year earlier Ervin had, like almost
all Southern Democrats, opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, warning that the
civil rights law would result in quota hiring and anti-white
discrimination. Even though Sen. Ervin
was to be proven right on the quota issue, his warnings on immigration were
dismissed by the academedia complex as rantings of a Southern racist. Sen. Ervin proved all too prescient on quotas
and open border immigration. Yet, aside
from his role in the Watergate hearings (where liberals approved of his
investigation into Nixon’s cover-ups), Ervin disappeared from history, which, after
all, it is written by liberals.
Unlike the
erudite Prof. Graham, I do not believe that America simply stumbled upon the
policies of AA quotas and open-border immigration.
While
Graham guardedly assumed that the AA and open immigration policies, when conjoined,
are so unjust that it “poses a mortal danger to existing civil rights policy.” The word quoted are from a blurb on the back
cover of Graham’s Oxford U. Press paperback edition. Was it the case that AA for Blacks was then in
danger as a result of immigration? Is it
the case today?
Because of
his death as he was preparing a tour to promote this book shortly after
publication, Graham would not have known about the US Supreme Court decision
upholding AA in 2003. What is most
striking about that case is the list of friends-of-the-court briefs filed
urging the court to retain AA policies and its race and other preferences. Who filed these briefs? Major corporations like Proctor & Gamble,
Coca Cola, 3 M Corporation, General Motors; several prominent military figures,
and various universities, as well as “civil rights” organizations of the Left
determined to retain legal the discrimination against whites. In reality, the military-industrial complex
announced to the Supreme Court its decision: we want AA to continue. This pressure on the Court had its
effect. The majority decision was
composed by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, an appointee of “conservative”
Republican Pres. Ronald Reagan. Day
O’Connor was so moved by some of the liberal friends-of-the-court briefs that
she quoted from one in her majority decision.
Despite the
false assertions of the Left, the Establishment in America is often quite
liberal. The military sought to continue
AA. Big corporate America wanted to
continue AA. The academic administrators
and star professors wanted to continue AA.
And though the media may not have filed the friends’ briefs, they were
clearly delighted with the Court’s ruling upholding AA.
In the next
major AA case to reach the US Supreme Court, in 2012, the same scenario
occurred. The military-industrial
complex again filed friends-of-court briefs contending that race and other
preference procedures were essential in the military, in industry, in
education, in America.
Graham is
astute in noting the contrast in the manner of achieving the reforms of the
1960s. “Whereas civil rights reform was
driven by mass—based social movement and was characterized by intense
controversy, polarized voting blocs, regional tension, and high media
visibility, immigration reform was primarily an inside-the-beltway effort,
engineered by policy elites largely in the absence of public demand or
controversy.”(9)
The
contrast in methods is clear, but it should not obscure the general unity of
the Establishment on both issues. What
was the civil rights movement of the 1960s?
This was the collaboration of the civil rights activists, including
those willing to be arrested, with the national media (and in some cases, with
federal authorities) to expose the injustice of the system of segregation. Langston Hughes mentions that he engaged in a
restaurant sit-in in North Carolina in the 1920s. Carl Bernstein as a child sat-in a restaurant
with his mother and other members of the Progressive Party in Cold War
Maryland. We know of these because both
participants were authors. Surely there
were other individual assaults on segregation, but they are not usually
included in the “civil rights movement” because they were small or isolated
events lacking national publicity.
Similarly in 1947 there was a Journey of Reconciliation, a precursor to
what in 1961 would be known as a Freedom Ride.
Jim Peck partook in both journeys, was jailed in 1947 in Carolina, and
badly beaten in the 1961 ride through segregated Alabama and Mississippi. In Cold War 1947, the effort to integrate
interstate buses was generally ignored; in 1961 it was both national and
international news. What had changed? The South was still the South. The integrationists were still integrationists. What had changed?
To some,
the answer was simple: television. When
average Americans could see in their homes on the TV how peaceable protestors
were being beaten by hateful, foul-mouthed, uncontrollable, over-the-top,
violent thugs, some of whom wore police or sheriff’s uniforms, that so swayed people
that by 1964 popular opinion supported passage of the Civil Rights Act and
overwhelmingly defeated Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater who
had voted against the legislation. There
is some truth to this interpretation.
But more
must be considered. The first
“televised” Olympic Games occurred in Berlin in 1936. Although television was still a novelty,
there were small theaters where patrons could view the screens. Even though these were summer games,
television was new, and some of the Olympic events on TV were displayed with a
great deal of snow. The point is that
German television was advancing in the 1930s.
Suppose some Jews had staged a sit-in at a park where they were “unwelcome”
or a swim-in at a pool reserved for Aryans.
Would that have been featured on a television channel, one that began
its day with a young, attractive blond girl, outstretching her arm to greet the
audience with “Heil Hitler”? And in 1960
when the sit-ins were national news in the US, how would Soviet television have
portrayed any protestors inside the USSR?
The civil
rights protestors could strive to overturn the segregationist legal system of
the South because the protestors had the support of the liberal elite that
controlled the national television networks, the major magazines, the major
newspapers. The protests would not be
ignored. The jailed would not be forgotten. Even if local newspaper or media were hostile
(WLBT in Jackson MS refused to carry national news and documentaries when they
criticized segregation), the local elites did not have the clout of the
national elites. True, in the 1960s the
elite that controlled the national television networks and the other media had
been much the same as that which had dominated the radio networks of the 1930s
and 1940s, so why didn’t the civil rights movement occur earlier? In 1935?
1945? Radio may have been
less effective at stirring the emotions of the audience (though Orson Wells’
Martian invasion on the CBS Mercury Theater surely frightened a massive
audience.) Television may have made the
violent images more vivid than any merely audio ones. I have argued elsewhere that there was
another more salient reason for the delay in the development of the civil
rights movement, - many of the earlier radical racial protests movements had
been linked to the Communist Party. By
the late 1940s especially, Communism was deemed the main enemy, and the elites
did not want to promote any cause affiliated with Communism. Thus, the very important civil rights
struggles in the South in 1948 swirling around the Henry Wallace Progressive
Party were either ignored or derisively reported by the mainstream media.
My general
point is that the means to achieve the two major reforms discussed in Graham’s
book may have been different; nevertheless it was the liberal elites, the
Establishment, that supported both reforms.
Furthermore, there came a point when the Establishment and its
supporters in government used their power in bureaucracy to change the Civil
Rights Act into the quota law. Graham is
honest in writing history, but he fails to draw the logical conclusions from
the facts he assembles. In his Civil Right Era, Graham wrote impartially
how AA, i.e., the quota system of hiring for racial balance, and granting
preferences to the groups that could not compete fairly, developed in the bureaucracy
despite the clear text and meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Originally,
the civil rights reform endorsed by the elite did not include quotas or hiring
for racial balance – not at first.
Recall, the 1964 Civil Rights Act actually forbade quota hiring. But by the late 1960s, as it became clear
that if everyone played by the same rules, Blacks as a group were unable to
compete with whites, then ever more Blacks made it clear they did not care
about “the same rules,” or any rules, and indulged themselves in violent riots
and the slow-motion riots called violent crime.
(Graham notes that few such riots occurred in the South during this
period as the walls of segregation were crumbling and life for Blacks was
visibly improving. But in the North, and
Graham does not raise this question – had Blacks endured that much
discrimination in the North? That which
they encountered, was it racial or rational discrimination? And some Blacks in the North were actually
receiving preferences prior to the Civil Rights Act and AA. A young, Black graduate student at Boston
University received his doctorate in theology even though he had plagiarized
much of his dissertation. Had he been
white, would he have been awarded that degree?
Yet, today, we call him Dr. Martin Luther King.
As Blacks
were raising crime-rates and rioting, causing damage to property in major
cities, the elite decided to appease the Blacks. The government would crack down on some,
especially those who opposed America’s foreign policy and the war in Vietnam,
or who openly carried weapons. So Black
Panthers and Martin Luther King and others faced persecution and
elimination. But the NAACP, which had
patriotically fired a founder, W. E. B. Du Bois in 1948 when he endorsed the
Henry Wallace Progressive Party rather than Democrat Harry Truman, could be
relied on, and other Black leaders might be bargained with. What would be the bargain? Scrap the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or rather
retain its words but subvert it, and replace it with quota policies and
preferences. The elite in America chose
to appease the violent Blacks by violating the rights of poor and middle-class
whites. Blacks would gain preferences
and get jobs; whites would be denied equal opportunity and, if they grumbled, ridiculed by the media as racists.
It is at
this point that the methods used in both the immigration and AA reformers
merged. Now, behind closed doors, the
bureaucrats who changed immigration would change racial policy to require
quotas. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was
subverted, equal opportunity was denied, quotas were required. How?
By bureaucrats and unelected judges, with collaboration from the media. The academedia complex has been so effective
in distorting history that most educated people believe that the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 commanded quotas and racial balance in hiring.
And with
the Ford Foundation, one can trace the overlap of the elite with the
convergence of both AA and massive open-borders immigration policies.(115-17,
213) Ford created and for some years
subsidized La Raza and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education
Fund. These groups would do much to
destroy the importance of citizenship and of assimilation into America. At the same time, the Ford Foundation was
seeking to tear America apart in other ways, funding the anti-white,
anti-Jewish radical elements in Ocean Hills, in the fight against traditional
teachers and curriculum. Ford helped
establish counter schools that stressed Black studies, and hired many Black
nationalist teachers. When the
experiment folded, pupils from these schools usually performed worse on
standardized tests than those who were taught by the traditionalists. Ford was fomenting conflict between Anglos
and Hispanics in Texas and conflict between Jews and Blacks in New York.
While it is
not Graham’s primary purpose, The New
Leviathan a 2012 book by David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin, provides far more
information on the Ford Foundation and the other massively financed Left-wing
foundations that have supported AA, massive immigration, and the numerous other
“reforms” aimed at destroying and displacing the white working class in the
United States. Despite the conventional
wisdom, much of the big money available for political causes in the US is spent
to foster the goals of the political Left.
Once this background is absorbed, one
can more readily accept the words of Scott Farris, in Almost President,
concerning the Republican Nixon Administration, “The Nixon administration [1969-75]
was the last truly liberal administration of the twentieth century. That legacy is obscured by liberal antipathy toward Nixon
because of his history of Red-baiting, his policies in Vietnam, the Watergate
Scandal, and Nixon’s conservative rhetoric. But the words were not
matched by deeds. As liberal congressman Hugh Scott, a Dewey ally, said
of Nixon’s administration, ‘The conservatives get the rhetoric, we get the
action.’”(Farris, 147)
Moreover: “Under
Nixon, wage and price controls were implemented, the EPA was created, the food
stamp program was begun, affirmative action was put in place, and tax reform essentially
freed the poor from having to pay income tax. Nixon even called for
comprehensive national health insurance, though he pursued the idea
half-heartedly.”(Farris, 147)
Graham details the role of Nixon in
making AA national policy in The Civil
Rights Era, and he provides a summary account in Convergence. His Civil Rights Era did not cover the
Reagan era, but in Convergence Graham
writes: “The shift to diversity-based
employment practices marked a fundamental transition in American business…It
was this change, the embrace of affirmative action by American big business,
that dismayed conservatives when the Reagan administration declined to rewrite
the affirmative action executive order in the early 1980s.”(156) And even after Reagan, when in 1994 the GOP
won the House of Representatives for the first time in decades with Newt
Gingrich and his Contract with America, “Congress under Republican control
showed little enthusiasm for passing legislation to curb race-conscious
affirmative action.”(Convergence, 171)
Slighted in
his discussion of AA for Blacks and immigrants is the very popular defense of
AA constructed on the notion of white male privilege. According to this view, all whites, even the
poorest, receive advantages denied to non-whites, and therefore all non-whites
deserve AA preference to compensate for the privileges heaped upon all whites,
even the most down-trodden. Those who
espouse this view – a most popular one promoted by universities, government,
and big business human resources diversity training and workshops, is to expose
the privileged position of whites, especially white men, in American
society. At such sessions they expose how
many CEOs, the prominent doctors, scientists, celebrities, in short the rich, are
most often white men. White men earn
more than the rest of us, the trainers assert.
White men are over-represented among the elite. They have more than their “fair share.” AA is one method to reduce and curtail this
injustice.
Graham does
include a table in Convergence relevant to this discussion: the median family
income of ethnic groups in the US in 1969. (144) the national average was of course 100%;
Blacks earned a mere 62%, so the white-Black gap was 38%. Yet, in the same survey, Jews earned 172% of
the national average. They
Jewish-gentile gap was 70%. The Left
demanded AA for Blacks to close the relatively small Black-white gap. But who demands AA to close the much larger
Jewish-gentile gap? The TV
networks? The New York Times or Washington
Post? What leading academic? On the larger gap, there is utter silence? While there are government sponsored
work-shops on white male privilege, and articles and books on the same, where
is there information in the main stream media about Jewish privilege? Or a demand to close the gap with
gentiles? On this topic, the academedia
complex is not simply silent, it would be horrified if anyone raised this issue.
Jews were
especially important in subverting the Civil Rights Act into the quota law. Personnel is policy, and one should examine
some of the personnel involved in making the decision which in fifty years
would drastically alter the nature of America.
Many of the
Fair Employment Policy laws forbid discrimination, not only regarding race and
ethnicity, but also on religious grounds.
Indeed, religion was also incorporated into the 1964 Civil Rights
Act. Yet, when the agency set to enforce
the Civil Rights Act, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),
came under the leadership of Alfred Blumrosen, he set about not to enforce, but
to subvert the law. (Graham’s CRA titles
a subsection of that book, “The EEOC as a Subversive Bureaucracy,” (190) For example, the law required that his agency
not send certain questionnaires to businesses in states with FEP commissions,
but he defied the law anyway. And his
questionnaire asked employers about the race of their employees. (Until then, the objective of many liberals
had been to remove the racial designations of employees). Then, the EEOC went after those who employed
lower percentages of Blacks than the EEOC determined that they should
hire. Although the law forbade quota
hiring or hiring to achieve a racial balance, that is precisely what Blumrosen,
and his colleague Sonia Pressman did.
They were joined in their push for quotas by bureaucrats from various
agencies, Labor’s Laurence Silberman, and the EEOC’s Stephen Schulman and, via
the Anti-Defamation League, Herman Edelsberg.
Quite simply, Jews were prominent in developing the quota plans for the
US, and in making certain that the quotas would not apply to Jews. Under President Nixon, the quota program for
Blacks embedded in the Philadelphia Plan was extended into a national policy
and extended further to include Hispanics, Amerindians (I was born in the US,
so I am a native American), women, and some Asians. Of course, the federal agencies were
demanding data from corporations regarding their workforce’s composition, and
then demanding racial, ethnic, and sometimes sexual balance, despite the clear
wording and meaning of the law. Why no
questions about religion? Why no
religious balance?
Graham
writes that the religious issue did arise concerning Small Business minority
set-asides, but nothing came of it because of the Constitutional provision of
separation of church and state.(Convergence, 147) This is a sleight-of-hand response. After all, in his address to the nation on
civil rights, 28 February 1963, President John Kennedy declared that the
American Constitution is “color blind.”
Then, why was the EEOC inquiring about color and race and
ethnicity? That assertion did not
prevent Blumrosen, Pressman, et al from demanding information about race and
ethnicity so they could impose racial quotas and AA preferences. I would suggest that the real reason that
Blumrosen and company did not inquire about the religious composition of the
workforce, is because they did not want to expose the overrepresentation of
their coreligionists in certain lucrative fields. This had little to do with the Constitution,
and everything to do with the religious backgrounds of those in charge of the
bureaucracy.
Yet, the
elite is not simply Jewish. Horowitz and
Laksin have done a superb job in exposing the vast wealth controlled by
foundations. Though the money came
originally from business men, who were often conservative, like Henry Ford and H.
John Heinz III, the foundations they created often drifted after their deaths to
the far Left. I suspect many Protestants
are involved in doling out millions of conservative-earned dollars to Left Wing
causes from these foundations. And the
Roman Catholic Church has been quite influential in the struggle for open-door
immigration, especially as many of the illegals are Roman.
Over the
past five decades white American citizens have been displaced from jobs, driven
as refugees from their old neighborhoods by racist, violent criminals, bullied
and beaten from many public schools, mugged, and even when they were the best
qualified, they were denied admission to university, denied scholarships,
denied jobs, denied promotions, contracts, small business loans, - all because
they were white. And all of these
injustices performed in the name of
“equal opportunity.” Preferences went to
lesser and unqualified Blacks, Hispanics, or others. And the immigrants keep coming? If you were a person of color, why not?
The vast
majority of Americans never wanted these policies – even Graham concedes
that. Yet, as the Democrats have become
the official non-white and (covertly) anti-white party, the Republicans make
speeches against AA and against open borders.
But once elected and in power, most Republicans followed their big-business
contributors who want AA and cheap labor.
The elite make the policies for both parties. The rhetoric differs, but the policy that few
Americans want remains the same.
Meanwhile, the heirs of the Americans of 1950 face ever growing
discrimination, displacement, and dispossession.
