Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rule of Law

Racial Smears of Conservatives by Conservatives

May 10th, 2013 - 11:50 am

The only thing dumber than conservatives and Republicans flinching from racial attacks is when they make them.  The latest example is the crucifixion of Jason Richwine, as Michelle Malkin calls it.

Borrowing the tactics of the racialist (and sometimes racist) Left, supporters of the Gang of Eight’s immigration reform have dug into the deep academic past of Jason Richwine.  Richwine processed some data for a study by the Heritage Foundation showing that immigration reform, as currently proposed by the Gang of Eight, would cost the nation hundreds of billions of dollars.

Because the Heritage cost study dominated the immigration narrative for a few days and dimmed the prospects for legislation, the long knives came out.  And the Left has no longer knives than accusing someone of being a racist.

I’ve written extensively how charges of racism are the Left’s magic words to cause GOP panic.  In the past, merely accusing someone of being a racist earned you whatever policy you want.  Read Shelby Steele’s seminal book White Guilt for details.

The same things happened to Richwine, except this time the charges have been coming from a purportedly conservative group called the Hispanic Leadership Fund.  No matter where you stand on immigration, one thing that should unite genuine conservatives and believers in individual liberty is not to resort to smearing someone as a racist without cause.

For the last two days, the left-wing media has devoured the narrative stoked by immigration reform advocates that Richwine is a nativist racist.  Why?  Because of an academic doctoral dissertation he wrote which Harvard deemed worthy to approve.  Malkin summarizes his doctoral work:

Part One reviews the science of IQ. Part Two delves into empirical research comparing IQs of the native-born American population with that of immigrant groups, with the Hispanic population broken out. Richwine explores the causes of an immigrant IQ deficit that appears to persist among Hispanic immigrants to the U.S. through several generations.

When I read that Richwine’s scholarship involved empirical study of IQ levels across generations, I was reminded of my voting-rights litigation.  “Senate Factor Five” makes it relevant in a voting case the extent to which minorities “bear the effects of discrimination” as it relates to education and health such that it limits “their ability to participate effectively” in politics.

In other words, federal law recognizes that past generational experiences can impair a minority’s present-day ability to participate in politics.  While it is the law, this factor has always struck me as the sort of thing the critics now howl about regarding Richwine. Naturally, they are entirely silent regarding Senate Factor Five, and the ACLU and NAACP will probably use the factor shortly in another voting case.

Eric Holder’s Justice Department won’t because it seems to have given up enforcing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, once again without a whisper of criticism from the Left.

One of the most uncomfortable parts of immigration reform for me is the extent to which the champions have joined with the ugly, malicious, nasty, repugnant, wicked, and destructive racial Left to push the bill.  Nothing good ever comes from confederacies of convenience with those uncivil monsters.  Whatever Richwine’s dissertation says, it has nothing to do with the data in the Heritage study.

If you are a purported conservative or Republican supporting Senator Marco Rubio’s bill, don’t let your newfound friends on the racial Left rub off on you.  If you do, go all in, and go away.

Related: PJM’s Zombie on the “Progracists.”

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Haven't listened to any of them in awhile and if what you say is true then I agree with you 100%! They are probably just jonesen on the fact he's not an old white guy. If so, they need to give that up because Rubio isn't a natural born citizen anyway (Mark Levin should already know this as he's already SAID this!) and is unqualified for the presidency. They need to hitch their wagon to someone else - like Allen West.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Dirty Little "Secret": The reason that politician supporters of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" want it is so that they and/or their campaign contributors can have serf labor. They would probably prefer actual out-and-out slaves but that is illegal. "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" Democrats, like Obama, also want it so that those who are now illegal can become legal and vote for them, if they aren't voting for them already.

Does anyone think that any of these "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" politicians actually care one wit otherwise for the illegals. Does anyone think that any of the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" politicians are going to invite these Mexican Indios and Mezclados to join their elite/exclusive golf clubs? Come to live in their gated communities, other than as servants? Invite them to their yachts, other than as low paid deck hands and/or servants? Invite them to their cocktail parties? Introduce them to their daughters?

The big majority of the Mexicans who have come here/will come here are Indios and Mezclados, not the Spanish descendant fair-skinned ruling class of Mexico. This is a form of ethnic cleansing by Mexico's ruling class. So these "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" politicians are aiding and abetting and facilitating ethnic cleansing. If the U.N. were not such a joke, they would all be standing trial for trying to reintroduce a form of latter-day-slavery in the United States and for the mass ethnic cleansing of Mexico.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
No matter what Rubio does, no matter how much he lies, no matter how low he stoops, Levin, Limbaugh and Hannity, all who claim they are against amnesty, keep calling Rubio, the main pusher, faceman and spokesmouth for amnesty, their dear friend and all but French kissing him. It's like someone saying they are against communism but love Stalin. All three of them have lost all honor by putting their crush on the worm Rubio above America
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (15)
All Comments   (15)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
No racial group is a conservative group. At least to me, they are mutually exclusive concepts. Same for gays and women; be a human, be an American, and express yourself as such. The more you allow such groups the more they will act in their own self interest.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Dirty Little "Secret": The reason that politician supporters of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" want it is so that they and/or their campaign contributors can have serf labor. They would probably prefer actual out-and-out slaves but that is illegal. "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" Democrats, like Obama, also want it so that those who are now illegal can become legal and vote for them, if they aren't voting for them already.

Does anyone think that any of these "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" politicians actually care one wit otherwise for the illegals. Does anyone think that any of the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" politicians are going to invite these Mexican Indios and Mezclados to join their elite/exclusive golf clubs? Come to live in their gated communities, other than as servants? Invite them to their yachts, other than as low paid deck hands and/or servants? Invite them to their cocktail parties? Introduce them to their daughters?

The big majority of the Mexicans who have come here/will come here are Indios and Mezclados, not the Spanish descendant fair-skinned ruling class of Mexico. This is a form of ethnic cleansing by Mexico's ruling class. So these "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" politicians are aiding and abetting and facilitating ethnic cleansing. If the U.N. were not such a joke, they would all be standing trial for trying to reintroduce a form of latter-day-slavery in the United States and for the mass ethnic cleansing of Mexico.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
You hit the nail on the head and there really nothing more to add to that! Spot on and thank you!
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
No matter what Rubio does, no matter how much he lies, no matter how low he stoops, Levin, Limbaugh and Hannity, all who claim they are against amnesty, keep calling Rubio, the main pusher, faceman and spokesmouth for amnesty, their dear friend and all but French kissing him. It's like someone saying they are against communism but love Stalin. All three of them have lost all honor by putting their crush on the worm Rubio above America
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
Haven't listened to any of them in awhile and if what you say is true then I agree with you 100%! They are probably just jonesen on the fact he's not an old white guy. If so, they need to give that up because Rubio isn't a natural born citizen anyway (Mark Levin should already know this as he's already SAID this!) and is unqualified for the presidency. They need to hitch their wagon to someone else - like Allen West.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
You are acting surprised by this? This isn't something new! The Bush administration (with those losers McCain and Graham) did the same thing when they tried to push this through back in, what (?) 2004-2006?

Honestly, people really didn't care about this until those people arrived in such numbers that they actually started affecting our country to everybody's detriment. American's are naturally generous and wishing to give people a hand up. But that's not what is happening here!

And it's not like they are grateful to be here. Oh NO! They are arrogant, entitled and superior in their dealings with natives. These people are takers. They contribute NOTHING to this society. They trash entire neighborhoods.

Oh, sure, individually, they may be nice people, but collectively they approximate the entire UK in population numbers. That is unacceptible to have the equivalent of a country inside your own country especially when they absolutely refuse to assimilate.

And, as someone on this site already pointed out, they already had their own countries - and look what they did to them!

At this point call me all the names you want - these people have GOT to GO!
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
The yea and nay votes of the 1964 civil rights act would indicate that there was a segement of the GOP who was not favorable and especially not favorable to desegregation in public places, according to Sen. Dirksen. Theres plenty of racial discrimination in all parties.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
The GOP "yea" vote as a percentage of their total members was higher than the Democrats. Your assertion is inoperable.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
Percentage has nothing to do with the fact some GOP voted as they did.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
Zeke1, I disagree completely with your opinion.

The overwhelming reason some GOP'ers and lesser extent some Blue Dog Democrats voted 'Nay' on the '64 CRA was they saw this Act as giving the Fed unprecedented power over the private sector.

Violating the rights of the private citizenry's property and contract goes against the very construct of a free society.

Sure there are private businesses people may find abhorrent though in order to maintain the aforementioned free society they too must be respected.

If you truly believe the Fed's interventionism '64 CRA and for 1 example 'racial quotas' have helped the workplace, businesses succeed you're delusional.

The ONLY result from the '64 CRA is less liberty.

As the-late Barry Goldwater commented then, 'You can't legislate morality'.

No kidding!

48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
Read about the when Kennedy called the congressional senate leadership to his office shortly in advance of a national address on the proposed act. Maybe read what the objections of the act being proposed was by the GOP minority leader. The objection was sorely lacking in all points of the constitution and statutory business laws. Business run in public places for the benefit of the public were moot for the Act and thus, the GOP objection meritless. The basis of fact was simple! The GOP position was continued public segregation. The constitution prevailed in that the private homes and or property of the citizens not conducting public business was protected.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
Oh go AWAY! You dare to excuse the blatant racism of the ENTIRE democrat party and think you can play nit-pik on the gop? (full disclosure - I am NOT a republican - I hate them too!)

And BTW - Hispanics are classed as WHITE! Our beef with these people is cultural and legal and NOT racial you bigot!
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't think you can make any showing where I've even remotely tried to excuse one party or the other on any point. I'm just pointing to the hypocrisy of both parties and particularly as expressed in the article for discussion. ALL politics is a game of propaganda and hypocrisy no matter the party or the issue. A radicalized mind is a horrible waste of ones mind.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
Zeke quotes Morris Dees as a source for his delusions. Don't pay the old goat any mind. He can't help himself
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
Oh yes, reading the bills of the civil rights act along with debate citations, as they progressed through the House and senate and then referring the the yea and nay vote is citing Morris Dees. Maybe you can cite something legitimate to debunk the information I provided from house and senate records?
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All