The Law reads thusly:

"The only time Republicans get a large percentage of the minority vote is in a landslide when they would have won the election without a single minority vote."

I discussed this on November 28, 1998 in "You Never Win With the Black Vote." But this year they are selling the same old myth again, so it is time to go back over this.

Every Bush supporter recites the same old litany about how many minority votes Bush got in his last run for governor. This is supposed to prove he can get lots and lots of minority votes when he runs for president on the Republicans ticket.

He won't.

In 1998, Bush could have won the Texas governorship without a single minority vote. He won in a landslide, and minorities went along with the tide. In 2000, Bush will get the same minuscule percentage of minority votes Republicans always get.

For decades, moderates talked about how many black votes Eisenhower got in 1952 and 1956. He got over forty percent of the black vote. But the fact is that Eisenhower would have won if he had not gotten a single black vote. Like Bush in Texas, Eisenhower won in a landslide, and a higher black vote went along with it. But for decades, we had to listen to the same old line about how the Republican Party would get the black vote if it just got a little bit more liberal.

Respectable conservatives say they want to "appeal to Hispanics." They then tell us that "Hispanics want the same thing other Americans want." That may be true of many Hispanics. But it turns out that those regular Americans are not the Hispanics respectable conservatives are talking about when they demand that Republicans "appeal" to them. The Hispanics respectable conservatives want to appeal to demand that we:

1) make Spanish an official language wherever possible in the United States;

2) impose "bilingual education" programs;

3) stop enforcing immigration laws;

4) support affirmative action.

In other words, like every other respectable conservative mantra, this one is used to push the Republican Party to the left.

"Bilingual education" is a code word very similar to "multiculturalism." Bilingual education" is a way to keep Spanish-speaking children speaking nothing but Spanish. There is nothing "bi-" about "bilingual education." It is a means by which Spanish-speaking children are kept monolingual."

In exactly the same way that "bilingual education" is actually a way to keep children monolingual, "multiculturalism" is actually a way to impose a single alien culture throughout the Western world.

"Multiculturalism" is a program that would impose a single set of values on every country that now has a white majority. It would be prescribed by liberals. Each "multicultural" country would be a carbon copy of every other "multicultural" country. There is to be a "multicultural" Germany, which will be exactly like a "multicultural" Britain. The United Sates will have the same "experts" dictating the same multicultural setup as Britain and Germany do.

"Bilingual education" is code word for a program to keep children monolingual. "Multiculturalism" is a code word for destroying every real Western culture and making the entire West monocultural.

As I said, while teachers teach Hispanic children in that language, there is some pretense that, at some future date which is not specified, the children will begin to learn in English. This reminds one of another liberal program, affirmative action. Affirmative action discriminates against whites to make up for white discrimination in the past.

Liberals say that there will come a time, sometime in the far, far future, when society has made up for past discrimination and affirmative action will end.

We all know when those Hispanic children will begin to learn in English. It will be the same date when affirmative action is no longer imposed. It is the same date when the hottest part of Hell suffers a cold spell.

But you can't say any of this if you are going to "appeal to the Hispanic vote." When the descendants of Germans and Poles demand that English be made the single official language in the United States, you cannot "appeal to Hispanics" and support it. So Bush opposes it. Buchanan's and the Reform Party's demands that immigration laws be enforced is declared to be a direct affront to Hispanics.

After all, Hispanics are expected to side with their fellow Mexicans against American laws.

So what happened to the old mantra that "Hispanics want the same things other Americans want?"

The summation of all this shows us a very familiar, very expected picture. When respectable conservatives talk about "appealing to Hispanics," they mean "caving in to liberals." Nobody can think of a single suggestion by respectable conservatives for "appealing to Hispanics" that does not involve giving up something to liberals.

When they are demanding that the Republican Party move left, the media always talks about a "big tent." They say that the Republican Party has to "move toward the center," which means it must move leftward. But this "moving toward the center" actually means REJECTING REAGAN DEMOCRATS.

At the 1980 Republican Convention, when Republicans had a brief fit of sanity and went to the right with Reagan, "moderate" Republicans were inconsolable. Naturally the media concentrated on the handful of old liberal Republicans - media heroes - who were at that convention. The cameras followed them around as they talked about how all their old buddies were all gone.

One after another, the old liberal Republicans complained about the fact that they didn't know anybody there. All of the old, reliable conservative Republicans who had always supported moderate Republicans against conservatives were gone. Moderates missed the old faces, the good conservative Republicans and moderates with whom they had lost election after election. They didn't put it exactly that way, of course.

What was hilarious about all this was the absolute hypocrisy of it. These were the same moderate Republicans who were always talking about a "big tent." They talked about the "big tent Republican Party" into which every one was to be welcomed. Then, when some actual new faces came in, the media sympathized with moderates who resented all these new faces! Like all liberals, the media have no sense of irony. They never see the fact that they are, yet again, being absurd.