Troll,

Sorry, I was getting tired of dealing with Mav. The 10th reserves rights not enumerated to the people. Who can direct the government (either at a state or federal level) to redistribute wealth if they want. And the sixteenth amendment provides a mechanism. Which is what I should have said but didn't.

The very real issue is that African Americans accept the role of victim. Once you're in that mode, almost anything can be used as proof.

On the other hand, the restrictions placed on the Chinese and Latinos (as some of the oldest non-European groups) weren't nearly as pervasive as those imposed on the African Americans. While there clearly were some restrictions (I seem to recall that voting by Chinese on the west coast was a problem at one time), they didn't last nearly as long and weren't pursued with the same vigor. That and the fact that none of the groups you mentioned had their culture destroyed with the ruthless efficiency used against the African Americans. Then they were systematically denied even token integration into the mainstream culture. My point being that their history provides fertile soil for their erstwhile "leaders" to paint them as victims. And for some to believe it.

I still maintain that W's actions were wrong. They struck me as petty. They didn't rise to the level of vindictiveness, just senseless pettiness. Which brings me back to an earlier characterization of W. Spoiled rich kid, part of the same elite as Bush Sr., but lacking his fathers sense of dignity and noblesse oblige.

His motives don't matter. This is politics. What matters is how it's perceived. And radical, progressive, socialist (to use Mav's terms) or not, Presidents offend Congressmen at their own risk. What he can do to one today, he can do to another tomorrow.

And I don't think you're a racist. Just pig-headed and usually wrong. Or at least a couple of your personalities are.

With Warmest Regards

John