The Department of Transportation has established quotas (or "goals," as the regulations insist) for the government's pet victims. The discriminatory regulations are being challenged by the Adarand Construction company, which is not owned by a woman, a Pakistani or some other currently preferred ethnic group.
It's especially appropriate that it is construction contracts at issue in the Adarand case, since the money now funding Osama bin Laden's slaughter of Americans came from his family's construction business. The New York Times has called the discriminatory scheme a "watered-down affirmative action program" and wondered what the white complainant was kvetching about.
One of the patriotic Americans who flew a bombing raid over Afghanistan last Sunday was a guy named Vinnie. A few more bombing raids and President Bush will be able to cruise over Afghanistan in a Piper Cub puddle-jumper without risk. But guys like Vinnie are discriminated against by their own government in favor of Pakistani immigrants named "Osama." (And women. Hey! Wasn't women in the military a great idea until we had a war?) The Bush administration supports the discriminatory regime.
If Islam is not responsible for terrorism, why is Vinnie responsible for slavery? I'm just trying to get the rules straight on collective guilt. It's perplexing to hear liberals carrying on so about how peaceful most Muslims are. That's surely true, just as the vast majority of whites oppose slavery. But the very same people who are anxious to quell the rare anti-Arab hate crimes in response to 19 Arabs attacking America are the ones who are usually found ginning up hate crimes against whites for slavery.
According to an article in The Washington Post last week, far from blaming Muslim immigrants to this country, Americans are showering them with love bombs. Some of the stories were sweet, such as churches and synagogues sending support to a mosque that had been spray-painted with anti-Arab graffiti.