Featured Post



Wednesday, June 29, 2011

No Dream Act, No Amnesty, No Invasion

   The liberals are pushing the Dream Act once again.  I present 3 major reasons for NOT enacting the "dream" legislation.
   1)  If the illegal aliens are granted citizenship, they will not simply be "in the line" for American benefits and welfare, they will go to the front of the line because of affirmative action.  They will be given preferences in admission to university, to scholarships, to jobs, to promotions, even to government contracts over native born Americans.  Why reward such illegal activity?  Why discriminate against American citizens in favor of illegal immigrants.  Reject the Dream Act.  It will be a nightmare for those who are American citizens.
   2)  Passage of the Dream Act will only encourage erosion of traditional American culture.  At the Gold Cup soccer match on 25 June in Los Angeles, the American national anthem was booed by most of the crowd.  Most of those in the stadium did not support the American team, they cheered for Mexico.  And most of the closing ceremony was conducted in Spanish.  The American team was booed, the American national anthem was booed, and the ceremonies were held in a foreign tongue.  This will be not an isolated incident, but the future of America if more amnesties for illegal aliens are enacted.
   3)  Part of the Dream Act is to give citizenship to illegals who were in American schools for at least 5 years.  Who paid for their schooling?  Their hospitals?  Their food stamps?  They have bankrupted states like California.  They have taken enough of our wealth.  Send them home.  Deport them!---29 June 11

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Islam, Jihad, and American Appeasement

            On 23 June 2011 a Dutch court acquitted Geert Wilders of the crime of “hate speech” against Islam and the Koran.  Muslim groups may appeal the ruling to a European court.  The “hate speech,” was it that of Wilders, or that written in the Koran?  Robert Spencer’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades is just that, a guide exposing the hate speech in the Koran and in the revered commentaries.  In emphasized blocks through his book, Spencer contrasts the gentle words of Jesus with those of the rigid Muhammad.  Spencer’s book was published in 2005, but events since simply reinforce and update the excellent foundation Spencer has provided us.
            And Spencer is clear at condemning the appeasement policy of the American Government and the West generally.  In the name of multiculturalism and anti-colonialism and anti-racism, Muslims may condemn Western ideas, but the West is not supposed to respond.  And if one does so, like Spencer, he was condemned for “hate speech” by the left-wing extremist group, the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Unfortunately, groups like the SPLC sometimes work with American police and other authorities in this appeasement policy.
            Recall the Muslim mass murderer, the army psychiatrist who killed fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood base in Texas.  For years Nidal Malik Hasan spewed his hateful, anti-Western views, not hiding them.  He even revealed his hatred of the West in formal speeches before other soldiers.  Why did no one alert authorities that he was an enemy?  Because to expose the anti-American venom displayed by Hasan, a soldier of the United States, to challenge him, to report him, one would become a victim of SPLC-type tyranny and be accused of bigotry, hate-speech, and punished by the army’s politically correct legal system.  No one dared to fight the politically correct, pro-Muslim policy.  Consequently, Hasan killed 12 and wounded 31.  The enemy was not only within our ranks, he was protected by a policy of appeasement.  Spencer exposed that policy 4 years before the shootings.  Too bad more people did not read Spencer’s Guide to Islam!
            Around 19 June 2011 Lance Corporal Yonathan Melaku of the Marine Reserves was arrested near the Pentagon with what some thought were explosives as well as al-Qaeda literature.  
In spring 2011 American media drooled with happiness at the Arab Spring, praising the protestors in Cairo.  On a day when President Mubarak abdicated, CBS reporter Lara Lang was beaten, raped, and nearly killed by reveling protestors.  While seizing her, many yelled, “She’s an Israeli.  She’s a Jew.  Kill her.”  They did their best to do so.  It did not matter that she was neither Israeli nor Jewish.  But she was Western.  Soon after Mubarak stepped down, attacks on Christian churches in Egypt increased, as did the killings of the Coptic Christian minority.
            Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood grows in strength, demands abrogation of the treaty with Israel, and the extermination of Jews.  Is this what freedom means to Muslims?  Spencer shows that freedom means the imposition of Sharia law by those who follow the Koran.  According to that law, no new church can be built.  The role of religious minorities was so oppressive that the Christian majorities in the Middle East, have all dwindled over centuries of persecution.  And that persecution is rising with the spring.
            President Obama praised the Arab Spring.  As sharia law spreads with that Spring, he should watch out.  According to that law, the penalty for apostasy is death.  Those who leave Islam should be killed.  Indeed, Spencer tells of a convention of Muslims who converted to Christianity in Virginia where security was high and many dared not give their real names.  They fear imposition of the death penalty by Muslims in America to enforce sharia law!  And according to some school records in Indonesia, the young Obama was listed as a Muslim.  In Western nations there are more reports of honor killings by parents or relatives, when a young gal either refuses to wear head scarves or has a boy friend who may not be Muslim. 
            When the Koran demands stoning an adultress, killing a homosexual, killing an apostate, maiming thieves, allowing the husband to beat his wives, etc. one must first observe the hatred expressed in the Koran.  One must also view the centuries of persecution experienced by minorities under Muslim nations.  The Zoroastrians of Persia, were persecuted so severely by the Muslims that many fled to India, where as Parsis, they continue as a small minority.
            Jihad is not an illusion, it is a duty commanded by the Koran.  Some say this is only spiritual.  They delude themselves and dilute Islam.  Muhammad was a spiritual leader, but he was a military leader also; a conqueror; the first to enforce sharia law. 
Also around June 23, 2011, reports emerged that Delta Airlines may now inquire to prevent flying Jewish passengers to Saudi Arabia.  Passengers who bring Bibles or wear crosses may have them confiscated upon arrival in Arabia, but will the American company, Delta, now do the probing of who is a Jew?  And bar those whom they deem Jewish on such flights?
Spencer rightly warns us of the policy of appeasement we have followed.  It is leading to the end of free speech, the end of human rights, and the end of Western values altogether.
Some demand a mosque near the old World Trade Center.  Where are the churches in Saudi Arabia?  The Koran and many Muslims demand that their religion receive preference above all others.
Spencer’s Guide to Islam has proved to be prescient.  One hopes more will read it to prevent further appeasement, further jihadist terror, further erosion of Western civilization.   

A Text Test for History

Hugh Murray
            I often listen to Wisconsin Public Radio in the mornings.  One is allowed only one telephone call a week, so I have to choose which program I want to call.  Because they only reveal the program listing a day in advance, if I call on a Monday, I cannot call on a Friday even if the Friday subject is more pertinent to my interests.
            Today, at 6am, the guest was a history professor from a public Wisconsin university who was discussing the poor scores of American students in history.  The professor had suggestions for those teaching in schools, like have a student represent a worker, another a Black, an industrialist, a politician, a mother, etc.,   They learn what each might believe regarding various issues in 1900 etc.  A Black listener called to say one reason for the low scores in history was that Blacks were often left out, or mere footnotes to the history taught.  The topic of inclusion rose, and either the professor or the host now mentioned that the White House was actually built by Blacks.
            I called and talked to the screener, saying I wanted to criticize political correctness.  I am “Hugh from Milwaukee.”  The screener informed me that another caller waiting to be heard also wanted to speak about p.c., so they might not get to me.  I heard the program and the various callers, including one who attacked political correctness.  Finally, around the 54th minute, the host got to my call. 
            I began by stating that earlier in the program you mentioned that the White House had been built by Blacks.   That may be true.  However, more important was the decision to build a White House.  And the decision as to where to locate the nation’s capital.  And the decision as to who should reside in the White House.  And though it is unfashionable today, on all of these issues, the important decision-makers were white men.  And furthermore,…
            The host cut me off, saying we are out of time and the professor has to summarize his points.  I was annoyed about being unable to finish my point.
            I do think that deciding who will be President, where to locate the capital, and the compromises between North and South, of which placing the capital between Maryland/Virginia was one, are all more important historically than the color of the workers who followed directions to build the White House.  Indeed, I would contend that workers are not as important, on most occasions, than the bigger decision makers.   For example, had the big whigs (an appropriate phrase in 1780s) decided to locate the nation’s capital in Boston, or in Charleston, a totally different set of workers would have erected the building.
            Moreover, why did the program even mention the builders of the White House?  Had the builders been white, would the professor, or the host, have bothered?  The only reason the workers were mentioned was because they were Black.  This is clearly less important than the question of the location of the capital, and who will reside in the Presidential palace.  Indeed, the mentioning of the builders of the White House IS a footnote to history.  It is mentioned mainly to appeal to (or pander to) Blacks.
            What is wrong with the teaching of history?  When the footnotes are removed from the bottom of the page and inserted into the main text, and what is important is deemphasized, demoted to a footnote, or deleted altogether, all for political reasons, then history has ceased to be history.  It becomes boring propaganda: a long string of one colored of feminine footnote after another.  The builders of the White House were Black; the man who invented the traffic light was Black; a doctor who improved the method of blood transfusions was Black.  Taught this way, history is meaningless, and cannot inspire students even to study the basics.  By trying to raise all the colored/feminine footnotes of history into the text, educators have lost sight of the action, and the actors of history.  Because most of the actors of American History are white males, and because most educators are prejudiced against this group, the educators have created a collage of footnotes, which is not a still life, but merely a lifeless still.  And then the educators wonder why students do so poorly!
            The main test for whether an item about minorities of women should be included in the text is this: would this be included if the same action had been performed by a white male?  Using this text test, history would cease to be politically correct propaganda, and become something memorable.

English or Espanol in Soccer & USA

Hey Bob,
   Believe it or not, I will sometimes watch futbol on the Spanish channels because it is my favorite sport.  Indeeed, I learnt a few Spanish words as a consequence: penal, corrnerr kick, and gooooool!!!  When I played the game in NYC many fo those with whom I played knew Spanish, and many other languages.
   When I lived in Queens, New York, I recall going to the nearest hardware store to buy something.  No one could speak English.  I walked a few more blocks to another store where I could explain what I wanted and be understood.  The neighborhood had changed over years with more South American immigration.  Nothing wrong with that.  Or?  I began to receive my telephone bill in Spanish and not English.  I complained and that changed.  I went to vote.  No problem - Democrat, Republican, Liberal, the usual parties in NY.  However, on the propositions I could vote No or Si.  I had to look for a place to vote Yes.  The Democrats were doing their usual pandering.  During the 1990 World Cup, I remember watching the game between Columbia and Germany.  I was happy with the result, which I think was a German victory (or perhaps a tie).  It was late afternoon and I left my flat to head for the subway and had to cross a wide avenue.  The Colombianos of the neighborhood were out with a parade.
   For the final, on a Sunday as I recall, it was Argentina v. Germany.  It was a hot day, and I decided to go out before and after the game wearing a gold shirt, black bermuda shorts, and a red tie (I almost never wear a tie, and on a sweltering day!)  These were not the Argentine colors, so no one in the neighborhood paid attention.  I bought a newspaper and returned to my flat to watch the game.  It was a German victory.  I then left wearing the same clothing.  A large Argentine "victory" parade had assembled, which went on despite their defeat.  Because all the neighborhood had seen the game, and the German colors, they recognized what I was wearing.  Most were surprised that anyone would support the Euroteam.  Most were friendly, one wanted to throw some water on me.  A few blocks away I actually saw some of my teammates, who were all for Argentina.
   This enthusiasm I do not criticize at all.  Similarly, on the subway, the signs advertising Budweiser cerveza is paid for by a corporation.  It can pay it money as it sees fit.  But when government ads are in Spanish, why are my taxes paying to inform others and not inform me?  And why in Spanish and not French?  Or German?
   Why do they advertise for many jobs where a requirement is "bi-lingual"?  I am bi-lingual.  But that is not what they want.  They want someone who speaks Spanish.  So newcomers who learn English have an advantage over native Americans in getting jobs.  Worse, our government's affirmative action programs give them even more privileges over native Americans.  And I reject the absurd notion of our government that one's ancestors must have been born here about 500 years ago before you can be classified as a Native American.  I was born in the USA, I am an native American.
   I realized how poorly I do at learning languages now after my stint in China.  Two years, and I can count to ten!  But my purpose there was to teach English, not learn Chinese.  I worked in a court in Milwaukee.  Many came to me, "Anybody speaka Spanish."  I knew enough to get them into court and their plea - culpable, innocente, no objecion.  Many, Ok.  But there were some who have lived here 7 or 10 years, young people, and they still knew no English.  Our government paid for brochures in Spanish, for translators in court, etc.  I think of my days in China or Germany.  Had I had to go to court, I would have had to pay.  Why does the local government pay in the USA?  Charge the Mexican Embassy.  China had a reasonable system for deporting illegals.  Indeed, I admired the Chinese system on crime in general.
   I am old enough to remember when assimilation was the ideal, the melting pot.  I live near an Indian Casino, but never go.  In this state, if you are not Amerind, you cannot have a casino.  I call this racial discrimination.  I am happy that over the years most of the French language declined in Louisiana and I was given English as a language.  I can imagine the battles for separation as occurred in Canada because of language.  And the discrimination against English that occurs in Quebec today.  I think our immigration policies are insane, and think of the poem by Bertholt Brecht, the great German poet/playwright.  He fled Hitler's Germany and ended in Hollywood.  During the Cold War, he fled the US to return to East Germany.  After the 1953 uprising against the Communist regime, he wrote a poem that the government should now dissolve and elect a new people.  Sadly, that is what has been happening here for the past 5 decades.
   I am a strong opponent of multiculturalism.  I think the US and the West are headed in the wrong direction.  Is English a superior language?  In most ways, I suspect one language is like any other, each having easy sides; each its difficult sides (like spelling English).  But to what extent is a language the outgrowth of the culture of the people who speak it?  I recall that Eskimos may have many terms for snow.  That is part of their live, and essential part.  The language reflects it.  English reflects the ideas and experiences of those who speak it.  Freedom, liberty, equality, individualism, creativity, progress, rights are all words that express the history of the English-speaking people.  I have heard that the Chinese had no word for individualism.  I greatly admire the Chinese, but I choose to remain in the English milieu.
   Or to rephrase it, the people express themselves in their culture, and part of that culture is the language.  A nation of many languages will eventually come apart as Austria-Hungary.  Switzerland is the great exception, as it is on many other themes.  Individuals may learn a second or many languages.  It will even help in their understanding of their first.  But the government should have an official language to save money and avoid duplication, and to encourage a unified nation.
   By the way, though I disagree with him on social issues, I did vote for Buchanan for President in 2000.  Held my nose and voted Bush in 2004, and returned to the Libertarian fold in 2008.  In 2010 I did vote for one Democrat, the local Sheriff of Milwaukee, a Black man who attended Tea Party rallies.
   My politics have greatly changed over the decades.
   But I hope you write about yourself for Tulane.  Our experiences are different, so are out politics.  But perhaps our experiences can help explain so much of the change over the decades of our lives.

             Hugh----------27 June 2011