Featured Post



Wednesday, June 27, 2012


by Hugh Murray
            Earlier this year addressing an Hispanic group, President Obama was questioned about immigration reform.  The former professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard explained to his audience that he, by himself, could not change things.  There are three departments of government: the executive, legislative, and judicial, and the President simply could not act on his own concerning this issue.
On 15 June 2012 President Obama announced his change of the immigration policy regarding those who were brought here by others (presumably their parents) before they were 16, who are now under 30, who have no criminal records, who have a high school diploma or who have served in the armed services – they will no longer be deported.  Even though Obama, had only recently declared that even as President he did not have the power to do so, in June he proceeded to do just that.  The presumed Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, attacked Pres. Obama’s announcement as being political, and as being temporary rather than part of a general reform of immigration, but Romney did not denounce the new attempt at amnesty for illegal immigrants.
While Obama was openly declaring that he would not enforce the law already on the books, his Department of Justice was in court trying to prevent the State of Arizona from enforcing the federal immigration law that had been enacted by Congress and signed by a previous president.  Arizona had enacted a state law, not different from, but to supplement the federal law.  The main difference was Arizona planned to enforce the law.  The Federal Government had generally failed in implementing the law.  Now Obama declared he would not enforce the law!.  Worse, the US Supreme Court failed to uphold the Arizona law.  Justice Scalia, in dissent, said it boggled the mind that the court would not uphold Arizona’s attempt to enforce a law that the President openly refused to enforce.
However, my purpose here is not to expose the utter hypocrisy on immigration policy by President Obama.  Or that of Republican Mitt Romney.  My purpose is to reveal the long-term trend and its consequences.  And also to ask, how did we fall into this mess?  Did we stumble?  Or were we pushed?  
            What is totally neglected in the discussion is how Obama’s “amnesty” will discriminate against American citizens.
            Is it wrong to want the best for your children?  Is it wrong to prefer your family and your children to those of others?  To give to yours rather than to strangers?  To want yours to attend the best schools available?  To want a leg up for yours?  Is that wrong?  Or is that natural?  And good?
            According to the Obama Administration, some 800,000 young illegals will be “liberated” through his unilateral announcement.  The Pew Hispanic Center estimated the number at 1.4 million, with the vast majority Latinos, and about 70% of those coming from Mexico.  For the moment, assume that the total number covered by the President’s emancipation proclamation is one million, and 80% are Latinos.  Because they are Hispanic, they will receive affirmative-action (AA) preferences.  So when one of these illegals applies for university, they will receive an AA preference over an American-born citizen.  The President declares this is the right thing to do; it is just and fair.  And President Obama is an honorable man.
            When one of these illegals applies for a scholarship, they will receive an AA preference over an applicant who is an American-born citizen.  The President declares this is the right thing to do; it is just and fair.  And President Obama is an honorable man.  When one of these illegals applies for a job, they will receive an AA preference over an American-born citizen.  The President declares this is the right thing to do; it is just and fair.  And President Obama is an honorable man.  When one of these applies for a promotion, they will receive an AA preference over an American-born citizen.  The President declares this is the right thing to do; it is just and fair.  And President Obama is an honorable man.
            800,00 preferences over American citizens!  I think Obama’s policy is outrageous.  It is wrong.  Unjust.  Unfair.  The illegals not only move to the front of the line over thousands who have applied to immigrate legally.  The illegals also move to the front of the line ahead of American-born citizens in admission to university, in scholarships, in being hired, in being promoted, and in other ways.  This is scandalous!  The illegals here have broken the law.  And they will have advantages above American citizens who are law-abiding.  Obama’s policies are racist and discriminatory.  They are unjust, unfair, and he should be impeached for this act alone.
            Why has American policy turned so much against the majority of the American people?  Why does it favor foreigners above citizens?  Some may answer that Obama is not an American, he’s a Kenyan.  This misses the point.  Obama’s policy is quite similar to Republican Sen. Rubio’s.  It is not that different from that of Republican President Bush.  And Clinton, and President H. W. Bush.  And Republican Reagan amnestied millions when he was President – to solve the illegal alien problem.  Reagan only made the problem 11 million times worse.  Why have so many American Presidents followed policies that hurt the American people?
            After the American Civil War, in which more Americans were killed than in almost all the other American wars combined, a rocky peace followed.  There was still unrest, beatings, killings – in the West, settlers and troops against the Amerindians; in the South, Ku Klux against Republicans; in factories and mines, unions against owners and managers.  Nevertheless, American freedom and inventiveness brought about massive economic growth and improvement.  Britain was now being challenged for dominance, not only by traditional rival France, but by a newly united Germany and a reUnited States.  Yet, to many of the poor, the United States seemed to offer the best way to raise themselves with cheap lands to farm, jobs in ever newer industries, and various freedoms denied in other nations.  So immigration rose and grew to a million by 1900.  It remained high until the Great War of 1914  cut the ocean highway to Europe.  Suddenly, Americans were taking sides on the distant war, with many immigrants from Germany, Austo-Hungary, and Jews who hated the Czarist regime in Russia siding with the Central Powers.  Many others sided with Britain.  One English-speaking exception were the Irish, who had fled the British domination of the emerald island, and who were not interested in aiding the King’s forces.  On the other hand, President Wilson and the Eastern Establishment were pro-British, and when the Kaiser’s military and diplomats responded clumsily, eventually Wilson overcame the filibusters of the Mid-West and pushed America into war on the side of the British.
            Not only was Wilson a Progressive, who believed in a larger role of government, he was also something of a puritan.  To prevent the corruption of our boys in uniform, he sent federal troops to close down the Red Light district of New Orleans.  Because many of the early jazz musicians were earning a living playing in houses where jizz exploded, closing Storyville, meant jazz had to move to survive.  Thus, so many musicians left New Orleans for Chicago, Memphis, New York, etc.  The war required sacrifice.
            Criticism of the war could and did lead to prison.  Hatred of things German meant that some new immigrants quickly had to learn English.  Sour krout was cooked into liberty cabbage.  Even in Milwaukee, the German Club became the Wisconsin Club, the new Germania Building, the Liberty Building.  In New Jersey, a dachshund was stoned.  The Germans had their beer gardens and the Irish their taverns.  And both groups were now suspect as hyphenate Americans, un-Americans.  All the more reason to close their treasonable establishments.  The hatred of the Hun could turn into the hatred of liquor, and thus prepare the way for Prohibition.  (Also, as many young men were drafted, the Progressive interest in health and curtailing venereal disease led to circumcision as an American health measure – rounding up another example of American exceptionalism when compared to Europe.)
            With war’s end many Americans felt we had been duped into going to war.  And worse, a new international league with Britain’s Empire given many votes to only one for the US seemed yet another way to entangle us in Europe’s unending hatreds.  Immigration began to pick up again, but the old frontier had been closed.  The 48 states were no longer unpopulated territories.  America was filling up.  Perhaps, it should fill up with its own progeny, rather than millions of new immigrants.
            Even in the 1860s the Workers Party in California had demanded expulsion of Asian immigrants who were competing for jobs.  By 1900 the US and Japan had an agreement to prevent any more Japanese from coming.  By the 1920s, many Americans sought to keep America for themselves and their progeny.  There would be some immigration of course, but it would be to reflect and reinforce the population of the nation already here.  As most came from northern Europe, so too would most of the new immigrants according to the policy.  The new restrictive policy was endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan (Democrat Wilson had shown D W Griffith’s major film “Birth of a Nation” in the White House, and praised the pro-KKK message.  That film is often credited with causing the rebirth of the KKK).  But it was not only the Klan.  The AFL, the only major union at the time (the IWW had been anti-WWI and President Wilson destroyed that union, as he jailed Eugene Debs, leader of the major American railroad union and also candidate of the large American Socialist Party.  Debs was freed from prison by Republican President Harding.)  The AFL under Samuel Gompers saw an influx of new immigrants as competitors for jobs with American union men.  So the AFL sought to curtail immigration.  And it was curtailed in the 1920s, with a smaller number of legal immigrants based on quotas from mainly northern European lands.  Africans, Asians, Latin Americans would develop in their own ways, but in their own countries, not in the United States.
            In the depression era, both the Hoover and Roosevelt Administrations seemed incapable of restoring prosperity.  Some immigrants came, but finding no work, they returned to nations like Germany where another regime was producing jobs.  It may not have been as free, but “It’s the economy, stupid” as Democrats from another era phrased the sentiment.  Some in America even assumed that they might return to Europe and the new experiment occurring in the Soviet Union for a better life.  Of the many Finns who left America to return to Stalin’s workers paradise, almost all the men were executed.  Bottom line, there was little immigration to the US during the 1930s, and in some years more left than entered this nation.   War in the 1940s reduced immigration even more.  Even with refugees of the post-war period, it was still small in the late 40s and 50s. 
             Incomplete just now.  I will add more later.-----Hugh

Monday, June 25, 2012


Because I am delayed in writing my piece on immigration, I include this provocative piece by Gwynne Dyer, who appears to be writing from Vancouver.  It is a most interesting piece, and I shall be referring to the ideas in this article in my article, still to be written.----------Hugh Murray

Gwynne Dyer, Straight, June 5, 2012
What if China, flush with its new wealth, opened its doors to mass immigration? It would make sense from an economic and social point of view, because its one-child-per-family policy has produced a young generation far smaller than the one that now does most of the work. China’s population is “aging” (i.e. its average age is going up) faster than any other country in history, and it could certainly do with some more young people.
If it had an immigration policy like that of the United States, it could fill all the gaping holes in the workforce that will open up when the present adult generation retires, and there would be enough people working and paying taxes to support that older generation in its “golden years”. Otherwise, there will be barely one worker for each retiree, and their post-retirement years will be far from golden.
So let’s suppose China opens the gates. (Stay with me on this.) The immigrants would come, from all over the world. Probably most would be from south and south-east Asia (India, Pakistan, Burma, Indonesia, the Philippines), but plenty of Russians would come too. So would Arabs from the slums of Cairo, and Congolese from the slums of Kinshasa, and Mexicans fleeing the bloody war on drugs.
They would all come, and China would be transformed. In 50 or 60 years it would be one of the world’s most diverse societies. Almost all the new immigrants would learn to speak some Chinese, of course, but their children would be fluent in the language. Indeed, they would think of themselves as Chinese, even though their skins were white, brown, or black and their religions Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, or Hindu.
Some tens of millions of them would already have intermarried with ethnic Chinese, if only because there are tens of millions of young Chinese men who will otherwise remain unmarried. (The Chinese have been killing too many of their baby girls.) And everybody would live more or less happily ever after.
I know. It’s never going to happen, because the Chinese would never let it happen. But that’s precisely the point. The Americans have let it happen. Why?
I’m not saying it is a bad thing. Personally, I like it. But it is an extraordinary thing. Sixty years ago the United States was a country whose population was overwhelmingly of white European descent. The only really big minority was the black and mixed-race descendants of African slaves, who accounted for about one-eighth of the population. And then the United States opened the gates very wide.
Last month, the U.S. Census Bureau revealed that non-white births in the country narrowly exceeded the number of births to white Americans for the first time. {snip}
So why did the last two generations of Americans, who were still mostly of European descent, let it happen? Did they welcome and encourage it, as a good thing for the country’s future? Or were they just asleep at the wheel?
Some Americans certainly did encourage it, arguing that turning the United States into a microcosm of the whole world was fulfilling its destiny, and that the sheer diversity of its future population would give it a huge competitive advantage in the world. But there were not many people who made that argument, and there is actually little evidence to show that ethnic diversity makes a country more competitive.
Nor did this immense change happen while the old white population was just not paying attention. There were debates about immigration policy all the time, there was plenty of information about where the current immigration policy was leading, and Americans simply let it happen.
Maybe the last two generations of Americans were a lot less racist than many people—including many Americans—thought. Or perhaps they were all silently aware that only 500 years ago, none of the births in North America were white.

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Scientist James Lovelock Questions Global Warming Predictions

THE following is taken from the toronto sun via drudge.com.  my comment is at the end.---Hugh Murray

James Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist.
Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.
The implications were extraordinary.
Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.
Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.
His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.
Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.
Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.
Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.
He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.
Among his observations to the Guardian:
(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.
As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)
(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”
(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.” 
By adding a comment on the site, you accept our terms and conditions and our netiquette rules.
·         8
Showing 1-11 of 204 comments
·         http://mediacdn.disqus.com/1340321335/images/noavatar32.png
   Many of the scientists have taken a dismissive view of history.  A thousand years ago, when Greenland was much greener and warmer than today and when England's wines competed with those of France,  Ever earlier, some early inhabitants of the Shetland Islands ate tropical fish, north of Scotland.  The earth during human times has been both warmer and colder than today.
   The predictions of the Greens have proven false.  We should not base American or UN policy on false premises, false predictions, and politicized science.  For now, we cannot ignore the Greens, who are ever making new demands to restrict energy usage - we must oppose the Greens with their irrational, unscientific religion. 

Sunday, June 17, 2012

"What is democracy?"

The following was a report from The Blaze.com, a Glenn Beck site.  I repost it here because it illuminates much about American politics in a few sentences.-------Hugh Murray
A member of an Arkansas Tea Party group has resigned her committee seat after she opened an event last week by telling a racially-charged joke.
Inge Marler told the joke as an ice-breaker before a June 9 rally of the Ozark Tea Party. It details a fictitious conversation between a black boy and his mother after the boy asks about democracy:
“A black kid asks his mom, ‘Mama, what’s a democracy?’
“‘Well, son, that be when white folks work every day so us po’ folks can get all our benefits.’
“‘But mama, don’t the white folk get mad about that?’
“‘They sho do, son. They sho do. And that’s called racism.’”
My comment:
Posted on June 17, 2012 at 6:38pm
Many Black Nationalists have promoted Ebonics and urged that it be taught as a language in public schools. Yet, when a Tea Partier speaks in Ebonics, she may be denounced as a “racist.” More double standards. More anti-white racism. More too much sensitivity for the liberal media who will report racism no matter what.
The content of her joke is solid. If the media ever truly wanted to find racism, note how one racial group voted about 95% for Obama.