Featured Post



Saturday, September 29, 2012


By BETTINA F. APTHEKER, (Emeryville, CA: Seal Press, 2006)
                                          Rev. by Hugh Murray 
                     This is a provocative and honest autobiography.  Reading it closely, however, one can observe how ideology still shapes Bettina’s view of reality, distorting it to fit her leftist and feminist structure.
            When her book was first published in 2006, the media focused on her assertion that her father, Herbert Aptheker, for decades described as “the leading theoretician of the Communist Party, USA,” had sexually abused his daughter, Bettina, from age 3 to age 13.  Toward the end of her book, Bettina discussed this “nightmare” of abuse with her female lover, Kate, who like Bettina is also a feminist.  Upon hearing of some of Herbert’s reactions to these charges, Kate suggested that Herbert might have been molested as a child himself.  Bettina then writes, “I knew that my father had had an older brother named Alvin.  He and my father had been very close and they shared a room together as boys.  Alvin had committed suicide” when he was 28 and Herbert 20.(p. 513)
            I have no knowledge of Alvin or why he committed suicide at age 28.  But neither does Bettina.  And because some victims of child abuse later abuse children themselves is no reason to presume that Alvin molested Herbert – which she insinuates.  I submit that Bettina smears and convicts Alvin because of her ideology, not because of any verifiable facts.  Ironically, her family was a fierce opponent of “McCarthyism,” yet here we see her practicing a version of it more damaging than any conducted by the Wisconsin Senator.
            This paragraph’s meanness belies the declared aims of her autobiography: “…, I made the decision that I would write about particular individuals only from my direct experience with them, so that I would not engage in rumor or hearsay.”(5)  By including this smear against her uncle, Bettina weakens her allegations against her father.
 I must admit, I came to this book as a skeptic.  I suspected from the coverage of her “recovered” memory of fatherly abuse that it was all a feminist fantasy.  My Master’s thesis, completed in 1963, explored the Scottsboro rape cases of the 1930s, in which two white women alleged they had been raped on a freight train by nine Blacks.  The Communists defended the young men, agitating here and abroad, and hiring top-notch attorneys who proved – to almost everyone except Alabama juries – that the boys were innocent.  I am male, and totally reject the view enunciated by Nina Totenberg on National Public Radio during the Clarence Thomas hearings that women do not make up stories.  I was furious about the smear campaign against Thomas, and against the young nephew of Sen. Ted Kennedy, who was falsely accused by a woman in Florida after a night of partying.  I also had to endure the year-long hoax of charges invented by Tawana Brawley and supported by Rev. Al Sharpton & Co. and reported daily in the liberal media.  I questioned her veracity from the beginning, but the media dared not do so until much later.  And I was angry not only at the media, but the Duke University administrators who condemned the school’s lacrosse team as guilty the minute false charges were lodged.  All of these were examples of feminist injustice – smearing and destroying the reputations of men to reinforce the feminist ideology, and the feminist lie, - that women do not make up stories.
Though I am clearly opposed to the feminist approach, I do not go to the other extreme by maintaining that women always lie about charges of sexual harassment, abuse, and rape.  I consider each case individually, looking at the credibility of all those involved.  At present the media are quick to investigate the man’s background, searching for patterns or evidence of other indiscretions.  However, because of feminist inspired “rape-shield laws” the public is prevented from knowing the name and background of the woman, or even whether she has had a pattern of making false charges.  These feminist laws are unjust and should be repealed.
            As for Bettina’s father, Herbert, I also knew him personally, having met him at two lectures he presented in the summer of 1962, and  I worked for him on his W. E. B. Du Bois projects and at the American Institute for Marxist Studies from 1971 to 1975.  I was Aptheker’s employee and while relations with my boss were generally cordial, we were not close.  I was invited to his home on only one occasion, a small gathering that included (if I recall correctly) Herbert’s wife, Fay, another Du Bois researcher, Bettina, her husband Jack, and her child Josh.
            I was shocked by Bettina’s charge of molestation.  We have only her account of this; not his.  None of us was there to substantiate her charge.  The evidence supporting Bettina’s claim is circumstantial, so what follows is speculation.
            In the 1980s the Isa family, Palestinians living in St. Louis, Missouri, came under suspicion for possible terrorist connections.  The US Government placed a bug on their telephone.  Though the Feds were listening for possible terrorist activities, in 1989 they inadvertently found themselves recording sounds of the father and mother engaged in a Muslim “honor killing” of their 16-year-old daughter, Palestina.  The daughter, also a Muslim, had assimilated into America life, taking a job and dating someone of whom the family disapproved.  The family believed it had no alternative but to kill her.
            Was the Aptheker home similarly bugged?  Aptheker was an open and prominent member of the Communist Party.  If the home had been bugged, and if the Feds overheard Herbert and Bettina “playing” their secret game, then the FBI would have been in the position to blackmail Herbert Aptheker.  Bettina’s memoir gives no hint of any FBI bugging or blackmail.   So, either 1) the FBI had not installed such listening devices in their home, or 2) they did, but the molestation did not occur, or 3) it did occur, but the bugs did not detect the “games.”  Barring future discovery of some old Govt. recordings, there seems to be no hard evidence to prove Bettina’s charges.  We have simply her word.
            Yet, reading her autobiography, I reluctantly conclude that Bettina’s “recovered memory” is probably accurate, that Herbert probably did abuse her when she was a child.  I admired Herbert, and in many ways still do.  But I concede that her description of his reaction to her accusation when she finally confronted him, - this has the ring of truth.  Sadly, I now think Herbert probably did what she accuses him of.
            There is another item, a strange insertion in Bettina’s story that raises questions that she did not attempt to answer.  She asserts that her father went to Mexico to “find” a Mexican Communist who had betrayed American Communist leader Gus Hall to authorities, so that Hall would face prison in the US.(23)  Hall had fled from the US after being found guilty on an anti-Communist charge, and in Mexico he had been captured.  If the US Govt. was unaware that prominent Communist Herbert Aptheker was going in and out of Mexico illegally in 1951 at the height of the Cold War, then the Feds probably had no clue as to what was going on in the Aptheker household when Herbert “played train” with Bettina.  This would reinforce the notion that the FBI would have no hard evidence of molestation, even if it had occurred.  It makes her charge more plausible.  Not only does it make the charge of molestation more likely against Herbert, it raises other, even more serious questions about his trip to Mexico.  But again, for both alleged events, we have only her word.
            I noted earlier that Bettina’s leftist ideology distorts her view of reality.  Let me illustrate.  Doing research, Bettina and her mate Kate had visited the Chicago home of Mrs. Duster, the daughter of famed civil rights leader Ida B. Wells-Barnett.  “…Mrs. Duster gave Kate and me very careful instructions about which streets in the neighborhood were safe to walk and which were not.  With this she directed us to the Regenstein Library at the University of Chicago…We set off and soon came upon the southern border of the university, which faced the ghetto.  Entrance to the campus from this side was impossible, as it was bordered by a huge wrought-iron gate, with spikes…and a literal moat such as one might expect…at a medieval castle.  I was too stunned even to speak; the racist message…was unbelievable.” (400)
Reading this, I concluded that what was unbelievable was Bettina’s denial of reality.  Mrs. Duster, daughter of a Progressive-era, civil-rights activist, Duster, who herself had been a social worker in Chicago, knew her neighborhood, and how unsafe it was.  Who made it unsafe?  Roaming bands of Ku Kluxers?  No, young Black males.  They were the violent criminals whom Mrs. Duster was directing Bettina to avoid.  They were the Huns of modern Chicago – so dangerous that an outpost of civilization, the city’s university, excavated a moat and installed a heavy gate to impede any invasion of the peaceful campus.  Without the moat there might have been no library to house the papers of Wells-Barnett.  With invasions of violent criminals, would the university have found it necessary to relocate to a safer area?  But Bettina can only see “racism.”  Has she really removed her red-tinted glasses she had inherited from her parents?
            When her parents lived in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights, Fay was mugged twice, and Herbert was knocked to the ground by a thief who used a knife to cut open his pockets in search for valuables.  Herbert was in denial.  He told me it was all political.  Though one cannot preclude anti-communism as a possible motive, it is far more likely that the mugger had simply targeted a white.  Black racism is rampant, but to the left, which dominates the academedia complex, Black racism does not exist.  Black crime is ignored, or excused.  So the left cannot analyze the reality of big cities.  When I was living in Brooklyn, I resided one subway stop from the Apthekers, and I left the neighborhood after a mugger broke my jaw (which decades later still causes problems).  After their muggings, Fay and Herbert separated themselves from the violent criminals of Brooklyn – not by a moat away, but by a continent away, to California.  Could they even admit to themselves that Black racism and Black crime motivated them to flee their home?  Bettina evaluates the moat as “racist.”  How does she evaluate her parents escape from crime?  Is white flight a symptom of racism?  Or a survival technique – seeking to escape from a hostile environment infected with Black noise, Black aggression, Black bullying, Black crime, Black terror.  (I certainly do not mean that all Blacks do these things, but most vote for the pro-crime politicians that refuse to crack down on illegal activities, resulting in mounting crime in those areas, and crime causes more poverty.)
            Another example of how the leftist ideology distorts Bettina’s view of reality: “I heard white students scapegoating students of color, blaming them if their white friends had not been admitted to university.  I used this as an example, named it as a form of racism.  This lecture brought the white students up short…Only then, I saw, when we were out of denial about how pervasive racism is, could I teach the history and begin a fruitful dialogue.”(461)  In her view, the charge of racism closes debate and brings white students (or Blacks like Louisiana-born Ward Connerly) up short!  Clearly, Bettina did not want dialogue any more than did President Bill Clinton during his “Dialogue on Race.”  What both want is a monologue on race, rationalizing policies that in the name of civil rights and equal opportunity deny civil rights and equal opportunity to white men and others.  (This is not what the civil rights movement stood for when I sat-in at Woolworth’s lunch-counter in the first New Orleans sit-in in 1960.)
            One must wonder about Bettina’s university classes.  She wrote, “Teaching became a form of activism for me,…”(406)  She was helping to create the feminist studies’ curricula, not only for her classes, but for emerging, growing field.  “I created a teaching style that established boundaries of trust and respect…I think this was possible because of the feeling of unconditional love that welled up in me as each class began…Whether or not students agreed with me on any particular subject didn’t matter.  What mattered was offering then a space…to come to their own conclusions.  What mattered was that they learned to love themselves ‘regardless,’…”!? 459)  In a history class, one might (or might not) learn history; sociology class, sociology; engineering class, engineering.  In the feminist class, one learns to love oneself.  Are you kidding me?  Should one receive university credit for learning to love oneself?
            Despite my objections and criticism, I found this to be an enjoyable book.  For brevity I shall mention a few other points.  As a child she bemoaned the execution of the Rosenbergs, the “alleged” atomic spies.(21)  Alleged!  In 2012 Russian leader Vladimir Putin spoke thanking the Western atomic scientists who had delivered suit cases of secret files to the old USSR to help the Soviets develop the bomb.  Putin emphasized “suitcases full.”  Bettina whitewashes the Black Panther Party(221).  For a better description of that murderous organization, read Destructive Generation by David Horowitz.  Bettina praises Mario Savio’s commitment to the First Amendment(129) during the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley, but omits his support of the suppression of free speech at U. C.  Berkeley  years later when the campus paper printed an editorial critical of affirmative action, and the left confiscated and destroyed all copies of the paper.  Free Speech Movement?  But only for the left.
            Some quibbles.  Bettina writes that her dad was homophobic and describes an incident where he insulted a long-haired man at a concert.  Yet, in all my dealings with him, he was usually cordial.  I worked for him for several years and do not recall him uttering a word demeaning to gays.  However, around early 1975 I brought the subject up when I submitted to him a possible introduction to a collection of his articles.  In the introduction I criticized Herbert on several issues, including his silence about gay oppression.  He blew up, shouting at me as never before.  He screamed at me that he was leading the fight inside the Communist Party to change its position to make it more tolerant of gays.  As I was not a member of the Party, I had no way of judging the veracity of his claim – which was made in anger.  In September 2012 I emailed Bettina, our first contact in about four decades.  I asked her about this specifically.  She graciously replied to me, writing that she has uncovered nothing in her research on gays and the CP to substantiate her father’s assertion to me about his efforts to liberalize the CP stance on gays.  When Herbert returned my introduction in 1975 in that heated encounter, he did not fire me on the spot.  Yet, I felt the atmosphere had changed, and began to search for other work.
            Bettina mentions that her grandfather was a major founder of one of the oldest synagogues in Brooklyn (426), but she omits that he acquired a building on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue and 28th Street – a building he got around 1928 and lost after the market crash of 1929.  She is good in describing how as an only child, she was like a 3rd adult in the family.(34)  I had a similar experience as an only child.  She blames the fall of Communist East Germany on corruption; I blame its demise on socialism.  Indeed, without the presence of Soviet troops, it would have fallen long before 1991.
Her autobiography should have had an index, but that is a minor point.
            What is good about her book?  She presents an inside view of the Free Speech Movement protests in California, which would have repercussions by allowing the left to be heard on numerous campuses throughout the nation.  She is good at showing the struggles by a lesbian to conform to her parents’ religion (Communism), and how, in the end, she could no longer live a lie with her husband.  Her lesbian feelings were a major chink in the armor of Communism, one that allowed her to free herself from some of that heavy, rigid ideology.  It was not easy, and she writes of her problems with paranoia, self-loathing, and depression – problems I too have experienced as a gay man.  Once freed from the red armor, she was lucky to find a lesbian partner, Kate, and if they did not live “happily ever after,” at least they lived together happily.  Her chapter on the death of her parents is moving.  The confrontation with her father, Herbert, about the abuse, is wrenching.  Her description of driving on a bridge in California just as an earthquake rumbled beneath her provides a depth absent from the 20 seconds of TV images shown during such natural calamities.
            Her narrative of her conversion to Buddhism is interesting but left me cold.  One tenet of the religion is enough to close my mind on the issue – thou shall not kill insects.  As one who grew up in New Orleans swatting mosquitoes, crunching cockroaches, and using matches to burn ants, I utterly reject the ideal of not killing vermin.  When my Hindu friends gently remove a bug from a table, I roll my eyes.  I, too, wear my own set of blinders.
            As much as I disagree with Bettina’s politics, I enjoyed reliving her era – for it is mine as well.  We fought some of the same battles, yet arrived at different destinations.  Yet, I suspect we are both a bit more tolerant now than we were decades ago.  That she would even answer my emails, knowing that I’m now a conservative, attests to her tolerance.  Overall, Bettina’s book is an honest work about iconic figures of the left; one notes her courage in various movements, her struggles within her immediate family, and her wider family (the Party).  Finally she emerged as a lesbian mother and an academic for feminism and the left.  One need not agree with her to learn from her.  Bettina’s story covers not only the Berkeley protests, but some of the changes in the US, and the flexibility within the American system that contrasts with the rigidity of the Communist Party.  Hers is a volume that tells volumes.
            Addition, 10 March 2015.  Bottom line – Bettina’s autobiography raises two disturbing charges against her father, Herbert Aptheker: 1) Did he molest her?  2) Was he a hit man (not just a philosophical debater) for the Communist movement?  Do Federal Agencies have any tapes or information related to either of these charges?


Anti-Muslim Filmmaker Arrested, Jailed in California

Nakoula Bassely Nakoula violated probation in 2010 fraud conviction

By John Johnson,  Newser Staff

Posted Sep 27, 2012 6:19 PM CDT   My comment:
The fanatical Muslim terrorists and their allies, like Egyptian President Morsi, demand that the filmmaker be punished.  And the appeasement administration of Barack Hussein Obama bows to the Muslims, and has the man arrested.  One hopes the appeasement of Muslim fanatics will end with the election of Romney this November.

Ahmadinejad: In 'New Order,' We'll All Be Equal

And that whole nuclear program thing is a non-issue

By Evann Gastaldo,  Newser Staff

Posted Sep 26, 2012 7:08 AM CDT
Ahmadinejad also met with Minister Farrakhan and leaders of America's New Black Panther Party.  Of course, Obama has also shared a platform with the NBPP and at times was happy for support from the Black Muslims.  Madonna even urged people to vote for Obama, the Black Muslim in the White House.
Obama grew up with and accepts the anti-Western ideology of his father.  He hates the West and its values.  That is why he promoted the Arab Spring and its hate the West, burn churches, destroy Israel and all Jews ideology.  That is why Obama did not prosecute the NBPP for obvious voter intimidation in 2008.
Obama, Farrakhan, the NBPP are all far closer to Ahmadinejad than to traditional Western values.

Friday, September 21, 2012


All Americans should respect our President, Barack Hussein Obama.  Even though he has helped the Arab Spring, and helped the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood attain power in Egypt, and other anti-American and anti-Western and anti-Christian groups come to and maintain power.  We should respect him even though he did nothing when the American Embassy was attacked in Cairo.  Even though he did nothing to defend the American Ambassador from torture and death.  Even though OBAMA LIED about the incident, denying it was a terror attack and blamed it on a film.
Even though President Obama is a liar and fails to defend America and its interests, all Americans should respect him, after all, he is our Commander-in-Chief.  Wait, I made a mistake, he is not our Commander-in-Chief, he is our Commanturd-in-Chief!
Instead of blaming the Muslim terrorists for the recent outbreaks of Muslim fanatical protest and terror, his administration makes a film shown in the Muslim world to denounce the video that offended Muslims.  Obama appeases the Muslim fanatics and refuses to defend the West.
                  by  Hugh Murray

Sunday, September 16, 2012


Subject: Re: Who lost the Middle EAst?
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 13:14:36 -0400

To Hugh:

What is the stated purpose of American foreign policy?  To spread democracy to the rest of the world?
If this is true the US shouldn't be propping up dictators in the middle east to form puppet governments that the people of these countries despise. Although these dictators sell the oil to US, get rich, live in luxury and hug and kiss the visiting US presidents, the people of these country do not approve of these leaders and in turn don't approve of US installing them. This discontentment can be contained only so long as people feel secure about their financial futures. When the recession hit the rest of the world protests started to occur. The US with a stated policy to spread democracy cannot support the dictators over the people (even if the people support MB).

Why is the US in all these middle eastern countries? OIL. At least in the next few decades, the development and sustainability of a country will depend on how many oil well is controls around the world. It is already a known fact that China is taking over some of the oil supplying countries. Therefore the US has to increase its so called 'foreign aid' to these poor countries. All this does is to grease the hands of the corrupt and the rich in these countries, so they sell oil to the US. The  US had the ability and infrastructure to research alternate sustainable sources of energy (a small country like Netherlands has) but the oil lobbying group and the military industrial lobbying group have way too much control over the law makers. So you will see more wars being started in the next few years over the pursuit of oil and I have no doubt about this (either with Obama or Romney).

Either way I don't think we are even scratching the surface with blaming Obama/Clinton or Romney/Ryan or their predecessors. All these blame games are mere distractions. They distract us from asking the real questions.

hope all is well!

Sent: Sun, Sep 16, 2012 12:59 PM

To Vijay,
    I do not think the main aim of US policy is to spread democracy throughout the world.  Woodrow Wilson, in his madness, proclaimed WWI the war to end all wars, and a war to make the world safe for democracy.  The result was the Communist came to power in Russia, and in a decade, Nazis won the elections in Germany.  I grew up in Louisiana a long time ago.  I am skeptical of "democracy" when the majority of people are filled with ignorance and hatred.  And that is how I view the majority in Egypt and many Muslim nations.
    I have little doubt that the majority in Germany supported the Nazis.  And some things the Nazis did were good for the nation.  But overall, the Nazi reign was a disaster, for Germany, for Europe, and for the world.  I am not sure the Communists ever had a majoirty support in the USSR.  Even if they did, another disaster.  And militant Islam, I now see as a threat to free speech all over the world.  Killings in the Netherlands, fatwas against Salman Rushdie and Gerd Wilders, and others who dispute their holy book and their Prophet.  I have seen some of the film that angers them.  It is like an unfunny Saturday Night Live piece - and I do not think SNL funny either.  But I do not go out to kill NBC comedians.  That Obama and Hillary, with her Muslim Brotherhood advisor, begin by condemning a tiny film, rather than the murderous Muslims, says volumes
   Mubarek brought stability to Egypt and the Middle East.  Geroge Soros, the google guy, Facebook, and probably the Obama Administration were involved in the massive demos, that ignited the Arab Spring.  I think the end of the spring will be an Iranian, fanatically Muslim Egypt, with warlike aims abroad, and killing Christians at home.  A disaster.  I blame Obama and Hillary.
   One can say that lynching in the US were democratic manifestations also.
   In the end, I support various Western values, free speech, free this and that.  I also prefer a peaceful world.  And it may be better to support less popular regimes, like that of the Shah and Mubarek, than the fanatical hatred unleashed by the Arab Spring.
   What happened to the Hindus under Muslim rule in India?  How did the Hindus and Muslims fare under the British?
   In the end, I think D'Sousa is right.  Obama hates the West.  He wants it to be destroyed.  He sat in Rev. Wrights' church for 2 decades and heard sermons, "God Damn America."  Now he can hear protestors: "Allah damns America!" 
   Sorry, I wrote far more than I expected to.  Remember, when I partook in a sit-in in New Orleans - that was NOT a popular act.  If the people of NO or Louisiana could have voted on my punishment, I would still be in prison.  Democracy is not always right.

Comments on News 14-16 September, 2012

Posted on September 14, 2012 at 2:35pm
The hate mongers are not the film makers. The little I saw of it was more like a bad Saturday Night Live show. Did you ever see “Life of Bryan”? It was a spoof of Christianity. Some Christians may have been offended, but killed no one. Same with “Last Temptation of Christ.”
The hate mongers are the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters – including a prominent advisor to Sec. of State H. Clinton. The hate mongers are the Egyptian MB who called for the extermination of Israel and all Jews. The hate mongers are the Egyptian Muslims who, after Arab Spring, burnt churches and killed Christians. They apparently crucified a Christian a week ago. Yet, these hate mongers were hailed by Pres. Obama. The US govt. grants Egypt, dominated by the MB, over a billion dollars in “aid.” The hate mongers are Obama and H. Clinton who prefer to destroy America’s First Amendment, free speech, to appease the hate-America Muslims. Obama-Clinton appease murderous Muslims, even to the point of seeking to stop free speech in America.
While we in the US still have freedom, we should use it in November to oust the anti-Western, anti-American, pro-Muslim Brotherhood crowd in the White House.

Education Solution: Ban Private Schools

Private schools give rich kids unfair advantage: Gawker's John Cook

By Liam Carnahan,  Newser Staff
posted Sep 13, 2012 4:57 PM CDT
It is not the private schools where one must enter through a metal detector.  Crime, violence, bullying are more likely at public schools.  Why?   One reason is law suits by the Obama Administration to prevent suspensions or expulsions of disruptive students if minorities are punished at a higher rate.  But the O Admin. does not consider that minorities may well be more disruptive.  Who are the "youths" in flash mobs?  Tho the media and police and politicians try to avoid the obvious, the young criminals in such mobs are Black.
And what is taught in public schools?  Too often it is a "diversity" curriculum, emphasizing unimportant contributions by minorities and women, ignoring major accomplishments of dead white men, and denouncing white males as privileged.  It is a curriculum of hate, and the results are visible in the flash mobs.
Gawker speaks of equal opportunity!  Hah.  It is the Ob. Admin. that is most opposed.  Obama orates that we should all follow the same rules.  But affirmative action, which he supports and tries to extend, guarantees that we do not follow the same set of rules.  It is a preference policy for the pets of the liberals, and punishment program for white males.  A A is the denial of equal opportunity.
Make public schools a place to educate, without bullies and violence, with equal opportunity for all, and a decent curriculum, and America would be a better place.

Barney Frank Defends 'Uncle Tom' Comments

Log Cabin Republicans 'acquiesce' to 'the masters'  Democrat Barney Frank denounced Gay Republican organizations, Log Cabin Republicans and GOPride as “Uncle Tom” groups.

By Dustin Lushing,  Newser Staff
Posted Sep 12, 2012 4:13 PM CDT

Sep 13, 2012 7:43 PM CDT
The Democrats are the pro-crime party.  Violent criminals are more likely to aim for gays, the elderly, women, the handicapped so they may rob more easily.  The Democrats will oppose punishing "the poor, minority, who only needed it for his drugs."  Worse, if the gay, old one, woman, or handicapped, used a gun to stop the young violent criminal, then, in liberal world, they are worse than the criminal.  Look at how the media went after the Hispanic Zimmerman for protecting his neighborhood from the hood-wearing suspended student probably on the prowl.     The Democrats, with their allies - trial lawyers, the "critical law" judges, the ACLU (Ameri. Criminal Liberties Union) - are a threat to all law-abiding citizens, especially gays, the elderly, women, handicapped, and the poor and honest.
Elderly Woman Dragged From Car by Texas Cop
By JENNIFER ABBEY | Good Morning America – Fri, Sep 14, 2012 3:22 PM EDT
Hugh Murray  •  1 day 0 hours ago
I am one of the elderly, and have to urinate more than when I was young. However, when a police officer makes reasonable requests, one should comply. Most of the elderly want equal rights. The woman in the car demands preference, privilege. She was wrong. He followed the law. She violated it.
Ignore the excusiologists who excuse young criminals (but they are poor, minorities, etc), and in this case condemn a Black officer who is doing the right thing with an elderly woman with attitude. The policeman should be praised!
WHY IT MATTERS: Issues at stake in election
By The Associated Press | Associated Press – 22 hrs ago  This was a series of 4 issues, written from a pro-Obama point of view.--HM

Hugh Murray  •  1 day 0 hrs ago
Missing also from the AP analysis is the extreme racism on the part of Obama's Dept. of Justice. Whistle blower Christian Adams resigned from the DoJ because of the anti-white racism motivating many of the actions of Holder's DoJ. Beginning with the dismissal of the suit against the New Black Panther Party for intimidating voters in Philadelphia, to not prosecuting Blacks in the South for voter fraud, to suing schools who expel disruptive students (when a large proportion are Black), to doing nothing to halt the racist mobs stealing and attacking whites (the liberal media refuse to call them Black racist mobs, just "flash mobs" and youths, a typical lie of the liberals).
Obama's is the most racist administration since that of Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
  • Dan
4users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down0users disliked this comment
Dan  •  22 hrs ago Report Abuse
Funny you should mention Wilson, Hugh. Except for the gay marriage issue, this year's democrat platform was largely lifted from Wilson's 1912 Progressive Party platform.
  • William
7users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down1users disliked this comment
William  •  22 hrs ago Report Abuse
Wonder if the Black Panthers will be manning polling places like in he last election. Be prepared. With Obama and Holder in office we have no rights. Valerie Jarrett is a timebomb, also.
Hugh Murray  •  1 day 0 hrs ago
Missing is the attacks on American soil (our embassies) throughout the Islamic world. Obama and Hillary Clinton cheered the Arab Spring. That brought to power the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and similar anti-Western groups is other Muslim nations. While Clinton has a major advisor who has immediate family connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, the MB leaders in Egypt push that nation to extremism. In Egypt, Muslims burn churches, kill Christian, and some of the MB leaders demand the extermination of Israel and all Jews. The peace between Egypt and Israel is shaky. This is all the result of the Obama-Clinton policies. The Obama Admin. killed Osama, but the Egyptian protestors shouted, "Obama, we are all Osamas now!"
Bottom line - Obama has led America into a disastrous foreign policy where on 9/11/12 and after American soil is under attack.
  • Jersey
3users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down0users disliked this comment
Jersey  •  23 hrs ago Report Abuse
And these attacks especally the first one on the American Embassy was a planned attack for 9/11. It was not due to some stupid film which has been out since July. And they better wake up and admit that instead of misleading the American public. We cannot be "friends" with these people. We cannot hold hands and sing kumbya. These people hate us and unless or until Obama starts believing this we are in deep doodoo.
Anger for Islam ties players behind prophet film
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD | Associated Press – Sat, Sep 15, 2012

Hugh Murray  •  1 day 10 hrs ago
The Muslim fanatics can attack American soil for many reasons - all wrong. In America we have a right to make movies, even not very funny ones. Today the Muslims riot and attack over this film. Perhaps tomorrow they riot because the lead actor in another film is a Jew (and some of Obama's buddies in the Muslim Brotherhood want to exterminate all Jews as well as Israel). Or they could riot because in one movie someone ate pork. Or in another, a man petted a dog (Mohammad did not like dogs).
The Muslims can find any excuse to attack American Embassies; after all, they hate America and the West. In the end, they hate freedom.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has often proven it too is an enemy of freedom, trying to curb free speech and the American Constitutional guarantees of such.
We should not curb our freedoms to appease the Muslims. And Hillary Clinton's advisor with connections to the Muslim Brotherhood should be investigated.

Thursday, September 13, 2012


                                        by Hugh Murray
           During the Cold War, Republicans asked a question of the Democrats: "Who lost China?"  During the civil war in China between the Communists under Mao and the Nationalists under Chiang, the Nationalists seemed to have the main advantage.  Of course, in the 1930s and early 40s, the Japanese expanded their domination of China.  Beginning in 1931 when the Japanese created a puppet state for the last emperor of China Pu Yi, the last Manchu emperor would be the official leader of several northeastern provinces, near Korea, and called Manchukuo. In the late 30's, the Japanese invaded other coastal areas of China, and took the northern capital of Beijing, and the southern one too, Nanking.  The "rape" of Nanking, where Japanese soldiers had a free hand to impose terror on the city, is still remembered as a horror.

          After the defeat of Nazi Germany, the US wanted the Soviets to enter the war against Japan.  Stalin promised to do so, and he kept his promise.  Between the dropping of Atomic bombs on two Japanese cities and the entrance of the Soviets into the war, Japan sued for peace.  It is possible that Communist influence in the Roosevelt Administration was responsible for granting certain Japanese islands to the Soviets as part of the peace.  The Soviets also got to occupy northern Korea, and much of Manchukuo.  The Soviets then helped Mao and his Communist rebels against the officially recognized Chinese government of Chiang.  In the US, Communists and Popular Fronters did not want to aid Chiang.  They delayed, obstructed, prevented aid from reaching Chiang and his Nationalist forces.  Many of the State Dept.'s China experts were sympathetic to Mao and the Communists.  By the time Truman decided to push for aid to Chiang, it was too late.  In 1949 Mao spoke from Beijing to proclaim the People's Republic of China.  Chiang's forces fled to the island of Taiwan.

          Republicans were angry and alarmed.  They asked, "Who lost China?"  They suspected it was because of Communists in the Roosevelt-Truman Administration.  Of course, the Chinese had fought their civil war, and China was not a property of the US to lose.  However, China had been an ally of the US.  And the failure of the US to provide financial and military aid to Chiang, while Mao was receiving aid from the Soviets - may well have contributed to the victory of Mao and the Communists.

            Before President Obama, Egypt was an ally, maintaining peaceful relations even with its neighbor Israel.  Obama supported the Arab Spring, with the masses of demonstrators who rallied in a Cairo Square, and in demonstrations in other Arab nations.  Obama and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton cheered the rebels, hailing a new era of democracy.  Yet, even in the early days of cheering, there were ominous signs.  Beautiful CBS reporter Lara Lang was physically, and sexually, attacked amidst the mob of celebrants in Tahrir Square in Cairo.  Anti-Mubarik signs often showed a star of David across his face.  While the Western media assured Americans the rebellion was the result of Facebook, the new social media, and Western minded liberals, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), was working in the background.

            Significantly, one of the chief advisors to Sec. Hillary Clinton has several relatives connected to the MB.  Yet, when Republican Michele Bachmann warned of this influence on Clinton, the liberal media in the US sneered at Bachmann - as the media would laugh, when as a guest on a TV program on NBC, she was introduced to the music of "Lying Bitch."

            I am not saying Obama-Clinton began the Arab revolts.  I am saying they cheered them on, gave them support, did not criticize.  And the result: in Egypt Christian churches are burned.  Some Christians have been killed, and at least one crucified about a week ago.  Had Obama been listening, he would have known some in the MB, in rallies in Tahrir Square called for the extermination of Israel and of all the Jews.  He would have realized that the MB and its allies might win Parliament (they won 67%), and they might win the Egyptian Presidency - Morsi did.  Egypt has moved from an ally under Bush, to a "neutral," in Obama's own words of September 12, 2012.  Meanwhile, Obama gives over a billion dollars in aid to the new Egypt!

 MB and fanatical Muslim influence has spread, as has anti-American demonstrations - Egypt, Tunis, Libya, Yemen, and more to come.  Under Bush, many of these nations were allies of the US, or covert allies.  Under Obama, they are preparing to join the enemies of the US.

It was fair to ask of Truman, "Who lost China?"  It is even more appropriate to ask of Obama: Who lost Egypt?  Who lost Tunis?  Who lost Libya?  Who lost...

Below are some of my responses to news event of 9/11/12.

Ambassador Chris Stevens killed in Libya: Is Arab Spring turning against US?
The flare-up of anti-US violence in which Ambassador Chris Stephens was killed in Libya shows how the Arab Spring has unleashed forces in the region that are vehemently opposed to America and its ideals.
By Howard LaFranchi | Christian Science Monitor – 23 hrs ago

Hugh Murray  •  20 hrs ago
When Republican Michele Bachmann charged that friends of the Muslim Brotherhood were in Hillary Clinton's entourage, the liberal sneered. The Obama/H.Clinton crowd cheerled the Arab Spring. We got a glimpse of it in the early days when CBS correspondent Lara Logan was physically and sexually attacked in the Cairo square amidst "revolutionary" celebrations. Since then, The Muslim Brotherhood has come to power, in Parliament and with the new President of Egypt. Some in his movement call for the extermination of Israel and of all Jews. They also burn churches, kill Christians, and last week, even crucified some Christians. Freedom!? Democracy!? Hillary must have been listening to her Muslim Brotherhood advisor. Obama no longer listens to Rev. Wright's sermons of "God Damn America.;" no, now he hears from his new friends, "Allah damn America."
Let us hope Americans wake up and oust the anti-American Obama-Hillary crowd in the November elections.

Romney under friendly fire for his response to embassy attack in Libya
By Holly Bailey, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 21 hrs ago

Hugh Murray  •  16 hrs ago
Romney said what should have been said. What should not have been said is what came out of the embassy in Egypt, the appeasers of Muslim fanaticism. Hillary echoes the craven attacks of free speech because it offend Muslims. Offend them. Barack Hussein Obama acts as if he were a Muslim. He and Hillary gave us the tyranny called the Arab Spring. Michele Bachmann already challenged Hillary's Muslim Brotherhood-connected advisor. Obama plans to five Muslim Brotherhood-led Egypt over a billion dollars. Yet their mobs attack American territory on 9/11; they burn churches, kill Christians, and last week even crucified at least one. They also call for the extermination of Israel and Jews. Such is the "freedom" spawned by Obama's Administration.
Romney takes a swift, strong stand for freedom, and the appeasement media criticizes him. The media supports Obama. I hope the America people in November will support freedom and the Republicans in November 2012.

Blasting Obama on Libya and Egypt, Romney accused of opportunism
By John Whitesides | Reuters – 15 hrs ago

Hugh Murray  •  14 hrs ago
The pro-Muslim Brotherhood crowd accuses Romney of opportunism when he criticizes the Obama Administration on the Middle East. Obama and Hillary should be denounced for appeasement. Not only did they help stir up the Muslim Brotherhood to take power in Egypt in the "Arab Spring," but they encouraged the hate movement. One of Hillary's main advisors is connected to the MB, as made public by the heroic Michele Bachmann. Obama's policies have left much of the Middle East in the hands of Muslim fanatics - indeed, when they assaulted the Am. Embassy in Cairo, they shouted, "We are all Osama's now." The Obama Admin. killed one Osama, and his appeasement policies have given the world a million more Osamas. And some killed Americans on 9/11/12 in Libya.
Romney stands up for American freedom. Unlike the appeasement brigade of Obama, Romney will not grant the MB Egypt over a billion dollars. The MB demands the extermination of Israel and Jews; in Egypt in burns churches, kills Christians, and last week crucified one.
America needs more films exposing Islam.
And we should vote against Barack Hussein Obama.


Wednesday, September 12, 2012


(9/12/12)  ‘Innocence of Muslims’: The film that may have sparked deadly U.S. Embassy attacks


Hugh Murray  •  1 hr 15 mins ago
    Remember some of the films that played major theaters, comedies about the Bible, making fun of orthodox Christian beliefs. Even "Inherit the Wind" about the Scopes trial in Tennessee, mocked and exposed some of the beliefs of fundamentalist Christians. Or the film that showed Jesus deciding to live on with a wife "The Last Temptation of Christ"! How many people did the Christians kill to show their outrage at these films? Many were not happy about these films; but in the US we have free speech, even of speech many do not like.
   That is not the position of most Muslims. Or even lately of the UN and the Euro courts. Kill the filmmaker Van Gogh! Kill the Dutch politician a few years ago. Threaten to kill the Dutchman Wilders.  Destroy Danish products after a Dutch paper published a cartoon the fanatical Muslims disliked (and it appears many Muslims are fanatical Muslims, perhaps a large majority).  Islam is fanatical.
    The big problem: Obama and Hillary supported the Arab Spring and the Muslim Brotherhood. Even at the beginning, when Lara Lang was physically and sexually attacked in the Cairo square of cheering Muslim fanatics, one should have suspected all was not well with the "revolution." Then the verbal demands to exterminate Israel and Jews. Then the attacks on the Coptic Christians in Egypt - burning churches, killing Christians, even crucifying some. AND OBAMA WANTS TO GIVE MORE AID TO EGYPT!
    Even if Obama is not a Muslim, he might as well be one. He apologizes for free speech in the West. He supports the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt with billions of dollars. He does not link 9/11/2001 to 9/11/2012 with attacks on 2 American embassies/consulates. Obama and Hillary should be impeached by the American voters in November 2012.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

9/11 ---- Our Unimportant Acts May Have Significant Consequences

       There are times when we are not always aware of the importance of our own words.  In the early 1980s I worked in New York City in the World Trade Center.  One day, the elevators were broken, and rather than await the repairs, (a huge crowd was already waiting to board them to get to work too), I chose to walk up to the office.  After the 9th floor, there were no more lights in the stairwell.  I reached my office on the 38th floor, gripping the handrail at each step in the pitch dark.  When I opened the door on the 38 floor, all the office lights were functioning normally and the early crew was working as usual.  I was stunned that the electricity for the elevators and the lights for the stairs might be on the same circuit, malfunctioning at the same time.  I complained at that time to my union representative, but shortly thereafter left the job, and never knew the outcome of my complaint.

With the bombing of the WTC in 1993, I was shocked to see TV reports that the lights were off in the stairs.  This time I complained to the newspapers, and my letter was published in the NY POST, 8 March 1993, “WTC: Dark Stairwells and Other Lapses.”  The same letter was published in the New York DAILY NEWS, 18 March 1993, p. 42.   It was also published in NY NEWSDAY.  I did not think these letters important at the time, though the combined circulation of the three newspapers was about 2 million.  Noteworthy, I did not include these publications in my bibliography at that time or for some years thereafter.

Then September 11, 2001!  INVESTOR’S DAILY noted the changes in the stairwells.  “In 1993, it took six hours to evacuate most of the Trade Center after terrorists detonated a bomb in an underground garage,…After the bombing, however, batteries were added to every other light fixture in stairwells…Handrails were painted with glow-in-the-dark paint, which was used to mark a continuous stripe down the middle of the staircases.”  The newspaper concluded, “…, despite missteps, evacuation was cut by several hours.”  I am quite proud.  I suspect that my letters may have helped spur these improvements, which on 9-11 may  have saved many lives.  I do not maintain that my letters alone were the cause of the improvements.  But highlighting the problem in newspapers with circulation of some 2 million readers, may have helped push the authorities to make the improvements cited in INVESTOR'S DAILY.  In that sense, my letters may have helped to save lives. 

It is quite possible that the most important thing I have done in my whole life is write a letter to the editors of several New York newspapers.-----Hugh Murray

Friday, September 7, 2012


Elizabeth Warren to DNC: The ‘system is rigged’ against you

By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 20 hrs ago
Hugh Murray  •  17 hrs ago
The system is rigged. Eliz. Warren pretends to be an Amerindian and wins affirmative action points so she gets a job that should have gone to someone else. And Harvard is so proud to employ a "minority woman." She is "passing" to get ahead, just as light-skinned Blacks used to do in the South. She prefers to be a fake Indian, with all the rewards, instead of fighting to end the racist programs of affirmative action. She refuses to support equality for all, and demands preferences for fake Indians like herself. Eliz. Warren wants to keep the system rigged against equal opportunity for all, and instead continue the preferences based on race, even a fake race.



·         Posted on September 6, 2012 at 12:41am by Jason Howerton Jason Howerton

Posted on September 6, 2012 at 12:22pm

Clinton gave a terrific speech. He presented an emotional, rational, approach to answering the GOP question, “Are you better today than 4 years ago?” Using his hands to illustrate, he maintained Obama’s policies provided a base that saved many, a base upon which to grow. Moreover, Obama saved us from a severe depression.
I strongly opposed the Obama Administration. However, to ignore Clinton’s performance is stupid. His presentation must be answered, and not by Charles’s dismissive comments. If R & R cannot answer the Clinton presentation – and it will be repeated in ads – then the GOP will lose.
To the Republicans I urge: start working on a reply to Bill Clinton!

Convention over, Obama hit with weak job report
By DONNA CASSATA and JULIE PACE | Associated Press – 11 hrs ago

Hugh Murray  •  11 hrs ago
In Obama's acceptance speech, he declared that in his just society we all play by the same rules. But Obama is a leader in denying that we all play by the same rules. He supports affirmative action; his Justice Dept. is now before the US Supreme Court defending affirmative action. What is affirmative action - a government imposed discrimination to prevent us all from playing by the same rules. AA means giving prefereences to this group or than, and denying equal opportunity to white men, sometimes white women, sometimes Chinese, Japaneses, etc. Affirmative action for some MEANS negative action for others. It means we do not play by the same rules. It is unfair, and unjust. And that is what the Obama Administration is all about - being unfair and being unjust.
When employers are forced to hire lesser qualified and unqualified workers to fill the affirmative action quota, their production suffers. One reason we have trouble competing with other nations now is because of the druggies, incompetents, lazies, unreliables that employers are forced to hire because of the govt.'s affirmative action programs.
Defeat Obama (the AA president), end AA, and America will prosper again.
  • Gary
0users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down0users disliked this comment
Gary  •  11 hrs ago Report Abuse
Yeah, funny how blacks don't want to be judged by the color of their skin...............except when it's to their benefit!
  • Mirage
0users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down0users disliked this comment
Mirage  •  11 hrs ago Report Abuse
Well said, Hugh!! I worked in a large EEO department for years, and have actually seen how inexperienced minorities are placed over competent experienced workers - based on minority race. It is the death of our American system of survival of the fittest (and smartest).