Featured Post



Friday, October 19, 2012


 (Oxford University Press, 2002), paperback
Rev. by Hugh Murray

                    Why was I disappointed with this book?  True, it is not a light read.  Describing debates to enact laws, the laws as enacted, the agencies to enforce those laws, the pressures by lobbyist organizations to construct “satisfactory” regulations of the laws, all this can be tedious.  My disappointment comes from his predictions however – Hugh Davis Graham, an expert on civil rights and immigration policy, in a book published in 2002, in his qualified, academic manner (one as interrupted as this sentence), implies the demise of affirmative action and mass immigration BECAUSE of the contradictions in the convergence of these two reform programs.
            This is also a disturbing book for it illustrates how little power American citizens have over our government.  Graham describes the combined effects of two major reforms of the mid-1960s – the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration Reform Act of 1965.
            As a consequences of these reforms, by the year 2000 some 26 million immigrants from Latin America and Asia immediately qualified for affirmative-action (hereafter AA) preferences over native-born white citizens.(p. 195)  That is, foreigners of color were given preferred chances at university admissions, scholarships, jobs, promotions, small business loans, and contracts over native-born white citizens.  The book was published in 2002, so today the number of foreign immigrants is even higher who receive these privileges that may be denied to American citizens.   Worse, in 2012 President Obama declared his semi-amnesty for illegal aliens who arrived when they were young, are under 30, etc.  The result of this Presidential edict will be not only that some million illegals jump to the front of the immigration line; they jump to the front of the employment line due to AA preferences for persons of color.
            In his introduction, Graham asks, “Why did immigrants qualify for AA benefits at all?”(11)  Though he goes into great detail, often wearisome recounting laws, court cases, lobbying groups, and although he is honest at depicting some of the negative results of these policies, overall his answer to his question is unsatisfactory.  “The primary fault lay not with the lobbyists but with a shortsighted, horse-trading system of policymaking grounded in the dynamics of client politics and the imperative of incumbent reelection.”(188)  This cumbersome answer is inadequate.
            Graham, an expert on civil rights policies, is aware that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not require hiring for racial balance in the work place, quotas, or for this policy’s more modern title, “diversity.”  Indeed, the 1964 law made quotas illegal, and hiring for racial balance was also illegal according to the bill’s spokesmen enunciated during the debates in Congress prior to passage.  A major reason for enactment of the 1964 law was to destroy the system of legalized segregation then prevalent in the South.  In employment, discrimination was to be eliminated by hiring on merit and not intentionally rejecting someone because of their race, ethnicity, religion, or even sex.  Merit hiring was to be the solution to the problems of segregation and discrimination.  The passage of the legislation was the culmination of the decades’ old struggle by liberals to treat people “without regard to race, creed, or color” (a phrase that epitomized the ideal, and even used by the NAACP from its early days and remained on its website long after the organization scorned that ideal).  This is why, prior to passage of the law, at the 1963 March on Washington Martin Luther King in his “I Have a Dream” speech spoke of a time when his children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.  Passage of the 1964 law was meant to enshrine that ideal and make it possible to achieve.
            After passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, one problem quickly rose: for many jobs, Blacks were not as well qualified as whites.  The bottom line was that many Blacks were incapable of competing with whites for jobs “playing by the same rules.” (This phrase was used by President Obama in 2012 in his State of the Union address, in his Democratic Party convention speech, and in the first debate with Republican candidate Mitt Romney.  Obama is a staunch extender and enforcer of AA, which insures that we do not play by the same rules; there being different rules for different groups.)  There were different explanations for the Blacks’ failure.  Some blamed it on poor schooling, some on poverty, some on “cultural deprivation,” others on genetics and low IQs.  The excuses were numerous, but the reality was that Blacks as a group were failing in qualifications and failing to be hired as they had hoped.
Though in the South, Black segregated schools were materially inferior to those of white pupils (as Southern schools, in general, were materially inferior to Northern ones), things were often quite different in the North, where even in the 19th century W. E. B. Du Bois had attended the same schools as did the whites, and this would be true in the 20th century for prominent figures like Malcolm Little – Malcolm X.
            Prior to 1964 in many Northern states with Fair Employment Policy panels, new problems were already surfacing.  Some Blacks who were not hired for certain positions believed the reason was racial discrimination.  However, employers could point to examinations, on which Blacks often performed poorly, or background checks revealing problems such as failures in school, truancy, even criminal records, all making these applicants objectively less qualified than the whites who were hired.  The discrimination these Blacks complained of was rational rather than racial.  There seemed to be no doubt that as a group, Blacks were not doing well academically, even in Northern schools.  Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who would later become a Democratic Senator for New York, wrote: “…the New York City school system, which had ‘transformed two generations of Jewish immigrants into the intellectual elite of the world’s most powerful nation, [was not]…able to bring its black students,…up to grade level’”(Graham, The Civil Rights Era, pp. 310-311).
            Interestingly, Moynihan was also one of the speech writers for President Lyndon Johnson, who in 1965 gave the first national presentation in his address at Howard University to justify racial preferences for Blacks.  In that address Johnson asserted: “…freedom is not enough…You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair.’”(Convergence, 77)
            While in the legally segregated South, many civil rights protests had been non-violent, or had sparked violence that originated with white protestors, white mobs, and white sheriffs, in the North Black protest suddenly morphed from peaceable to violent to riotous.  Beginning in 1965 with the riot in the Watts section of Los Angeles, Black riots soon spread throughout the North.  By 1968 riots left 250 Blacks dead, 8,000 wounded, 50,000 arrested in more than 300 riots in which an estimated half million Blacks had participated in burning and looting,
            The unquestioned assumption of the liberal ideology has been that since all people are basically equal, and all groups of humans are basically equal, then all should be hired in all professions at about an equal rate.  When Blacks are not so employed, there must be something wrong.  Blacks and their allies in the media and academia demanded answers as to why they were not hired in proportional numbers.  Suddenly, scholars were forbidden to maintain that the reason for Black failure might be genetic (those who made such claims, including a Nobel laureate and other prominent figures, were quickly isolated, denounced, and occasionally physically assaulted inside the academedia complex).  Meanwhile, the liberals, including a judge in an important case, maintained that the reason Blacks could not compete was because they were “culturally deprived.”  I recall a Black colleague sneering at that explanation – what do they mean, “culturally deprived”?  Blacks certainly had their own culture.  They may not have known as much about white culture, or they may have consciously rejected it.  But they were hardly culturally deprived.
            Other excuses abounded.  The 18-year-old failed a test because his great, great, great grandfather had been a slave; or someone had called him a n_____; or “Amos n Andy” were his only television role models, or whatever.  Under Democrat President Carter, EEOC leader Eleanor Holmes Norton had her own solution to the problem – Blacks could not pass the examinations because the exams were racist.  She began a war on testing, and used the full power of the federal government to prevent tests from being used in hiring for most positions.  She would allow tests only if Blacks could pass at the same percentage rate as whites, so exams had to be so diluted to the point that only idiots would fail.  As almost everyone would pass, then all were by definition “basically qualified,” and the government could force employers to then hire by quotas or face huge fines for discrimination.  The objective ceased to be to hire the best qualified, but to hire instead the “basically” qualified (or unqualified) minority or woman.  Because more Blacks than whites had failed high school, or had criminal records, the EEOC also sought to prevent employers for most positions from inquiring into the backgrounds of applicants, for that too might have a disparate impact on hiring Blacks by quota.
            When the federal government required that firms hire by racial quota, Blacks were hired.  Some were good workers.  But some were only “basically qualified” or less, frequently absent, on drugs, lazy, bullying, or even violent.  Hiring such workers demoralized the rest of the workforce and production declined.  City factories closed or moved to the suburbs or to other countries.  In the suburbs, there were fewer Blacks, and infrequent public transportation made such employment opportunities often inaccessible to inner-city residents.  So fewer Blacks were hired.
            Meanwhile, the same liberals who had assured Americans that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not a quota bill, had also assured Americans that the Immigration Act of 1965 would not result in massive increase of newcomers nor would it change the basic ethnic character of the nation.  Yet, rather quickly, there was a decline in immigration from Europe, the ancestral home of most Americans in 1965.  In 1960, before immigration reform, America was roughly 90% white and 10% Black (Info Please: 88.6% white; 10.5 Black; 0.9 others).  After the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, millions of immigrants began to enter the US from Mexico, Latin America, the West Indies, and Asia.
            In the debate over the immigration bill in 1965 Democrat Sen. Sam Ervin of North Carolina had warned that the proposed law was a mistake and would result in a major shift in America’s population, but a year earlier Ervin had, like almost all Southern Democrats, opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, warning that the civil rights law would result in quota hiring and anti-white discrimination.  Even though Sen. Ervin was to be proven right on the quota issue, his warnings on immigration were dismissed by the academedia complex as rantings of a Southern racist.  Sen. Ervin proved all too prescient on quotas and open border immigration.  Yet, aside from his role in the Watergate hearings (where liberals approved of his investigation into Nixon’s cover-ups), Ervin disappeared from history, which, after all, it is written by liberals.
            Unlike the erudite Prof. Graham, I do not believe that America simply stumbled upon the policies of AA quotas and open-border immigration.
          While Graham guardedly assumed that the AA and open immigration policies, when conjoined, are so unjust that it “poses a mortal danger to existing civil rights policy.”  The word quoted are from a blurb on the back cover of Graham’s Oxford U. Press paperback edition.  Was it the case that AA for Blacks was then in danger as a result of immigration?  Is it the case today?
            Because of his death as he was preparing a tour to promote this book shortly after publication, Graham would not have known about the US Supreme Court decision upholding AA in 2003.  What is most striking about that case is the list of friends-of-the-court briefs filed urging the court to retain AA policies and its race and other preferences.  Who filed these briefs?  Major corporations like Proctor & Gamble, Coca Cola, 3 M Corporation, General Motors; several prominent military figures, and various universities, as well as “civil rights” organizations of the Left determined to retain legal the discrimination against whites.  In reality, the military-industrial complex announced to the Supreme Court its decision: we want AA to continue.  This pressure on the Court had its effect.  The majority decision was composed by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, an appointee of “conservative” Republican Pres. Ronald Reagan.  Day O’Connor was so moved by some of the liberal friends-of-the-court briefs that she quoted from one in her majority decision.
            Despite the false assertions of the Left, the Establishment in America is often quite liberal.  The military sought to continue AA.  Big corporate America wanted to continue AA.  The academic administrators and star professors wanted to continue AA.  And though the media may not have filed the friends’ briefs, they were clearly delighted with the Court’s ruling upholding AA.
            In the next major AA case to reach the US Supreme Court, in 2012, the same scenario occurred.  The military-industrial complex again filed friends-of-court briefs contending that race and other preference procedures were essential in the military, in industry, in education, in America.
            Graham is astute in noting the contrast in the manner of achieving the reforms of the 1960s.  “Whereas civil rights reform was driven by mass—based social movement and was characterized by intense controversy, polarized voting blocs, regional tension, and high media visibility, immigration reform was primarily an inside-the-beltway effort, engineered by policy elites largely in the absence of public demand or controversy.”(9)
            The contrast in methods is clear, but it should not obscure the general unity of the Establishment on both issues.  What was the civil rights movement of the 1960s?  This was the collaboration of the civil rights activists, including those willing to be arrested, with the national media (and in some cases, with federal authorities) to expose the injustice of the system of segregation.  Langston Hughes mentions that he engaged in a restaurant sit-in in North Carolina in the 1920s.  Carl Bernstein as a child sat-in a restaurant with his mother and other members of the Progressive Party in Cold War Maryland.  We know of these because both participants were authors.  Surely there were other individual assaults on segregation, but they are not usually included in the “civil rights movement” because they were small or isolated events lacking national publicity.  Similarly in 1947 there was a Journey of Reconciliation, a precursor to what in 1961 would be known as a Freedom Ride.  Jim Peck partook in both journeys, was jailed in 1947 in Carolina, and badly beaten in the 1961 ride through segregated Alabama and Mississippi.  In Cold War 1947, the effort to integrate interstate buses was generally ignored; in 1961 it was both national and international news.  What had changed?  The South was still the South.  The integrationists were still integrationists.  What had changed?
            To some, the answer was simple: television.  When average Americans could see in their homes on the TV how peaceable protestors were being beaten by hateful, foul-mouthed, uncontrollable, over-the-top, violent thugs, some of whom wore police or sheriff’s uniforms, that so swayed people that by 1964 popular opinion supported passage of the Civil Rights Act and overwhelmingly defeated Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater who had voted against the legislation.  There is some truth to this interpretation.
            But more must be considered.  The first “televised” Olympic Games occurred in Berlin in 1936.  Although television was still a novelty, there were small theaters where patrons could view the screens.  Even though these were summer games, television was new, and some of the Olympic events on TV were displayed with a great deal of snow.  The point is that German television was advancing in the 1930s.  Suppose some Jews had staged a sit-in at a park where they were “unwelcome” or a swim-in at a pool reserved for Aryans.  Would that have been featured on a television channel, one that began its day with a young, attractive blond girl, outstretching her arm to greet the audience with “Heil Hitler”?  And in 1960 when the sit-ins were national news in the US, how would Soviet television have portrayed any protestors inside the USSR?
            The civil rights protestors could strive to overturn the segregationist legal system of the South because the protestors had the support of the liberal elite that controlled the national television networks, the major magazines, the major newspapers.   The protests would not be ignored.  The jailed would not be forgotten.  Even if local newspaper or media were hostile (WLBT in Jackson MS refused to carry national news and documentaries when they criticized segregation), the local elites did not have the clout of the national elites.  True, in the 1960s the elite that controlled the national television networks and the other media had been much the same as that which had dominated the radio networks of the 1930s and 1940s, so why didn’t the civil rights movement occur earlier?  In 1935?  1945?  Radio may have been less effective at stirring the emotions of the audience (though Orson Wells’ Martian invasion on the CBS Mercury Theater surely frightened a massive audience.)  Television may have made the violent images more vivid than any merely audio ones.  I have argued elsewhere that there was another more salient reason for the delay in the development of the civil rights movement, - many of the earlier radical racial protests movements had been linked to the Communist Party.  By the late 1940s especially, Communism was deemed the main enemy, and the elites did not want to promote any cause affiliated with Communism.  Thus, the very important civil rights struggles in the South in 1948 swirling around the Henry Wallace Progressive Party were either ignored or derisively reported by the mainstream media. 
            My general point is that the means to achieve the two major reforms discussed in Graham’s book may have been different; nevertheless it was the liberal elites, the Establishment, that supported both reforms.  Furthermore, there came a point when the Establishment and its supporters in government used their power in bureaucracy to change the Civil Rights Act into the quota law.  Graham is honest in writing history, but he fails to draw the logical conclusions from the facts he assembles.  In his Civil Right Era, Graham wrote impartially how AA, i.e., the quota system of hiring for racial balance, and granting preferences to the groups that could not compete fairly, developed in the bureaucracy despite the clear text and meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
            Originally, the civil rights reform endorsed by the elite did not include quotas or hiring for racial balance – not at first.  Recall, the 1964 Civil Rights Act actually forbade quota hiring.  But by the late 1960s, as it became clear that if everyone played by the same rules, Blacks as a group were unable to compete with whites, then ever more Blacks made it clear they did not care about “the same rules,” or any rules, and indulged themselves in violent riots and the slow-motion riots called violent crime.  (Graham notes that few such riots occurred in the South during this period as the walls of segregation were crumbling and life for Blacks was visibly improving.  But in the North, and Graham does not raise this question – had Blacks endured that much discrimination in the North?  That which they encountered, was it racial or rational discrimination?  And some Blacks in the North were actually receiving preferences prior to the Civil Rights Act and AA.  A young, Black graduate student at Boston University received his doctorate in theology even though he had plagiarized much of his dissertation.  Had he been white, would he have been awarded that degree?  Yet, today, we call him Dr. Martin Luther King.
            As Blacks were raising crime-rates and rioting, causing damage to property in major cities, the elite decided to appease the Blacks.  The government would crack down on some, especially those who opposed America’s foreign policy and the war in Vietnam, or who openly carried weapons.  So Black Panthers and Martin Luther King and others faced persecution and elimination.  But the NAACP, which had patriotically fired a founder, W. E. B. Du Bois in 1948 when he endorsed the Henry Wallace Progressive Party rather than Democrat Harry Truman, could be relied on, and other Black leaders might be bargained with.  What would be the bargain?  Scrap the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or rather retain its words but subvert it, and replace it with quota policies and preferences.  The elite in America chose to appease the violent Blacks by violating the rights of poor and middle-class whites.  Blacks would gain preferences and get jobs; whites would be denied equal opportunity and, if they grumbled,  ridiculed by the media as racists.
            It is at this point that the methods used in both the immigration and AA reformers merged.  Now, behind closed doors, the bureaucrats who changed immigration would change racial policy to require quotas.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was subverted, equal opportunity was denied, quotas were required.  How?   By bureaucrats and unelected judges, with collaboration from the media.  The academedia complex has been so effective in distorting history that most educated people believe that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 commanded quotas and racial balance in hiring. 
            And with the Ford Foundation, one can trace the overlap of the elite with the convergence of both AA and massive open-borders immigration policies.(115-17, 213)  Ford created and for some years subsidized La Raza and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.  These groups would do much to destroy the importance of citizenship and of assimilation into America.  At the same time, the Ford Foundation was seeking to tear America apart in other ways, funding the anti-white, anti-Jewish radical elements in Ocean Hills, in the fight against traditional teachers and curriculum.  Ford helped establish counter schools that stressed Black studies, and hired many Black nationalist teachers.   When the experiment folded, pupils from these schools usually performed worse on standardized tests than those who were taught by the traditionalists.  Ford was fomenting conflict between Anglos and Hispanics in Texas and conflict between Jews and Blacks in New York.
            While it is not Graham’s primary purpose, The New Leviathan a 2012 book by David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin, provides far more information on the Ford Foundation and the other massively financed Left-wing foundations that have supported AA, massive immigration, and the numerous other “reforms” aimed at destroying and displacing the white working class in the United States.  Despite the conventional wisdom, much of the big money available for political causes in the US is spent to foster the goals of the political Left.
Once this background is absorbed, one can more readily accept the words of Scott Farris, in Almost President, concerning the Republican Nixon Administration, “The Nixon administration [1969-75] was the last truly liberal administration of the twentieth century.  That legacy is obscured by liberal antipathy toward Nixon because of his history of Red-baiting, his policies in Vietnam, the Watergate Scandal, and Nixon’s conservative rhetoric.  But the words were not matched by deeds.  As liberal congressman Hugh Scott, a Dewey ally, said of Nixon’s administration, ‘The conservatives get the rhetoric, we get the action.’”(Farris, 147)

Moreover: “Under Nixon, wage and price controls were implemented, the EPA was created, the food stamp program was begun, affirmative action was put in place, and tax reform essentially freed the poor from having to pay income tax.  Nixon even called for comprehensive national health insurance, though he pursued the idea half-heartedly.”(Farris, 147)

Graham details the role of Nixon in making AA national policy in The Civil Rights Era, and he provides a summary account in Convergence.  His Civil Rights Era did not cover the Reagan era, but in Convergence Graham writes:  “The shift to diversity-based employment practices marked a fundamental transition in American business…It was this change, the embrace of affirmative action by American big business, that dismayed conservatives when the Reagan administration declined to rewrite the affirmative action executive order in the early 1980s.”(156)  And even after Reagan, when in 1994 the GOP won the House of Representatives for the first time in decades with Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America, “Congress under Republican control showed little enthusiasm for passing legislation to curb race-conscious affirmative action.”(Convergence, 171)
            Slighted in his discussion of AA for Blacks and immigrants is the very popular defense of AA constructed on the notion of white male privilege.  According to this view, all whites, even the poorest, receive advantages denied to non-whites, and therefore all non-whites deserve AA preference to compensate for the privileges heaped upon all whites, even the most down-trodden.  Those who espouse this view – a most popular one promoted by universities, government, and big business human resources diversity training and workshops, is to expose the privileged position of whites, especially white men, in American society.  At such sessions they expose how many CEOs, the prominent doctors, scientists, celebrities, in short the rich, are most often white men.  White men earn more than the rest of us, the trainers assert.  White men are over-represented among the elite.  They have more than their “fair share.”  AA is one method to reduce and curtail this injustice.
            Graham does include a table in Convergence relevant to this discussion: the median family income of ethnic groups in the US in 1969. (144)  the national average was of course 100%; Blacks earned a mere 62%, so the white-Black gap was 38%.  Yet, in the same survey, Jews earned 172% of the national average.  They Jewish-gentile gap was 70%.  The Left demanded AA for Blacks to close the relatively small Black-white gap.  But who demands AA to close the much larger Jewish-gentile gap?  The TV networks?  The New York Times or Washington Post?  What leading academic?  On the larger gap, there is utter silence?  While there are government sponsored work-shops on white male privilege, and articles and books on the same, where is there information in the main stream media about Jewish privilege?  Or a demand to close the gap with gentiles?  On this topic, the academedia complex is not simply silent, it would be horrified if anyone raised this issue.
            Jews were especially important in subverting the Civil Rights Act into the quota law.  Personnel is policy, and one should examine some of the personnel involved in making the decision which in fifty years would drastically alter the nature of America.
            Many of the Fair Employment Policy laws forbid discrimination, not only regarding race and ethnicity, but also on religious grounds.  Indeed, religion was also incorporated into the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Yet, when the agency set to enforce the Civil Rights Act, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), came under the leadership of Alfred Blumrosen, he set about not to enforce, but to subvert the law.  (Graham’s CRA titles a subsection of that book, “The EEOC as a Subversive Bureaucracy,” (190)  For example, the law required that his agency not send certain questionnaires to businesses in states with FEP commissions, but he defied the law anyway.  And his questionnaire asked employers about the race of their employees.  (Until then, the objective of many liberals had been to remove the racial designations of employees).  Then, the EEOC went after those who employed lower percentages of Blacks than the EEOC determined that they should hire.  Although the law forbade quota hiring or hiring to achieve a racial balance, that is precisely what Blumrosen, and his colleague Sonia Pressman did.  They were joined in their push for quotas by bureaucrats from various agencies, Labor’s Laurence Silberman, and the EEOC’s Stephen Schulman and, via the Anti-Defamation League, Herman Edelsberg.  Quite simply, Jews were prominent in developing the quota plans for the US, and in making certain that the quotas would not apply to Jews.  Under President Nixon, the quota program for Blacks embedded in the Philadelphia Plan was extended into a national policy and extended further to include Hispanics, Amerindians (I was born in the US, so I am a native American), women, and some Asians.  Of course, the federal agencies were demanding data from corporations regarding their workforce’s composition, and then demanding racial, ethnic, and sometimes sexual balance, despite the clear wording and meaning of the law.  Why no questions about religion?  Why no religious balance?
            Graham writes that the religious issue did arise concerning Small Business minority set-asides, but nothing came of it because of the Constitutional provision of separation of church and state.(Convergence, 147)  This is a sleight-of-hand response.  After all, in his address to the nation on civil rights, 28 February 1963, President John Kennedy declared that the American Constitution is “color blind.”  Then, why was the EEOC inquiring about color and race and ethnicity?  That assertion did not prevent Blumrosen, Pressman, et al from demanding information about race and ethnicity so they could impose racial quotas and AA preferences.  I would suggest that the real reason that Blumrosen and company did not inquire about the religious composition of the workforce, is because they did not want to expose the overrepresentation of their coreligionists in certain lucrative fields.  This had little to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with the religious backgrounds of those in charge of the bureaucracy.
            Yet, the elite is not simply Jewish.  Horowitz and Laksin have done a superb job in exposing the vast wealth controlled by foundations.  Though the money came originally from business men, who were often conservative, like Henry Ford and H. John Heinz III, the foundations they created often drifted after their deaths to the far Left.  I suspect many Protestants are involved in doling out millions of conservative-earned dollars to Left Wing causes from these foundations.  And the Roman Catholic Church has been quite influential in the struggle for open-door immigration, especially as many of the illegals are Roman.
            Over the past five decades white American citizens have been displaced from jobs, driven as refugees from their old neighborhoods by racist, violent criminals, bullied and beaten from many public schools, mugged, and even when they were the best qualified, they were denied admission to university, denied scholarships, denied jobs, denied promotions, contracts, small business loans, - all because they were white.  And all of these injustices performed in the  name of “equal opportunity.”  Preferences went to lesser and unqualified Blacks, Hispanics, or others.  And the immigrants keep coming?  If you were a person of color, why not?
            The vast majority of Americans never wanted these policies – even Graham concedes that.  Yet, as the Democrats have become the official non-white and (covertly) anti-white party, the Republicans make speeches against AA and against open borders.  But once elected and in power, most Republicans followed their big-business contributors who want AA and cheap labor.  The elite make the policies for both parties.  The rhetoric differs, but the policy that few Americans want remains the same.  Meanwhile, the heirs of the Americans of 1950 face ever growing discrimination, displacement, and dispossession.      

Sunday, October 14, 2012

US Presidential Election - One month to go

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.

We should not curb our freedoms to appease the Muslims. And Hillary Clinton's advisor with connections to the Muslim Brotherhood should be investigated.

My comment on the story:

The blind sheikh was involved with the attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993.  He should have been executed.  One assumes he cheered the events of 9/11.  Now Obama's pro-Muslim-fanatics Administration plans to transfer the terrorist to Muslim Brotherhood Egypt.  Michele Bachmann is right to demand investigations into Muslim Brotherhood influence on Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama.
One hopes the American people will evict the pro-Muslim Brotherhood, pro-terrorist crowd from the White House this November.

Obama witch doctor to stay, creator vows

By JILIAN FAMA | ABC News – 19 hrs ago

ABC News - Obama Witch Doctor to Stay, Creator Vows (ABC News)

Hugh Murray  •  10 hrs ago
The hammer and sickle, symbol of Communism, seems appropriate for Obama. His mentor in Hawaii was a member of the American Communist Party. He appointed Van Jones as a green Czar, and Jones had connections to communism. Obama was connected on boards with convicted terrorist Ayres. Obama was a member of the hate-whitey and the West church in Chicago for 20 years. His administration promoted the Arab Spring, that brought to power the fanatical Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Obama's administration pretends that terrorism has not occurred under his terrible administration yet at Fort Hood, a Muslim terrorist killed fellow soldiers, and his trial is delayed because he refuses to shave!! Another Muslim terror attack on Times Square failed because of an alert vendor. Hillary's pro-Muslim Brotherhood advisor may have prevented proper security for our mission in Lybia.
Were Obama a witch doctor, that might be an improvement over the real Obama who hates the West, supports Muslim fanatics, imposes socialist medicine on America, and provides amnesty for a million more illegals, who will soon receive affirmative action preferences so they will get jobs, scholarships, grants, contracts, more easily than native-born American citizens.

 At a fancy bar in New York City walking through the revolving door comes an imam, a rabbi, and a priest.

The bartender asks, 

"Is this a joke?"  

Shortly after, coming through the same door, a Marxist, an illegal, and a Muslim. 

 The bartender says, 

"Hello, Mr. President."