SORRY

Dear Readers, 
    Sorry I have not posted much lately.  In Nov. 2015 I had a serious loss of vision in my good eye.  I was already contending with loss of vision due to glaucoma in both eyes, but suddenly I could read at only a very slow pace.  And about a week ago, I knew something else was wrong, and the doctors diagnosed it a shingles.  To call it the chicken pox of the elderly is an inappropriate description. as it is quite painful.  Consequently, many items of daily maintenance simply are done much slower - if at all.
      I am pleased that according to the blog stats, about 45,000 of you have  read something on my blog.  I hope to return to reviewing and commenting when I feel better. 
       Hugh Murray

MERRICK GARLAND, 4TH JEW ON US SUPREME COURT? 5 CATHOLICS, ZERO PROTESTANTS

    If Pres. Obama's nominee for the US Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, is confirmed, the result will be 5 Roman Catholics, 4 Jews, and no Protestants.  America is about 50% Protestant.  At the birth of our nation it ws over 90% Protestant.  Obama, the Left, and liberal Republicans, are always playing the proportional representation game, - Blacks are under represented here, women under represented there, Hispanics under represented here and there.  Yet, the Left never mentions the change in America's highest court (the nation's major judicial body and unfortunately, in recent decades, the nation's major legislative body too).  Roman Catholics 20 to 25% of the American population have composed 67% of the Supreme Court.  If Garland is confirmed, the Catholics on the High Court will be reduced to 55%.  Jews, a mere 2% of the American population would then constitute 44% of the Supreme Court.  Protestants, about 50% of Americans, will have ZERO members of the Court.
    Obama must have vetted Garland concerning his views on affirmative action.  Liberal Republicans and most Democrats favor the policy of granting special privileges to Blacks, Hispanic, women, and other groups who are under represented in various fields.  The media (invariably Leftist) pushes the issue.  Thus we hear Blacks were under represented in Academy Award nominations; Hispanics are under represented among physicists; women are under represented among engineers; etc.  The underlying theory is that all groups are equally talented in all fields and should be proportionally represented in all fields - otherwise, there is discrimination.  But Garland. one of the men who undoubtedly believes this (else Obama would never have nominated him), Garland, if confirmed, would become a total hypocrite.  Jews, 2% of the American population would be 44% of the court.  Gentiles, 98% if the American population, would be grossly under represented, reduced to 55% of the Court.  And Protestants, the largest religious group in the US, are entirely eliminated!  Such is "diversity" under liberals like Obama.
    If Merrick Garland is confirmed as a Justice to the US Supreme Court, he will undoubtedly vote to impose quotas on others.  Yet, by taking the post, Garland shows that he exempts his group, and himself from such quotas.  It is hypocrisy; it is a double-standard; and it is certainly not justice. 

    The crowd that cheers when news makers predict whites will be a minority in our own nation by 2050, think it will be just as easy as the displacement of the Protestant majority on the US Supreme Court.  The groups most responsible for creating this nation are being shunted aside, demonized, and being prepared for open discrimination and oppression.

         Hugh Murray

THE CROSS OF PERSECUTION, OR IS IT?

     Last week on Yahoo News there was a long article about persecution of Christians in China evidenced by the forced removal of crosses from Christian churches.  The new Chinese Communist government policy may be causing a rupture among Roman Catholics between the officially recognized, above ground church, and the underground one more loyal to Rome.  The removal of the crosses was the symbol of the new persecution, according to the article.
    Also last week, I think on Breitbart, one learned that in Germany some Christian churches are are voluntarily removing their crosses so as not to offend many of the new immigrants - who are Muslim.
     Hugh Murray

TRUMP VS THE DISRUPTORS OF DEMOCRACY

by HUGH MURRAY

            I heard the last few remarks by Cokie Roberts on National Public Radio this morning telling the NPR audience how bad it is for America internally and around the world to have images of these violent protests at Trump rallies, and, being a good liberal, blaming Trump for the violence.  On the leftist cable network, MSNBC, one commentator (perhaps Rachel Madow) blamed Trump for the Friday night troubles in Chicago because he had booked his rally at the University of Chicago.  Why there?  She assured viewers that that is not a Republican area, there are no Republicans there, and there has not been a Republican rally in that area that she could recall.  Just booking the Trump rally in that location was a provocation.  Therefore, Trump was causing trouble.  One TV reporter interviewed a Black who summarized that belief, “Trump does not belong here (in Chicago).”

            Trump is an American citizen, the leading candidate of a major political party running for President of the USA.  He has the right to visit and speak in any American city.  Chicago is also home to thousands of illegal aliens, invaders of the US, but the Democrats proclaim they have a right to be in Chicago or anywhere else in the US.

            For decades, many universities have become enclaves where conservatives are denied the right to express their opinions.  True, in the 1950s and 60s, Communists were barred from teaching and often even appearing on campus as an invited speaker.  The Free Speech Movement at Berkeley in California led to an easing of restrictions, and the Left was permitted to have tables to display, give away and sell, material in support of the SNCC, CORE, and other civil rights organizations, and other causes.  But in the 60s, new restrictions on speech began to appear.  When Nobel Prize winner William Shockley asserted there were racial differences in intelligence, he was shouted off the stage, and Hans Eysenck, a distinguished psychologist, whose research demonstrated racial differences, he was punched in the face when he addressed a university audience in Australia.  As universities sought to increase Black student enrollment, often through affirmative action (admitting lesser and unqualified students), these students often became the foot soldiers to enforce left-wing conformity on campus.  By the 1990s, even a prominent Black advocate of equal opportunity and the end of affirmative action was shouted down and not permitted to speak at the U. of Wisconsin, Madison, and he had similar shut-downs at other campuses.  The Left demands a veto on what is said on campus.

            Bottom line, the Left, which often controls universities, does NOT believe in free speech.  The left wing “Free Speech Movement” was an example of bait and switch.  They wanted free speech for their groups; but once they had that, they sought to suppress those who disagreed with them.  And they have done so.  Even hiring faculty in the softer areas usually requires a Left wing certificate of approval.  Some of the lesser colleges require you write an essay on “diversity” as part of your application.  Today’s universities solve the denial of free speech with finesses – hate speech is not free speech.  If you oppose the invasion of America by millions of the  “undocumented,” you are condemned as a hater.  No speech for you.  Of course, in the past, if you supported invasion of the US, you were guilty of treason. (And you still are).  But that too is now considered hateful, and the university does not want that heard.

            So Trump hired a hall at the University of Chicago.  And the far-left wing millionaire, George Soros, with one of his many front-groups apparently helped organize the anti-Trump “protestors” in Chicago.  Several months ago out West Socialist Bernie Sanders had a rally aimed at the elderly, where he might present his message.  He was interrupted, and 2 bullying members of Black Lives Matter demanded the mike.  Sanders yielded the microphone – and his rally – to the BLM bullies!  If he cannot control his own rally, how will he be able to control the office of the Presidency?  The elderly had gone to hear Bernie on issues of the aged.  Instead, they heard from the anti-white (a group that rejects All Lives Matter) BLM.  Typical Left-wing bait and switch.  Shortly after, Trump announced he would not allow BLM to take over his rallies.

            The Left wants to take over all rallies.  They took over the Bernie Sanders rally.  They have interrupted Hillary Clinton at her rally.  Bernie appeased them.  Hillary appeased them.  Why appease these anti-white, pro-crime organizations?  Trump refuses to yield.  His supporters have fought back.  That is a “crime” to the Left, perhaps the only crime according to the Left.  Furthermore, there may be some protestors, but many are at Trump rallies to disrupt, opstruct, and prevent him from being heard.  They are disrupters, trying to prevent a major candidate for President from being heard.  They are trying to destroy the democratic process by denying people from hearing a major candidate.

            Naturally, one expects the Kokie Roberts (daughter of 2 Congresspersons, both Democrats) to attack Trump and defend the protestors.  One expects similar analysis from Left wing MSNBC, New York Times, WaPo, etc.  Sadly, however, other Republican candidates have attacked Trump for causing the trouble – Rubio, Kasich, and to some extent Cruz.  They utterly miss the point.  If Trump were to drop out of the running tomorrow, the Soros-funded Left-wing anarchists, communists, BLM, OWS, would suddenly try to shut down Cruz, then Rubio, then Kasich.  Soros is a convicted criminal in France.  He is accused of overthrowing various governments around the world with his NGOs.  He seeks to prevent Americans from choosing out President in a democratic manner.

            One hopes Trump will never yield to these thugs.  

DAVID DUKE. TRUMP, OBAMA, NEW BLACK PANTHERS

                             by Hugh Murray
    The media are making much of Donald Trump's alleged hesitancy to condemn David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan.  Today, former GOP nominee for President Mitt Romney condemned Trump in part because his comments on Duke will be used many times by the Democrats should Trump be nominated by the Republicans in 2016.
    Romney displays one major reason he lost his bid for the presidency in 2012 - he refuses to stand up agsinst the Left and the Democrats.  In March 2007 at a church in Selma, Alabama, at a gathering to commemorate the 1960s civil rights march across the bridge going to the state capital in Montgomery, candidate for the Democratic nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama spoke.  Another speaker was Pastor Estella Shabazz who brought greeting from leaders of the New Black Panther Party.  Their leaders were outside the church, unable to get through the large crowd, but she wanted to assure the audience that the NBPP supported Obama for president in 2008.  Later, during a march to recreate the earlier one, the leaders of the NBPP walked behind Obama with the Black Power slaute.  Members of the NBPP have been recorded on tape urging the extermination of all white people, white men, white women, white babies.  Once elected President, one of the first actions of the Obama Administration was to drop charges of voter intimidation that had been filed against the NBPP.  (Read J. Christian Adams' INJUSTICE. pp. 103=104 and the photos).
     Trump has not marched beside KKK units.  Trump has not shared a stage with a David Duke and received his endorsement.  And Duke's KKK (there are many versions of the organization) has never to my knowledge advocated violence.  The NBPP members, by contrast, have openly called for the extermination of all whites.  Obama marched beside them.  Obama shared a platform with them.  Obama won their endorsement.  Obama dropped charges against them.  AND THE MEDIA ARE WORRIED ABOUT TRUMP?!
     I shared a TV screne with David Duke, by the way.  WPIX-TV (New York City, channel 11)          “Best Talk in Town” 24 February 1987, 11-11:30 am.  This panel on race comprised: William Tatum, editor of the Amsterdam News (New York’s leading Black newspaper); Rev. Calvin Butts of Harlem's Abyssinian Baptist Church; David Duke of the NAAWP and former leader of the Ku Klux Klan; and myself.  I disagreed with all the other panelists.  This was a memorable debate.

Recalling the debate, I said little compared to the other three panelists.  When Duke declared he was for equal rights for all, I challenged him saying that in Louisiana I was for that and that is why I fought against segregation and was arrested in the first sit-in in New Orleans.  I remineded people that his background was for preferences - segregation and preferences for whites.  In effect, the half hour was 3 people against Duke.  The producers so liked the show, they decided to tape a 2nd half hour to be shown the next day, but we would continue in the studio.  Now the topic turned to affirmative action, and suddenly I was with Duke arguing that it was racial discrimination against white people.  It was now 2 against 2.  The producers decided this was not nearly as good, and they never telecast the 2nd hour.  WPIX was not a network channel, but it was owned by the NY Daily News and had a sizable audience.