COLLISION COURSE - THE ELITE VS. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

COLLISION COURSE: THE STRANGE CONVERGENCE OF

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND IMMIGRATION POLICY IN AMERICA

 (Oxford University Press, 2002), paperback

By HUGH DAVIS GRAHAM

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 19^th century W. E. B. Du Bois had attended the same schools as did the whites, and this would be true in the 20^th 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.      

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.

US STATE DEPT. CONSIDERS RELEASING BLIND SHEIKH TO EGYPT

My comment on the story:

MURAHU

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

• 
  

Enlarge Photo

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

• 
  Enlarge Photo
  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."

RE: BETTINA APTHEKER'S AUTOBIOGRAPHY

 INTIMATE POLITICS: HOW I GREW UP RED,

FOUGHT FOR FREE SPEECH, AND BECAME A FEMINIST REBEL

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 28^th 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 3^rd 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?

OBAMA CAVES TO MUSLIM DEMANDS

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

Murahu 2 days ago

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.

RESPECT PRESIDENT OBAMA - COMMANTURD-IN-CHIEF

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

DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST - LETTERS

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!

-Vijay

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.

                 Hugh

Comments on News 14-16 September, 2012

‘SPOKESMAN’ FOR ANTI-MUHAMMAD FILM SPEAKS OUT ON ISLAMIST PROTESTERS: ‘THEY’RE PRE-INCITED, THEY’RE PRE-PROGRAMMED TO DO THIS’

MURAHU

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

Murahu 2 days ago

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

Murahu

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.

• 

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.

• 

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.

Collapse Replies

• 

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.