DEMOCRATS INTIMIDATE, EXTORT, AND SUPPRESS FREEDOM

DEMOCRATS INTIMIDATION, EXTORTION, AND SUPPRESSION

OF FREE SPEECH IN WISCONSIN

            Wisconsin State Sen. Lena Taylor, a Democrat, last week called for a boycott of Andy’s Gas Station, located in her district.  The reason for the boycott – the owner of the station has contributed to Republican candidates.  When questioned about her urging of this and other boycotts, like Georgia Pacific, Dixie Cups, etc., she spoke of the need to support democracy. 

Sen. Taylor is really openly advocating extortion.  If the gas station is boycotted, it might go out of business, a bad sign in her district that includes many unemployed.  But if the owner succumbs to her threats, and stops supporting the Republicans, then what?  Will Sen. Taylor not demand that he positively contribute to “democracy” and the Democratic Party, and her campaign in particular.  This is extortion.  Sen. Taylor, is not interested in promoting democracy; on the contrary, she aims to restrict any and all who oppose her political views.  This is how she treats the minority in her district.

And what happened earlier in 2011.  When she and her Democratic colleagues were the minority in the State Legislature, she was among several who fled the state, to prevent a quorum, and thereby obstruct the majority of the people and the majority of the Wisconsin legislature.

Not only did the Democrats induce thousands to occupy much of the Wisconsin State Legislature earlier this year, making democracy almost impossible by shouting, drumming, singing, and at times hurling insults at legislators with whom they disagree or wrestling guards who tried to prevent them pushing inside the building.

The nonsense and intimidation continued even after the Democrats failed to defeat a Wisconsin Supreme Court judge and then failed to win a majority in the State Senate in recall elections.  But even into the night the wackos sit outside the State Capitol building in Madison drumming and shouting and disturbing the peace.

One bully daily drives his car in front of the home of Gov. Walker and honks and flips the finger and hurls insults.  National Rep. Ryan of Wisconsin has been insulted by other crazies while he tries to eat with family in friends in a restaurant.  And last week, while several Republican state legislators were enjoying drinks at a pub across the street from the Capitol, some more unruly nuts poured beer on the head of one, and it spilt onto others.

The Democrats are so certain that their way is the only way, they do not believe in dissent.  And they will bully, intimidate, extort, to get their way.  This is what Acorn used to do to bank executives.  And of course, Obama, the community organizer, probably favored such intimidation.  When Glenn Beck went to a concert in a New York park, a Leftist poured wine down the back of his wife.

In some areas of Wisconsin, union leaders declared that Republicans were not welcome in the Labor Day Parades.  One mayor retorted that if the city paid for the parade, all were welcome.  And if Republicans were excluded, then the city would not pay.

The Democrats are using bullying tactics because they know their policies are unpopular.  They do not believe in free speech and shout down speakers who disagree with them on university campuses.

Last week in Madison, WI, an organization that supports civil rights had sued the U. of Wisconsin Madison because it denies equal opportunity to whites and Asians, and gives favoritism to Hispanics and Blacks.  Naturally, the liberal university sought to hide its methods of discrimination.  The organization sued the university and had to go all the way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court before the university was forced to reveal its methods and the extent of its racist, discriminatory practices.  Last week a spokesman of the organization was to present the results of their efforts to the public.  Leftwing protestors were at first outside the hotel where the event was to occur, but eventually one broke in and then others, people being tackled, and the press conference was disrupted and ended.

Simply, the Democrats do not believe in free speech.  They do not believe in equal opportunity, if that means an equal opportunity for whites and Asians.  They do not believe in allowing people to contribute to the party of their choice, without fear of losing a job or going out of business.  Democrats do believe they have the right to pour wine on opponents, pour beer on opponents, throw pies at opponents, disturb the neighborhoods in which opponents reside, disturb the piece, and use thuggery to advance their narrow views.

Republican should begin to introduce legislation to end the thuggery.  

World Trade Center stairs, 9/11, and Hugh Murray

There are times when we are not always aware of the importance of our own words.  In the early 1980s I worked in New York City in the World Trade Center.  One day, the elevators were broken, and rather than await the repairs, (a huge crowd was already waiting to board the elevators to get to work too), I chose to walk up to the office located on the 38th floor.  After the 9^th floor, there were no more lights in the stairwell.  Around the 11^th floor, I placed y hand before my face, but could not see it.  It was that dark.  One could hear the building sway with the wind, the heavy grinding of the metal so it could be flexible.  Going up, I had to grip the rail, and because employees in the building often did not want to go all the way down to eat lunch, or remain at their desks, some would eat on the stairwell, and leave their empty bottles and other trash.  When lit, it was easy to avoid such impediments.  But in the blackened stairwell, for each step, I had to use my foot as a broom, to push any item on which I might trip away to the side.  I reached my office on the 38^th floor, gripping the handrail at each step in the pitch dark.  When I opened the door on the 38 floor, all the office lights were functioning normally and the early crew was working as usual.  I was stunned that the electricity for the elevators and the lights for the stairs might be on the same circuit, malfunctioning at the same time.  I complained at that time to my union representative, and may have written my complaint to OCEA, a government agency that might handle such problems.  However, shortly thereafter I left the job, and never knew the outcome of my complaint.

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

Then September 11, 2001!  INVESTOR’S DAILY noted the changes in the stairwells.  “In 1993, it took six hours to evacuate most of the Trade Center after terrorists detonated a bomb in an underground garage,…After the bombing, however, batteries were added to every other light fixture in stairwells…Handrails were painted with glow-in-the-dark paint, which was used to mark a continuous stripe down the middle of the staircases.”  The newspaper concluded, “…, despite missteps, evacuation was cut by several hours.”  I am quite proud.  I suspect that my letters may have helped spur these improvements, which on 9-11 may have saved many lives.

We can never be sure of the consequences of our actions, or inactions.  But sometimes we can be proud of what we thought were minor acts.  That is much better than grieving because we failed to do something simple.

History Channel, LBJ and the John Kennedy Assassination

   According to a British newspaper, Jackie Kennedy expressed her suspicions that Lyndon Johnson was involved in the assassination of her husband, John Kennedy, will be revealed when tapes from the era are released next week.  This will be televised on ABC-TV in the US.  Interestingly, the History Channel several years ago ran an hour-long program centering an a mistress of Lyndon who maintained he was responsible for the murder of President Kennedy.  After complaints, probably from the court historians and court politicians, History announced it would no longer telecast that hour for it diminished the high standards of the channel.  So rather than impugn the integrity of former President Johnson, History Channel runs hours of such high-level programs like Ancient Aliens.
   On the other side, the History Channel pulled out of a biographical program on the Kennedys when the family objected.  There was speculation that the writing was too Republican.  Although Katie Holmes and other stars were featured in the film, it was not shown on History Channel.
   It is interesting that at least two riders in the limo in which JFK was killed, his wife and Gov. Connely of Texas, did not believe the official lone-nut story of the assassination.

Jobs Bill for America: Not Obama's

HOW TO CREATE MILLIONS MORE AMERICAN JOBS:

NOT OBAMA’S JOBS BILL

            Tonight President Obama presented his “Jobs Bill” to Congress and the American people.  His proposal exposed that he is not really interested in creating jobs for Americans.

            America has been losing jobs to foreigners for decades.  Obama and the liberal Republicans seem to believe there is nothing, or little, that America can do to stem the tide.  Obama and the liberal Republicans are WRONG.

            There are an estimated 10 to 15 million illegal aliens in the United States.  Either they are working or they are not.  If they are working, they are foreigners who do not belong in the United States.  They should not be working here; they should not be here.  Deport them.  Many of those millions of jobs in construction and factories could then be filled by Americans.

            If the illegals are not working, they may be on welfare of some kind or another.  Deport them.  This will save hospitals, schools, and welfare agencies considerable sums of money.  If they are in jail, when they have served their time, deport them.  They do not belong in the US to break our laws again.

            To provide greater protection for American workers, the government would have to hire more Border Patrollers, more Immigration inspectors, and people to construct a wall where necessary on the border with Mexico.

            The result of my proposal would be millions of more Americans employed, replacing illegal foreign labor.  Furthermore, many welfare agencies would save considerable sums now spent on illegals.  Finally, there would be a safer border to protect Americans from further invasions of illegals who may want out welfare, our jobs, to distort or destroy our culture, or who may simply be terrorists.  America would be safer, and more prosperous with my job proposal.  Can the same be said of Obama’s?

                        Hugh Murray

London Riots, Milwaukee Flash Mobs, Liberal Injustice

Below are 3 of my comments sent to the NYT online concerning thieves, looting, and the lack of punishment that encourages the criminal class..  Two of my comments were added to the NYT site, but then one of these was removed by the moderator.

Opinion

READERS' COMMENTS

Is London Burning?

Have the London riots exposed the weaknesses in Prime Minister David Cameron's leadership?

Share your thoughts.

Your Submitted Comments

Display Name

Hugh Murray 

Location

Milwaukee 

Comment

In Milwaukee today a man was found guilty of 2nd degree manslaughter for killing a "youth" who sought to rob from a scrap yard where the poor white man lived and worked. This is why there are riots in London and flash mobs in Milwaukee and Philadelphia and Chicago, etc. A poor man who tries to keep his job and prevent stealing from the business is convicted of a crime. Of course, his crime is trying to maintain an honest society, one the liberal courts and police are unable to do. In this instance, the real criminal did pay for this theft, but most often the thieves get away with it. The poor and honest are the victims of liberal society. The liberal elite, in the UK and the US, hates it when the poor defend their small properties, even a back pack, from the violent criminals.
The solution is easy. In schools, bring back the cane and permit corporal punishment. Expel those who disrupt. Have a harsh, bread-and-water type camp for those expelled. Cut off all welfare to unwed mothers, and provide it only for the physically and mentally disabled. And of course, have a quick, public, system of executing murderers. Crime would suddenly decrease, people could go out at night without fear from the criminal class, and some of the government's new surplus would go to retrain social workers so their sympathy would go to real victims and not the criminal class.

Display Name

Hugh Murray 

Location

Milwaukee 

Comment

Last week in Milwaukee a pregnant woman was shot and killed, while her young son watched. She refused to surrender her purse to a teenage criminal. The teen shooter had been released after involvement with the death of another person earlier. What does this have to do with London? In the West, liberal domination allows criminals to get away with their crimes. Yesterday in Milwaukee a poor man who lives at a scrap yard shot and killed a "youth," who sought to steal. The loot and plunder mentality is not limited to mobs in London. But in Milwaukee a jury today convicted the poor, honest man of manslaughter. He should be given a medal for protecting his property, shabby as is may be to some. The wealthy liberal elite cannot understand someone trying to stop thievery of scrap, or of TVs, of of jeans. If the London kid whose rucksack was robbed, had he shot the thief, the elite would condemn him for protecting his measly backpack. The liberal elite does not understand.
There is rioting in London and flash mobs in Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc., but the criminal class gets away with crime. The poor and honest pay for the "compassion" of the rich liberals. They pay in fear, in loss of property, in scars, and sometimes in lost lives. Until police are able and willing to use all means to stop crime, then the poor and honest must take appropriate measures on their own. The liberal elite has unleashed the criminal class. Dunn's book Death By Liberalism estimates such liberal "compassion" has cost America alone 250,000 lives of honest citizens. One hopes the UK will crack down and end the welfare policies that have fostered the growth of the criminal class. The class war in the UK, and in the US has pitted the criminal class (with its wealthy elite allies) against the poor and honest folks.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

August 13, 2011, 2:05 PM

English Historian Blames Black Culture for Riots

By ROBERT MACKEY

 

David Starkey, who has presented several documentaries on the Tudor period, said during a BBC debate: “the problem is that the whites have become black — a particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture has become the fashion — and black and white, boy and girl, operate in this language together; this language, which is wholly false, which is a Jamaican patois, that’s been intruded in England, and this is why so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country.”

Your Submitted Comments

Display Name

Hugh Murray

Location

Milwaukee

Comment

When I lived in Scotland decades ago, there were almost no people of color. Those there, were mostly at university, along with a few refugees from Kenya's Black-racist policies. Scotland was a more homogeneous society, not subject to the disasters of "diversity." I suspect that is still the case, and may explain the lack of riots in Scotland.

DiLorenzo's Distorted Mask on Lincoln

LINCOLN UNMASKED: WHAT YOU’RE NOT
SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT DISHONEST ABE
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo (New York: Crown Forum, 2006)

            A book should stand on its own; this one is unbalanced, distorted, and a disappointment.  DiLorenzo does present a strong case that the founders of this nation conceived of it as another confederation of sovereign states, with each capable of seceding should the need arise.  In support of this view, he cites Jefferson and Madison, the supporters of New England’s Resolutions during the War of 1812, the Nullification crisis in South Carolina over the “Tariff of Abominations,” and even the refusal of some Northern states to abide by the Fugitive Slave Act.  In short, DiLorenzo has written a legal brief for the right of secession, and he refers to the military conflict, not as the Civil War, but as “the War between the States.”  Although mentioning Pres. James Buchanan only regarding the tariff, in reality Di Lorenzo has provided a defense of Buchanan’s late policy of allowing the Union to dissolve.

            However, there is more to the story.  When small-government advocate, Jefferson, as president, purchased the Louisiana Territory from France, where was the Constitutional justification for such an act – one that nearly doubled the size of the nation and promised to respect the rights of the Catholic population?  And while Democratic Vice President Calhoun was championing states rights and nullification in the 1830s, Democratic President Jackson was just as determined to squelch it.  (There was an equestrian statue to honor the “hero of New Orleans” in what became known as Jackson Square in that city.  During the Civil War, once the largest city of the Confederacy had been captured by the Union, General “Beast” Butler added an inscription to the base of the statue.  Added were some of Jackson’s words, “Our Union: it must be preserved.”)

            While many Americans, abolitionists and slavocrats, may have believed that any state could simply secede from the Union, I think it clear that many more Americans, including Democrats like Jackson, Andrew Johnson, and Stephen Douglas, opposed that view.  So did the Republican Party.  The majority of Republicans supported Lincoln in his determination to retain Fort Sumter in the harbor of Charleston in 1861, even if rebels fired upon it.  Northerners agreed enough with Lincoln to answer his call for troops against the rebellion.

            DiLorenzo rightly exposes Lincoln’s views on race – he favored Black emigration to Africa, to Haiti, to Central America.  He did not believe Blacks and whites could live together in equality.  By today’s politically correct standards, Lincoln was a racist.  (Of course, by those standards, who isn’t?)  Like many Northerners, he may have opposed slavery because he did not want Blacks living in the free states.

            But did Lincoln change any of his views over time?  Could he have held two seemingly contradictory views at the same time?  While in 1861 Lincoln was willing to guarantee the continuance of slavery in the states where it already existed, by 1863, by his Military Order, he was abolishing slavery in areas already in rebellion.  Moreover, in recruiting Blacks, including run-away slaves into the Union Army, Lincoln was smothering the possibility of the continuance of slavery.  And though Lincoln continued to push for colonization of Blacks, in his last speech Lincoln spoke of allowing some Blacks to vote.

            While DiLorenzo dismisses slavery as a cause of the Civil War, it is interesting that when the Confederacy was facing loss of recruits, some proposed recruiting Blacks into the Confederate army.  The proposal was rejected, for the regime knew that armed Blacks, even in a Confederate army would spell the end of slavery.  The Confederate leadership preferred military defeat to using Black troops.  Lincoln used Black troops, won the war, preserved the Union, and slavery was abolished.

            DiLorenzo contends that the war was not about slavery, and instead mentions other issues like the high Morrill Tariff.  Yet, that tariff was passed by Congress and signed by outgoing President Buchanan before Lincoln was inaugurated.  I think the war was about what Lincoln said it was about – a war to preserve the union.

            To do so Lincoln had to use extraordinary measures.  Maryland and Virginia surrounded the Union capital, Washington, D.C.  Union troops were pelted in Baltimore as they marched to defend the capital.  Lincoln responded with harsh measures to keep Maryland, and other areas, in the Union – arresting legislators, destroying opposition newspapers and arresting their editors, deporting Ohio Representative Vallandigham, suspending the right of habeas corpus, issuing an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.  DiLorenzo complains that Lincoln violated the Constitution by allowing West Virginia to secede from Virginia.  Perhaps, Lincoln should be criticized for not promoting a new state of east Tennessee and western North Carolina.  He was using measures to win a war and crush a rebellion.

            DiLorenzo repeatedly indicts Lincoln on numerous charges, including voter manipulation.  Yet, despite limits on free speech and the destruction of the free press in many areas of the North, Democrats made gains in the off-year elections of 1862.  And even after dumping his vice president from Maine and getting Tennessee Democrat Andrew Johnson as his running mate in 1864 on the Union Party ticket, Lincoln anticipated electoral defeat.  Yet, when the votes were counted, Lincoln defeated the peace candidate, Democrat Gen. McClellan, not only in the civilian vote, but in the soldier vote as well.  Does DiLorenzo believe that the election was so rigged that the peace candidate had actually defeated Lincoln?

            In the end, DiLorenzo’s book is a brief for one side which so distorts the history of the era and the actions of Lincoln and the Union that the book cannot stand alone.  It is unbalanced.

Terror in Norway - Anders Breivart

This   is composed of two comments I had in the New York Times on line in response to articles concerning the terrorist action in Norway.----------Hugh Murray 

Opinion

Breivik and His EnablersBack to Article »

By ROGER COHEN

Anti-immigrant Islamophobia is an ideology rampant on both sides of the Atlantic.

48.
48.

Hugh Murray

Milwaukee

July 26th, 2011

10:56 am

If I were to compare the Bible to Hitler's Mein Kampf, I would be dismissed as a nut, and it would end there. In the Netherlands, Wilders was prosecuted for comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf. Are Westerners allowed to express freedom of speech if it offends militant Muslims? That is the question. Recall how men were threatened, nearly killed, and bombs thrown when newspapers dared publish a cartoon about Muhammad? Remember how Rushdie had to live in hiding because of the Muslim threats to kill him. Simply put, many Muslims (perhaps the majority in Europe) do not believe in free speech. And they are willing to use violence or support violence to prevent free speech.
In Britain, and the US, some cases seemed so unusual, baffling. Then the pattern appeared - parents and relatives were killing their daughters who might date a non-Muslim, or wear Western clothing. Honor killings now occur where Muslim immigration exists, in the US and Europe.
In the UK, some beds in NHS hospitals have to face Mecca. Some of the nurses now will not clean their arms because they must keep them covered. Who cares if more disease is spread. We dare not annoy the Muslims!
NY just had a marriage debate. How many wives should a man be allowed at one time. The Koran has an answer. Will Euro-America give welfare for all the wives of a Muslim man?
Several decades ago in Egypt women could wear mini skirts and Western clothing. As resurgent Islam insulted more and more women, sometimes attacking them, they dressed "more modestly." And the Arab Spring, recall the case of CBS correspondent Lara Logan, assaulted and nearly killed while the cheering, tolerant crowd, celebrating the demise of Mubarak's rule, shouted "Kill the Jew; kill the Israeli." Did it matter that she was neither - she was dressed immodestly.
Even in Australia, some Muslim's have raped women in bikinis, because they do not dress modestly.
I certainly do not say that all Muslims are so warped,but...

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

READERS' COMMENTS

Shift in Europe Seen in Debate on ImmigrantsBack to Article »

By NICHOLAS KULISH

Political leaders fear such tragedies could drive changes in public opinion as far-right parties react.

Share your thoughts.

102.

Hugh Murray

Milwaukee

July 27th, 2011

10:12 pm

Sadly, sometimes terror pushes voters to choose the policy of the terrorists. Recall, around 2002, the Islamic attack in Spain that led to the fall of the Conservative government, which had supported the war in Iraq. After the subway bombing in Madrid, the Socialist won power and withdrew Spain's support for the US-led effort.
One does not know the consequences of the Norwegian's terrorist attack. One can only hope that there is no large sympathy vote for the Labor Party, which has so supported the oppressive policies of massive immigration and multiculturalism.
The leaders of Germany, France, and Britain all acknowledge multiculturalism's failure. Yet they are only partially correct.
After the uprising in Berlin in 1953, Bertolt Brecht wrote a stinging poem indicting the leadership of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). He suggested they hold a plebiscite and elect a new people. That is precisely what the Left parties have been doing in Europe - they have encouraged massive immigration to reduce the influence of the native citizens, and win the votes of those who have no history with the nation, with Western Civilization, or with democracy. The trend has thus been to a politically correct tyranny.
And the US goes further providing affirmative action preferences to discriminate against native citizens and award the immigrants, even the illegal immigrants.
One can only hope that the parties of the Right can prevent any more immigration as a method to elect a new people.