GUN CONTROL COMPROMISE? A MODEST SOLUTION----------------by Hugh Murray

            First the shooting at a school in Connecticut, and then the ambush of firefighters in upstate New York has provided the anti-gun lobby with ammunition to demand restrictions on guns.  President Obama, Democrat Sen. Feinstein, and the media have all heightened their hatred of the American Constitution and the 2^nd Amendment, demanding more restrictions on guns, or banning of guns altogether.

            Let us look more closely at the issue.  In New York, the murderous William Spengler had been convicted years ago for killing his grandmother with a hammer.  Why was he not executed then?  LIBERALISM!  He was a vicious murderer, yet he was allowed to live of the taxpayers for 18 years in jail.  When he got out, he went to murder again.  And did so.

            The media stresses that Spengler used weapons like those used in the school shooting in Connecticut.  But had the federals enforced the law already on the books, he should never have had any weapons.  But more is involved.  He had killed.  Why was he not executed?  If you say he was crazy when he killed his grandmother with a hammer, is that really an excuse?  If he were insane, if he were an insane murderer, all the more reason to execute him.  Justice, Dike, is portrayed as a women wearing a blindfold, holding a scale and a sword.  Justice should be blind.  And justice should be equal – if you take a life, you forfeit your own.  Spengler should have been executed after killing his grandmother.  The liberal sickness that infects the justice system prevented Spengler’s execution.  Reform him.  Pay for his incarceration for 18 years.  And the result of the liberal approach – Spengler comes out shooting, killing innocent firefighters trying to save homes and citizens.  GUNS WERE NOT THE PROBLEM.  KEEPING  THE MURDERER ALIVE SO HE COULD KILL AGAIN: THAT WAS THE PROBLEM.  Just a few days ago in Wisconsin, a convicted murderer attacked a prison guard, and the prison was in lock down.  Had the murderer been executed, the guard might not have suffered. 

            The Connecticut school shooting is different.  A nut case went ballistic.  About 20 murdered.  One hopes the killer will be executed so he cannot return to his forte.  But others have pointed out that last year in gun-control Chicago, some 400 school-age teens have been killed by guns.  But guns are outlawed there.  Yet more were killed in Chicago than in the Connecticut massacre.  One notices it less because the media do not highlight the problems in liberal urbania.

            Many Americans favor the right to own a weapon.  Others vehemently oppose.  Perhaps we might find an area of compromise.  Democrats generally favor gun restrictions; Republicans demand the right to own them.  A compromise might be this: Republicans can continue to purchase and carry guns, while Democrats would lose that right.  As most violent criminals are Democrats, this might well reduce the crime rate.  The Feds might use this law to end the crime-havens like Detroit, placing all Democrats with guns in federal penitentiaries.  The law would have little effect upon Republicans, who are mostly law-abiding anyway. 

              Disarm the criminals in the Black ghettos, and the hoods may become more livable for all the Blacks who reside there.  But that is the last thing the Democrats want to do.  Instead, they seek to disarm law-abiding America so that the criminals can “redistribute the wealth.”  The Democrats, with the trial lawyers organizations behind them, want soft verdicts for criminals.  They opposed the death penalty, and all harsh penalties.  They really do not want penalties: just rehabilitation, re-education, apologies.  But do not punish.  And so crime is so high in America, especially in areas controlled by Democrats.

            Generally, the Democrats are the party of the criminals and pro-crime groups, the lumpen poor and the super rich, the ideological Left, and the illegal aliens. And the welfare crowd.  Sadly, Obama demonstrated that this pro-crime coalition can win a majority of the American voters.  Those who abide by the law, who support the US Constitution, who seek to punish the guilty, we are in the minority now.  But perhaps a compromise is possible.  Outlaw guns for Democrats!  Ban guns in the hands of Democrats; keep them in the hands of Republicans.  Then America can move to a safer, saner future.----------Hugh Murray

MUGGED AND BUGGED

MUGGED: RACIAL DEMAGOGUERY FROM

THE SEVENTIES TO OBAMA (New York: Sentinel, 2012)

BY ANN COULTER

Rev. by Hugh Murray

            Flaherty’s White Girl Bleed a Lot is like reading raw material, recent newspaper reports of Black racist mobs and attacks on whites printed or shown in local media, and too often, with the racial nature of the crimes purposely obscured.  Coulter’s excellent book is similar, but significantly different.  Coulter has taken the raw material from the 1960s on, boiled down the essential stories of racial crimes and criminal hoaxes, used her flavorful language to emphasize the meat of the stories, and then she tops them with sprinkles of her sharp wit.

            In this book Coulter has performed a public service.  She assembles names and events that are fading from memory, spotlighting the injustices, the insanity, the viciousness, indeed, the monstrous anti-white racism and its supporters.  Coulter avoids that phrase, but it underlies her exposes of so many crimes against whites of the past few decades, crimes in which the media, academia, judges, juries, mayors, chiefs of police, have been all too complicit.  Yet, I am bugged, annoyed, by her distorted analysis of the role of the Republican Party on many of these issues.

            The strength of Mugged  is Coulter’s summary recounts of the cases of Eleanor Bumpurs, Michael Stewart, Larry Davis, Lemrick Nelson, Edmund Perry, Channon Christian and Christopher Newson, Tawana Brawley, the 1972 “incident” at Minister Farrakhan’s mosque in New York City, the left-wing minister Jim Jones, Rodney King, OJ, the Duke Lacrosse team “rapes,” Bernard Goetz, and more.

            From her book I learned that the only person convicted of a felony at the OJ trial was police detective Mark Fuhrman.  As Coulter summarized it: “In 1995, Americans discovered it was considered a graver offense to use ‘the N-word’ than to cut off a woman’s head.”(127)  Fuhrman was convicted of perjury, while OJ walked free – to the cheers of racist Blacks throughout the nation.  Coulter believes that the OJ verdict wakened whites to their appeasement of Black crime, and that whites changed their attitudes, shedding their white guilt feelings thereafter.(p. 15)  Unfortunately, I see little sign of the wakening Coulter writes of.  White guilt liberalism excuses the anti-white racist policies of a failed Black President, and white guilt helped elect and re-elect him.

            I also learned about the support of Black racist terror by a leading Democratic politician.  Once the Rodney King riots erupted, a white truck driver, Reginald Denny was pulled from his truck.  “As Henry Keith Watson stood on Denny’s neck, other black thugs repeatedly kicked and stomped him, smashed his head with a claw hammer, and threw a five-point oxygenator – stolen from another bloodied white truck driver – at his head.  In a final gruesome act. Damian ‘Football’ Williams picked up a slab of concrete and heaved it directly on Denny’s head…fracturing his skull in ninety-one places.  Williams then did a victory dance around Denny’s body,…(121)  Coulter reminds us of how Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters quickly defended the actions of Williams and the other Black racist monsters, demanding that all charges against them be dropped, trying to sway public opinion in their favor.  None of those shown in this atrocity on tape were convicted of a felony, except Williams, who was convicted of causing mayhem.  Once he completed his short sentence, Rep. Waters found a job for the concrete-throwing Williams.

            Coulter might have added a few items to her assortment of horrors – like the statistics showing crime dropped dramatically on New York City subways during the quarter after Bernard Goetz shot his poised attackers.  But overall, her thumbnail sketches of the atrocities of the past decades are vivid, concise, and stinging in their cumulated impact.

            Yet I have a major disagreement with Coulter in her analysis.  In her view Republicans are the great defenders of civil rights, and Democrats the champions of segregation and discrimination.  “The entire his of civil rights consists of Republicans battling Democrats to guarantee the constitutional rights of black people.”(1)  “Not all Democrats were   segregationists, but all segregationists were Democrats.”(1)  While there is much truth in her statements, the reality was more nuanced.

            Coulter demonstrates how liberal Democratic icons like Sen. William Fulbright (Ark.), Sen. Sam Ervin (NC), and Adlai Stevenson’s running mate in 1952 Sen. John Sparkman (Ala.), were all staunch segregationists.  Democratic Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus had even attended a left-wing school and would become the governor who tried to prevent integration of Central High in Little Rock.  It would take Republican President Eisenhower to send troops to integrate that school, the first time since Reconstruction that troops were sent South to defend the rights of Blacks.  On a personal note, I was born and raised in what was then the largest city of the South, New Orleans; I participated and was arrested in the city’s first lunch-counter sit-in in September 1960.  Responding to our arrest, the liberal Democratic Mayor, DeLesseps Morrison officially announced that the city would not tolerate any further incidents.  We soon became convicted felons.  In November, when the first two schools were integrated, the liberal mayor did nothing to prevent harassment of those few who sent their children past the angry mothers to the newly mixed schools.

            Though I took a stand against segregation, one must not take the present politically correct position that all segregation was evil.  One of the Longs was asked to improve the lot of Blacks in Louisiana.  He agreed to do so, but warned that they might not like his method of doing so.  At a hospital, the governor spotted a white nurse with a Black male patient.  Horrors!  Governor Long assured the press he would stop such practices by hiring Black nurses.  While segregation was separate but rarely equal, it was better than no services for Blacks, the condition that often preceded the era of segregation.  Moreover, there were good segregated Black schools, even during the era of Jim Crow.  I don’t recall reading of metal detectors at the segregated Black schools of yore.

            Some Republican sought outreach to the pro-segregationist whites in the South.  Indeed, these Republicans often fought the “old guard” who might have the support the Black and Tan (the Blacks) delegations to the national GOP conventions.  Theodore Roosevelt may have invited Booker Washington to dine in the White House, but we know TR was a highly educated man.  And he shared the scientific views of the era, which were quite racist.  When he challenged William Taft for the GOP nomination in 1912, he sought to replace some of the Black and Tans with whites.  When TR lost the nomination to Taft and established his Bull Moose Progressive Party, there was no outreach to Blacks, no planks in the new party’s platform about civil rights.  When Democrat Woodrow Wilson won the 3-way election, he demonstrated his progressive and scientific approach by segregating the federal civil service.  When Quaker Hoover ran against Catholic Smith in 1928, his inroads in the South were made by many who upheld segregation (and who probably hated Catholics more than Republicans).

            In the 1930s another party rose to champion the rights of Blacks – the Communist Party.  In 1931 in Alabama two white women accused several Blacks of raping them.  In the small town of Scottsboro they were quickly found guilty and 8 of 9 were sentenced to death.  Communist won control of the case and led a two-pronged defense: 1) obtain superb lawyers for the court-room proceedings, and 2) agitate about the case outside in Scottsboro and throughout the world.  The party and its front groups gathered signatures for the Scottsboro Boys from Mms. Sun Yat Sen (China), Albert Einstein (then German), Maxim Gorki (Soviet), Nobel laureate Romain Rolland (France), Johnstone Kenyatta (later to be better known as Jomo, leader of the Mau Mau in Africa), and in the US, Chief Red Cloud, Langston Hughes, et al.  The mother of two of the accused toured Europe giving speeches on behalf of her sons.  Not since the American Civil War had the issue of the treatment of Blacks in America received such international attention.  Suddenly intellectuals were concerned about 9 young Blacks accused of rape.  The case went to the US Supreme Court twice.

            Coulter may have exposed a lie by journalist Carl Bernstein about his teenage role as a civil rights activist.  On that, she may be correct.  But Bernstein in his autobiography mentions another incident that rings true.  He wrote that as a young boy he was with his mother as they engaged in a restaurant sit-in in Baltimore sponsored the Left-wing (pro-CP) Henry Wallace Progressive Party.  Even weakened in the Cold War era, the Communists were still demonstrating for the rights of Black people.

            To prevent a Black March on Washington during WWII, Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt appointed an FEPC (Fair Employment Practices Commission) with limited power to investigate racial discrimination in defense industries.  States began to consider having their own FEPC laws and committees.  The first to consider such a law was New York, a state then controlled by Republicans.  While most legislative Democrats supported the measure, many Republicans opposed, fearing it would result in the Hitlerian reign of racial and religious quotas.  It was only with the strong support of the propose law by Republican Governor Thomas Dewey that New York won its FEPC.  In other northern and western states the Democrats were more favorable to the legislation, especially with fines for discrimination.  In various states the GOP was less likely to support the proposals, and would stall, or if they must pass, make them one of negotiations rather than punishment for offending employers.  In California, it was submitted to a popular referendum; those supporting FEPC were the liberal Democrats and the Communists; opposed the anti-Communist Republicans.  FEPC lost heavily.  Republican Governor Earl Warren chose not to push the issue after the people had spoken.

            In 1948 despite Republican Gov. Dewey’s strong stand on FEPC and equal rights, most of the Black vote went for Democrat Truman.  For the first time a President spoke before the NAACP as Truman made efforts to win the Black vote.  When W.E.B. Du Bois, a founder of the NAACP, broke ranks and openly endorsed the Henry Wallace Progressive Party, he was fired by the NAACP.  Thereafter, the NAACP would basically become a Democratic Party front group.  After Truman won the election, his Attorney General had Du Bois arrested as a foreign agent.  One of Du Bois’s defense attorneys was a Black Republican from Mississippi.

            In 1948 the Henry Wallace campaign was an earlier version of the civil rights movement.  Wallace refused to speak at segregated facilities, and he had to fend off tomatoes and other objects.  His campaign manager, Paul Robeson visited Progressives in Louisiana, and the landlady wanted immediate eviction.  (Officials were lenient, and gave them till the end of the month).  Bull Connor in Birmingham arrested Sen. Glen Taylor of Idaho, who was running for VP on the Wallace ticket.  Various supporters in the South of Henry Wallace will turn up later in the official version of the “civil rights movement.”  But under Truman and the Attorney General’s list of subversive organizations, those groups that supported Henry Wallace: the Civil Rights Congress, the National Negro Congress, the Council on African Affairs, the Southern Conference on Human Welfare, the Southern Negro Youth Congress (the original snick) were all listed and collapsed by the mid-1950s.

            Coulter is so determined to distance the GOP from the Dixiecrats that she distorts.  In 1952 Republican Eisenhower’s campaign sponsored a half hour campaign program on national television.  It was carried throughout the nation –except in some southern states where Democratic Governor Robert Kennon and two other governors gave reason for them supporting Eisenhower.  (I saw only the southern version, but I suspect the northern ad emphasized different points.)  In 1952 the county that gave the highest percentage of its vote to the Republicans, about 95%, was Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.  This parish was dominated by Judge Leander Perez, a Dixiecrat.  When singer Ted Lewis played the Roosevelt Hotel’s Blue Room in New Orleans, Perez was in the audience.  As Lewis sang his “Me and My Shadow” with his Black side-kick, Perez purposely broke glasses where they were soft-shoeing, so the Black cut his foot.  The Judge had a certain reputation.  Much later, in spring 1969 Perez died and two young Blacks in that parish went to a store to purchase liquor.  They informed the owner they were going to celebrate the death of the Judge.  They were arrested and sentenced to 6-month’s hard labor.  Because Louisiana kept a States’ Rights Party on the ballot, I doubt if he supported Nixon in 1960 or 1968.

            Coulter seems embarrassed by Goldwater, who clearly did succeed in winning the Dixiecrat vote and their electoral votes when he ran for president in 1964.  Goldwater was one of the few Republicans who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Yet, before the election in the fall, the Democrats in Louisiana purchased a full-page in local newspapers urging readers to vote for Lyndon Johnson.  It warned that Goldwater had supported FEPC in Arizona, and civil rights there also.  Consider too, that Lyndon was a fellow Southerner who understood “our” way of life.  Though totally opposed to Goldwater in 1964, I did attend his massive rally at Tulane Stadium that fall.  The crowd was excited – they wanted to hear him condemn the recently passed Civil Rights Act.  They were utterly disappointed.  Goldwater spoke about government contracts with TFX planes and other more distant issues.  The crowd wanted to explosively cheer him, but Goldwater gave them no chance.  He avoided the race issue.  Goldwater did carry Louisiana and the other Dixiecrat states, but he did not embrace the Dixiecrat cause.

            Then, there is the question of Nixon.  Coulter writes: “There was never a period…when race discrimination was a Republican policy, except maybe briefly when Nixon imposed affirmative-action on the building trades doing business with the government in the 1960s, but they deserved it.  (A policy for which LBJ is showered with praise for thinking about – but never actually implementing.)” (173)

            What LBJ thought about implementing was halted because it was the end of Lyndon’s term in 1968 and Democrat Humphrey had lost the election to Republican Nixon.  Everyone assumed that the “Philadelphia Plan” of quotas for construction unions was dead because of the election.  The unexpected occurred when Nixon and his Sec. of Labor George Schultz revived and then implemented the Philadelphia Plan.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had made quotas and hiring for racial balance illegal.  Nixon and Schultz ignored this and demanded quotas by not calling them such; they were goals and timetables.  When the issue came before Congress, it appeared as if Nixon would lose on the issue.  He sent emissaries to the NAACP requesting its help.  While many Democrats and some Republicans opposed, Nixon’s quota program squeaked past on a narrow vote.

            Nixon then issued executive orders making quota-based affirmative action government policy in all federal agencies – not just Philadelphia building trades.  The notion of quota-justice had been rejected by most Americans.  It was clearly contrary to the spirit and text of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  It was contrary to the dream bespoke by Martin Luther King at the 1963 March on Washington – when his children would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.  Yet, quotas first became national policy under Republican Richard Nixon.

            Of course, Nixon could not transform America alone.  The EEOC had been working toward quotas for several years.  Many courts opposed this un-American, racist concept.  But when the issue finally reached the US Supreme Court under the new Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Nixon appointee, the Civil Rights Act was turned on its head.  Its clear language banning quotas and hiring for racial balance became requirement for racial balance and quotas by other names.  As late as 2003 when affirmative action again reached the US Supreme Court in major cases, it was Republican Reagan appointee, Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote the decision for the majority of the court upholding the use of race in effect to achieve quota-based affirmative action.

            And even before Burger, we had the Warren Court!  Earl Warren, California official most responsible for the round-up of Japanese during WWII (Republicans are always for civil rights??), Earl Warren, the man who would be VP when Gov. Dewey won the Presidency in 1948, Gov. Warren would have a career change with Dewey’s defeat.   President Eisenhower appointed him Chief Justice in 1953 and the Warren Court proceeded to follow many ideas on crime that Coulter decries.  The alleged criminal would soon have more rights with the Warren Court’s rulings.  And later Warren gave his presence to the Warren Report on the murder of President Kennedy.  I have written elsewhere criticizing various aspects of that report.  (Indeed, the first book in which I was mentioned was vol. 26 of the findings, but the index was so poorly done, I had no idea of that until the mid-70s.  Mark Lane may have been a Left-winger, but he provided access to information covered up by the government.)

            Coulter rightly condemns the Kerner Report of 1969 on the riots of the late 1960s in America.  It “decided that instead of punishing black rioters, we should hear them out and lavish black neighborhoods with…government programs.”(256)  She notes that part of the Kerner Report was written by New York City Mayor John Lindsay.  Lindsay would not switch to the Democratic Party until 1971, so he was still nominally a Republican when he wrote those views.  Lindsay was a liberal, and elected for his second term as mayor, not on the Republican ticket, but only on the Liberal line.  Still, he was a Republican and a liberal.

            In many ways Nixon was also a Republican and a liberal.  EPA, OSHA, and other liberal legislation came under Nixon’s watch.  Most importantly for this paper, Nixon’s racial quota policy was expanded to Hispanics, women, this group and that, and the quota commissars entered the personnel offices of every government agency and then every private corporation.  No longer were people hired and promoted according to merit, it was by quota, for goals and time tables, or now, for diversity.  No longer hire the best qualified, but the “basically” qualified, or even the unqualified to fill the quota and avoid heavy government imposed fines if the government finds lack of racial balance in the workplace.  Individual merit no longer counts; count only by race and gender.

            Under Republican President Reagan some urged him to rescind with his pen the executive orders requiring affirmative action.  Reagan did not do so.  Under Reagan when employment tests were administered, knowing Blacks and Hispanics could not perform as well as whites, but determined to have racial balance, Hispanics were granted an extra 10% on the exams; Black were granted even more.  Employers were not informed about the cheating done by Reagan’s government to insure hiring of lesser qualified Blacks and Hispanics.

            Reagan never rescinded the affirmative action executive order.  Neither did Bush I, who even signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, providing the first legal justification for quotas.  Affirmative action continued under Clinton and Bush II.

            Interestingly, in the 2012 Presidential campaign President Obama often declared, “It is our policy to have all the people play by the same rules.  That is just.  That is fair.”  In reality, that is the last thing Obama wants.  Obama supports the double standards of quotas and affirmative action.  His Administration seeks to expand it, even suing school districts which suspend and expel a higher percentage of Black student than whites (though they never want to know if the Blacks are a higher percentage disrupting classes, cursing, fighting, etc.).  The Left wants justice though quotas.  Yet, in most cases, quotas are inherently unjust.

            What was interesting in the campaign is that Republican Romney never called Obama out on this issue.  What do you mean, we all play by the same rules when Blacks with lower scores than whites are admitted to university, granted scholarships, given jobs, promoted, etc.?  Affirmative action is institutionalized to prevent us from playing by the same rules.  It is cheating on behalf of pet groups.  It is legalized institutional racism against whites.  It became national policy under Republican Nixon and has continued under every Republican President since – and the Democrats too.

            With the quota mentality, one has a warped view of justice.  Why is the percentage of Blacks in jail so much higher than whites?  They should be out.  They should be given all the liberal welfare Coulter condemns.  But this is the result of Republican like Warren, Burger, Nixon, Schultz, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Romney.  Coulter’s paragraph on Nixon and the building trades distorts the role of the GOP in institutionalizing anti-white racism, which then amplifies to justify anti-white crime.

            Mugged is a good book, but Coulter’s analysis of the GOP is warped.                     

THE FUTURE OF THE U.S. UNDER OBAMA

There are those who moan that with the re-election of President Obama, the future of the United States may be summed up in one word: Detroit.

 Realistically, that is an unfair assessment of America's future under Obama.  At most, that is half true.
It will take at least three words to describe the future of the US under President Obama:


Detroit AND TIJUANA!

OBAMA’S WIN, AMERICA’S LOSS: FOR AMERICA 2012 – LOST OPPORTUNITY, LAST OPPORTUNITY?

            The re-election of Barack Obama will be a disaster for the United States.  Though I opposed many of his polices, I shall discuss only one here.  Yet, 1) this is an important topic for all Americans; and 2) it is an issue that saddens me personally on an emotional level.

(1) The Political

            In the fall of 2012 the United States Supreme Court took up, once again, the issue of racial preferences and affirmative action.  There is little doubt that the Left of the Court, Bader-Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan will vote to continue affirmative action.  Two have already done so in the Michigan cases of 2003, and Sotomayor and Kagan have made clear their support for the policy.  On the Right, Thomas and Scalia voted against the policy in 2003, and Alito will probably join them.  Roberts was assumed to be in the Right camp, but after his decision this fall upholding Obama Care as a tax, one cannot be sure of his vote.  Most commentators thought Justice Kennedy was undecided on this issue.  So, on the affirmative action issue the line-up is 4 for, 3 against, 2 undecided.

            Had the Republican ticket of Romney-Ryan won the Presidency in November 2012, it MIGHT have sent a message to the US Supreme Court.  I am aware that the Supreme Court is supposed to be above the fray of mere election campaigns, but someone long ago asserted that the Supreme Court follows the election returns.  A Romney victory might have been followed by a 5-4 high court decision disallowing racial preferences.  Romney, like most wealthy Republicans, would attempt to side-step the issue (as he did in the campaign).  But as one more willing to follow the law, his administration might have begun the machinery to dismantle the massive affirmative action bureaucracy.  It is a large, ideologically committed bureaucracy, which would obstruct any attempt to prevent it using racial quotas, preferences, and privileges.  (For an example of their destructive tactics, recall how Mary Frances Berry refused to yield the chair of the Civil Rights Commission when her term ended and an opponent of affirmative action had been appointed to replace her.)  The politically correct bureaucrats would scream that ending affirmative action is racist; they would be interviewed daily on main-stream media, with protest marches on every campus (mainly by the unqualified students who do not belong there in the first place, and who are there only because of affirmative action).  Dismantling the institutionalized discrimination called affirmative action would be difficult, but, with the Supreme Court and possibly the President and Congress behind the move, America could begin to use merit, testing, ability examinations, even IQ tests to admit students award scholarships, hire, promote, and give small business loans – rather than racial quotas as is the case under affirmative action.

            That was the OPPORTUNITY that would occur with a Romney win.  He lost.

            Now, what happens with the Supreme Court?  It is now less now likely that the Court will gather 5 votes to end race preferences and affirmative action.  The Court is not blind to the election.  So the vote on affirmative action will probably be 5-4 in favor of continuing race preferences.  However, suppose the Court ignores the 50% of Americans who re-elected Obama and decides instead to end affirmative action, by a slim 5-4 decision?  Who would enforce the ruling?  Obama is an affirmative action President.  Michelle Obama as a student was writing in favor of the a-a system that gave her privileges.  Professor Barack Obama openly supported affirmative action and preferences for Blacks and other racial groups.  Obama’s Attorney General Holder even sued schools that suspended Blacks at a higher rate than whites (there should be racial quotas for suspending students, according to the Obama Administration.  It fails to note that the unruly students who are so bad they need to be suspended may not fit into the Dept. of Justice’s racial quota categories.)  So even if the Supreme Court decided that all American citizens deserved equal opportunity, even if it decided to abolish a-a racial preferences, Obama would first denounce the decision and the Court, and then he would refuse to implement it.

            Of course, on this issue Obama is a total hypocrite.  And liar.  In numerous speeches in 2012, in his State of the Union speech, in his speech accepting the Democratic nomination in summer 2012, in at least one of the debates with Romney, and in various campaign speeches, he has used the phrase, “We (the Democrats) favor the system in which we all play by the same rules.”  He lies.  Affirmative action MEANS we do NOT play by the same rules.  Whites play by one set (and receive negative action), Blacks by another (and receive affirmative action), Hispanics by another, Amerindians, etc.  Unfortunately, Romney and the Republicans never called Obama on his lie and his hypocrisy.

            That Obama includes that phrase in his speeches indicates that most Americans still believe in the ideal that all should play by the same rules.  But Obama lies to the people.  Obama would do everything to prevent us from playing by the same rules.  He will do everything to prevent a system that requires equal opportunity for all citizens, including whites.

            Elsewhere I have pointed out that the result of affirmative action is that one hires NOT the best qualified, but the quota person.  It is prescription for decline.  And America has been in decline since this system was instituted under Republican President Richard Nixon.

            A Romney victory might have given this nation a chance to turn things around – to hire the best qualified, no matter their race; to admit to university the best qualified, no matter their race; to award the scholarship to the best qualified, no matter their race, etc.  Romney’s defeat probably means a lost chance to make America the best by hiring the best.  Romney’s defeat probably means a lost chance to have all American citizens play by the same rules.  Romney’s defeat probably means a lost chance to end the legally required institutionalized racism of affirmative action.  Romney’s defeat is a lost chance.  Is it the last chance?

(2) The Personal

            I am a native of the South; I was born and grew up in what was then the largest city of the South, New Orleans.  I opposed the legally required institutional racism called segregation.  As a young man I participated in the first lunch counter sit-in in New Orleans.  I was arrested with six others.  My parents, who did not agree with me, began to receive terrible phone calls at all hours day and night.  There were threats to blow up their residence.  My father had to borrow a gun and bullets.   My relatives and many friends were unable to understand my motives.  How could I do such a terrible thing?  My defense, equal opportunity – that it was right that everyone have equal opportunity, that we all play by the same rules.  The slogan of the era was simple, “We should treat all without regard to race, color, or creed.”  Therefore, segregation was wrong.  We simply wanted equal rights for all.  The segregationists responded, that that is not what will happen.  They responded that the Blacks would soon have more rights than the whites; that segregation was needed to prevent crime against whites and keep things fair.  I disagreed.

            It seemed as if I won the argument.  In 1963 at the March on Washington, Martin Luther King declared in his “Dream” speech that he awaited the day when all would be judged by the content of their character and NOT by the color of their skin.  In 1964 the Civil Rights Act was passed to guarantee equal opportunity, with no hiring on preferences and no hiring for racial balance and quotas were illegal.  (I have detailed the debates and contests of the Civil Rights Act elsewhere).  There was a period of victory.  No more segregation!  No more race preferences!  America would be a land of equal opportunity, and even the bureaucracy established to enforce the new law was the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  Unfortunately, the victory was pyrrhic.

            There were ominous signs, even early on.  These were the type where one feels uneasy, but remains quiet, for the good of the cause.  For example, on the day I was arrested with six others in the first New Orleans sit in, at Woolworths on Canal Street, we were taken first to the Rampart Street station, then to the main Parish lock-up, and then back to Rampart Street.    Bail was posted for us, and we were out by about 10 pm.  Because of the transfers, we were not fed; and none of us had eaten all day.  Archie, a Black who had been one of us arrested, Carlos, an Hispanic who was a member of our CORE group but who was an observer that day, and myself then went to a Black restaurant that night.  The waiter came to our table and announced, “I can serve you (to Archie), but not you two.”  Then he looked again at Carlos, “Well, I’ll serve you also, but not him (me).”  I was stunned.  Should we have a 2^nd sit-in on the same day?  Should two of us arrested at Woolworths now be arrested for not being served at a Black restaurant?  We were all in shock.  Neither Archie nor I wanted to return to jail, so we all left – the night of the first sit-in a Woolworths in New Orleans.

            In the 1970s I submitted a chapter of my autobiography about my experience in segregated New Orleans during the 1950s and culminating with the events at Woolworths AND the Black restaurant.  I was pleased when the J. of Ethnic Studies published most of it, but somehow the last part, about the Black restaurant refusing us service for food, was deleted.  Reality that was not politically correct, was usually censored by the individual; but if not, by the media, the academic community, the politicians.

            I was quite active in New Orleans CORE during its first year of existence, summer 1960-1961.  I was one of the first members of the organization.  I attended the CORE training institute in Miami during the summer of 1960, at which some of our teachers were baseball legend Jackie Robinson (who was openly supporting Republican Nixon), and Martin Luther King (who was then quietly for John Kennedy).   Through that first year about half the CORE activists were white students, often Southerners.

            In 1962 I was no longer active in CORE, for I had to try to make a living as a convicted felon.  (It would take a few years before the NO cases would reach the Supreme Court.)  Some of my white Tulane friends were still in the group when I learned that all the whites were expelled from the local CORE chapter.  Interracial dating was the excuse, but this was the beginning of a purge of whites in all the CORE chapters round the nation and then the SNCC chapters too.  Other cities CORE groups would find other excuses, but the result was the same – the whites were kicked out.  This was Black Nationalism rising.  By 1966 “Black Power” was the slogan.  “We Shall Overcome” was smothered by the fires of “Burn, Baby Burn!”  Non-violence yielded to riots and massive crime rates.  SNCC, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee became the Student National Coordinating Committee.

            With ever rising rioting and crime rates, the Left blamed the police and “institutional racism.”  The Leftists in the EEOC subverted the law they were mandated to enforce.  Using stealth, bureaucratic regulations, and political pressures, they turned civil rights into preferential rights, equal opportunity to the denial of equal opportunity, a ban on quotas, to quotas by another name: goals and timetables, racial balance, diversity.  The Left thus created institutional anti-white racism.  Republican President Richard Nixon’s Labor Dept. promulgated regulations that made this national policy.  And so we have had the racial quotas and preferences of affirmative action since 1970.  America has been in decline since then.

            Affirmative action can do little more to harm me personally.  I am now in my 70s and rarely seek new employment.  When I hear liberals justify affirmative action, as I did last week on Wisconsin Public Radio, that whites are still economically above Blacks and Hispanics, I cringe.  I do not care if every CEO in this nation is a white male, that is no reason to discriminate against poor and middle class whites.

            I struggled for equal rights in New Orleans in the 1950s and 60s – and paid a price.  Worse, my relatives probably paid a higher price.  But by the 1970s poor and middle class whites have been denied equal opportunity, denied their chance to rise, denied their chance to contribute to the creativity and wealth of American society.  Admittedly, I had no high hopes for Romney on this issue, for he never called Obama’s lies about playing by the same rules.  Yet, I hoped a Republican victory might allow the Supreme Court to make an historic decision voiding affirmative action, and the beginnings of dismantling this institutional racism could begin.  With Obama’s victory, institutional anti-white racism will become ossify making it harder to overturn later.  It means more discrimination against better candidates; more hiring of the incompetents.  It means more decline.  And on the personal level, I must always wonder now, were my relatives right, after all? --------Hugh Murray       

What Obama's Re-Election Means:

The War on the West will continue.
    The War on Whites will continue.
         The War on Women will continue and intensify in Muslim countries AND in Western nations with large Muslim populations.
                In summary, Obama's re-election is a disaster for freedom in America and the world.

Reporting the War against White People

            

“WHITE GIRL BLEED A LOT”: THE RETURN OF RACE RIOTS

TO AMERICA (Book International D, 2^nd ed., March 2012, paperback)

By COLIN FLAHERTY

Rev. by Hugh Murray

            The book is simply a series of reports of Black flash mobs crashing into stores, grabbing, insulting, robbing, beating, and occasionally sending whites to hospital or to the morgue.  On one level, this book is quite boring, for it is the same story told and retold again.  It is the same story in Philadelphia, San Francisco, New York, Miami, Myrtle Beach, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Texas, New Jersey, Milwaukee, etc.  The stories are variations on the same theme, how can young Blacks humiliate whites, destroy their property, steal, beat, and then run away.  Black racism, Black on white hatred, Black on white crime, Black on white violence is an epidemic in America.  This part of Flaherty’s book is solid.

            Unfortunately, the response to these crimes is usually as repetitious as the crimes themselves.  Local newspapers generally refuse to identify the race of the perpetrators.  The author is able to do so by using Youtube videos, often posted by the criminals.  They are proud of their violent crimes against whites (sometimes, against Asians).  One amazon reviewer dismissed the content of the book, maintaining it was anecdotal and not accord with the FBI’s hate crime statistics.  In Milwaukee on July 3, 2011, a groups of Blacks ransacked a gas station’s convenience store.  They then rampaged in a nearby park beating and stealing from whites, who were there to view the fireworks.  Police were called and came to the scene.  However, because of the politically correct sensitivity to minorities, even sensitive to those engaging in crime, the officers refused to file reports of the crimes.  If there are no police reports of the Blacks attacking whites, then the crimes do not exist, and these crimes are not included in FBI or any other statistics.  Does one expect the Eric Holder Justice Department (the one that dropped the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party) to investigate possible anti-white racism in a police department that permitted them to ignore the violent crimes by Blacks against whites?  Only after some of the whites were treated at hospital and called talk radio did local TV reports begin to expose the Black racist assaults.  Finally, [white] Police Chief Ed Flynn conceded that some “fights” had occurred.  Flaherty snidely commented, “’fights,’ which is a curious way to describe a race riot where some of the victims actually tried to defend themselves.”(p. 120)   One of the white gals was slugged so hard, that her blood evoked the comment that inspired the title of this book.  Mayor Tom Barrett, a liberal Democrat, and Chief Flynn, an import from New York, denied these were hate crimes, assured the city that crime was colorblind, and decried those who sought to “sensationalize” the occurrences. 

            Flaherty has amassed a book of crimes – crimes by Blacks against whites, and a few of Blacks against Asians.  Flaherty recounts page after page of Black on white hostility, insults, theft, beatings, some of which may have led to emergency treatment, and sometimes to the grave.  Page after page.  Boring to read; painful to read, distressing to read of such injustice perpetrated so often by violent, Black racists, depressing to read how the crimes are not reported in the press, or not reported as racist crimes.

            Josef Stalin, the Soviet dictator, observed that the death of one person is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic.

            Unfortunately, in the US it becomes harder to acquire accurate statistics of Black on White crime.  If you simply read the local newspaper accounts of most of these incidents, all of the racial animosity and motivation is removed, deleted, expunged, censored.  Why are Americans not supposed to read about the massive hatred and violence against whites committed by Blacks?

            Black mobs are not identified as such; they are roving groups of “youths,” “teens,” “young people,” indulging in unseemly behavior.  These are not hate crimes, and race has little or nothing to do with it.  Of course, the reality is NOT what is reported.  The reality is that young Blacks engage in insulting, threatening, beating, and robbing whites.  But the major media do NOT want to reveal this basic fact.  Flaherty finds the facts – on Youtube, where the color of the crime is visible and often posted by the proud Black racist criminals themselves.

            Why do the national and most local media cover up the criminality of Black mobs?  On this question Flaherty is silent.  He clearly exposes the media cover-ups, but fails to ask why.

            To answer this question, an older book might be more helpful, William McGowan’s Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism.  Beginning with the large-scale Black riots in hundreds of American cities in the mid- to late-1960s, the liberal analysis of events was encapsulated in the report of the Kerner Commission.  Basically, the blue-ribbon panel blamed the riots on white racism, excused the rioters, and urged changes to prevent future outbreaks.  Universities, which became the think-tanks of the Left developed theories to exculpate Black violence; they were “culturally deprived,” they were victims of institutional racism, and their outbursts were simply a means to cope with such oppression.  Furthermore, Blacks could not, by definition, be racists.  They might show prejudice, but racism required power, and since Blacks in America lacked power, they were incapable of being racist.  Only white racism was the problem.  Of course, if you walk alone on a street at night, who has the power, a Black with a pistol, or you?  And in the era of President Obama and Attorney General Holder, who does have the power?  Moreover, if this definition made any sense and were applied elsewhere, then Afrikaners, by definition, can no longer be racists in the new South Africa.

            The Left-wing theories of race spun by academics were popularized by the media.  In the journalism and communications departments of universities, students were taught that as reporters they were to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.  Objective reporting was deemed not merely old fashioned, but immoral.  The reporter was to take the side of the oppressed.  And in race reporting, that meant coloring the news for the benefit of Blacks, who were by definition, the oppressed.  And so academe and the media melded into the academedia complex.

            Other issues were also fused with the new, politically correct mission of the communication majors.  For example, as the method of affirmative action became clearer in practice, (basically a way to give the job or scholarship to a lesser qualified or unqualified minority and deny it to the best qualified, if he were white.)  To justify these practices of denying equal opportunity to whites, the Left developed the theory of “white male privilege.”  According to this, all whites were privileged, and to create a level playing field, preferences had to be granted to minorities, even rich ones.  The whites who did not understand this justification, were clearly racists, and probably deserving of a Fanonesque tutoring session (i.e., violence).

            The curriculum of schools has changed drastically to incorporate many of the Leftist theories.  No longer is the West applauded as the center of a civilization that freed many men and women of drudgery, that provided light throughout the night, that sped people and goods across a continent on rail, and even in the air, - now the West is depicted as oppressive.  Whites smashing the wonderful civilizations of the Aztecs, of Africa, of wherever.  And white oppression must be fought.  Multiculturalism is the glorification of all cultures – except oppressive, colonial, racist, white culture.  The West became the enemy in many of America’s schools.

            So the “youths” who roam about lurking to beat whites (and sometimes Asians) are simply affirming what they have been taught in their multicultural curriculum and in the general media.  So, poor, raped, Tawana Brawley – persecuted and raped by the KKK policeman, for a year was a page-1 story for Rev. Al Sharpton to inform reporters about the evils of whites.  It was a hoax; but the Left did not care.  Think of all the educational material that Rev. Sharpton could present to the cameras during that year.  And poor, O. J. Simpson – that white bitch of a wife was receiving OJ’s alimony to squander on that Jewish waiter!  They surely deserved what happened to them – whoever might have killed them.  Another big racial even occurred in the Howard Beach section of New York City in which a Black was killed by autos as he fled a group of angry white youths.  Even a year following the event, there was a television movie about it to remind America of white racism and its murderous consequences.  Yet, at about the same time, in Milwaukee a white youth, fleeing a group of Black youths, jumped in Lake Michigan, and drowned.  There was no publicity about the death of Maldonado in Milwaukee.  Maldonado was just a white.  Instead of running to the lake, he should have simply let the Blacks beat the s___ out of him, and then he might still be alive.  The media and those who control it could not state blatantly the main difference between these stories.  One is a rare example of white racism; the other an all too common example of Black racism.  The media choose the spotlight the rare example, hoping to convince that it is the common type of racism.  The media also dismiss the more common type of racist attacks, because that would show Blacks in an unfavorable light.  The media rationally choose the stories that they will emphasize.  They choose those stories that fit their ideology.  So, they provide massive coverage to one story, and bury the other.

            Even though his mother was white, most people view Barack Obama is Black.  George Zimmerman had a Jewish father and an Hispanic mother.  But for the Leftist media, like CNN, Zimmerman was identified as the “white” who had brutally murdered the young Trayvon Martin.  The point of the Leftist media was to show a wicked white racist murdering an innocent young Black.  That story fit the Left-wing agenda.  Zimmerman resided in a neighborhood recently targeted by burglaries.  He was part of a neighborhood watch, seeking to keep his neighborhood safe.  However, the Left objects to that.  (To the Left, if you want to live in a safe neighborhood, get rich and live in a gated community.  The poor, according to the Left, should have to endure the crazies, the muggers, the rapists, and the Trayvon Martins.)  The Left vigorously opposes the 2^nd Amendment and the right to own arms to defend oneself; one’s loved ones, one’s property.  Whatever happened in the confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin, the Left media sensationalized the event seeking to make it into a racist white killing an innocent Black.  I was not there to witness the event, and it is possible that Zimmerman shot Martin without provocation.  However, there are other possibilities.  Noteworthy, the Martin family has sought to keep Trayvon’s school records sealed.  He had been suspended for several days, and there were indications that he was involved with drugs and stolen property.  Is it not possible that Trayvon was casing the neighborhood when Zimmerman caught him?  But, young Blacks cannot be guilty when confronting a “white” (or even an Hispanic-white) according to the ideology that dominates the academedia complex.  Noteworthy also, when the New Black Panther Party called for the apprehension of Zimmerman, dead or alive, this threat did not stir the Department of Justice to protect Zimmerman.  After all, Obama marched beside leaders of the NBPP in Alabama and he also shared a platform with them.  Some members of the NBPP have called for the murder of all whites, men, women, and children.  If Obama could share a platform with them, and have his Attorney General Holder dismiss a lawsuit against the NBPP, why would his Administration object to that party’s threats against the Hispanic Zimmerman?

            If our media were doing their jobs properly, there would be no need for Flaherty’s book.  Because the media, on race issues, are dominated by Left-wing ideologues, they consciously try NOT to report stories unfavorable to Blacks.  When the story becomes too big to suppress, then the media spins it to distort, with the objective to make the Blacks appear in the most favorable light.

            What would happen if the media reported honestly?  The Left would have “the community” (Blacks and some radical whites) march on the station, organize boycotts of the sponsors’ products, gather signatures from academe and tax-exempt Leftist groups like the NAACP, the ACLU, for law suits, demand firings of the honest reporters, etc.  The station would quickly cave, and to prove its sincerity, it would grant a large contribution to some of the protesting organizations, fire the reporter or have him sent to an appropriate re-education center on sensitivity training.  The station would also promise that in the future no such honest reports would be aired.

            Sadly, since the 1960s, one cannot report the truth about race and crime in the major media in America.  Flaherty’s book is not published by a major publisher.  One can read about these incidents daily in some internet sites like Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance.  He includes clips about racial crime in the US, and in addition, racial conflict and crime in Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands, and other nations.

            Those old enough may recall black/white photographs from the 1930s of refugees fleeing Nazi Europe.  The pictures make one sympathize with the victims of the bullying, belligerence, and terror they endured in storm-troopered Europe.  With WWII won, America’s economy turned from building tanks to automobiles and consumer goods, and this nation embarked upon a period of great prosperity.  Some could now afford cars, and even new homes in the suburbs.  But others preferred to remain in the neighborhoods they knew from childhood.  They did not want to move to the green burbs; they preferred to stay near the church their parents had helped build, the one in which they had been confirmed, been married, etc.  Then came the riots of the late 1960s.  The threats, the shots, the burned cars, burned buildings, beatings.  The Blacks doing this did not wear fancy storm-trooper uniforms, but they were just as racist, just as threatening, just as brutal.  Now many more whites found it necessary to flee the city.  Like the Jews of Hitler’s Europe, they had to leave, sometimes quite quickly, out of fear.  They often suffered financial loss in the process of a fast relocation.  Yes, they went to the burbs, and often loved it; like the Jews who came to America and loved it.  But many of these whites were driven from their homes.  White flight was a reality.  While the academedia complex can only envision white racism, it was the brutality of Black racism that caused many to flee.  (Jack Cashill’s Sucker Punch: The Hard Left Hook that Dazed Ali and Killed King’s Dream describes how Black racism led to the collapse of his home neighborhood in Newark, NJ, in the late 1960s.)

            What were whites fleeing?  Black racism.  Black crime.  Black “culture” (loud, noisy music, vulgarity, shouting, arguments, hatred of whites, etc.  Why is there such crime?  Because liberal judges do not require Blacks to abide by the same rules required of whites.  If they commit crimes, their punishment will often be lighter.  A Black who attacks a white can get away with it.  So why not do it?  It will not make news.  It is deleted from the newspaper.  If it does make news, it will somehow be the white man’s fault.  The Black is exonerated.  OJ was declared not guilty and across the nation Black university students cheered.  (Stick it to whitey!)

            Also telling, shortly after being elected President, Ronald Reagan was shot and severely wounded by attempted assassin John Hinckley.  The crime occurred in Washington, D.C., a city overwhelmingly Black in population.  A jury was selected to hear the case – eleven Blacks and one white.  Rather than convict the attempted murderer, the jury found him not guilty due to insanity!  Do you think that jury would have reached a similar verdict had Hinckley attempted to assassinate Obama?

            Flaherty writes about the past two years, atrocity after atrocity.  So many attacks by Blacks against whites that it no longer seems a tragedy, but a Stalinist statistic.  What might the numbers be?  Though she includes all crimes and all races, Ann Coulter includes an important paragraph in her new book, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama - “Between 1960 and 1973, the number of FBI index crimes – which are serious offences such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, assault, kidnapping and burglary – nearly tripled from 2,019,600 offences a year to 5,891,924.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans had to die, be raped, or have their property destroyed or stolen because liberals had some neat new ideas about crime.”(p. 12-13)
            Happily, not all Blacks have taken up the war against whites.   Many Blacks prefer peace with white people.  But too often Blacks vote for the liberal politicians and judges who refuse to crack down on Black crime.  If they are jurors, they too often vote to let guilty Blacks go free.

            Recall Stalin emphasized how one can conceive of an individual death, but not the death of a million.  That is a statistic.  Yet, Flaherty’s endless recording of one after another attack on whites by Black racists has a more powerful impact.  The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  It is not a single incident, but the cumulative effect of reading about attacks on whites by Black racists.  Equally important, the equally cumulative effect of the consistent cover-ups and lies by the mass media and the government officials to hide or excuse the Black attacks.

            What has happened to America in recent decades is a tragedy.  In reality, the elite have encourage Blacks to make war on whites.  It is a war consciously ignored by the academedia complex.  It is a war encouraged and subsidized by the extremely wealthy foundations (most of which are dominated by the Left).  It is at present a one-sided war, for only one groups is involved in the aggression.  The other is victimized.  The media pretend there is no war.  The politicians appease the aggressors.  Statistics and tragedies.

            Despite the flaws of typographical errors, misspelt and omitted words, despite the lack of analysis and index, despite the sloppy look and oversized print, White Girl Bleed A Lot provides accurate description of the continuing race war that the mainstream media consciously refuse to report.        

First, MILITARY-INDUSTRAIL COMPLEX, Then ACADEMEDIA COMPLEX, Now - FOUNDATIONS!

  THE NEW LEVIATHAN: HOW THE LEFT-WING

MONEY MACHINE SHAPES AMERICAN POLITICS AND

THREATENS AMERICA’S FUTURE (New York: Crown Forum, 2012).

By DAVID HOROWITZ and JACOB LAKSIN

Rev. by Hugh Murray

            Everyone knows that the right-wing millionaires and corporations have distorted political dialogue in the US and are intent on using their wealth to destroy democracy.  Of course, what everyone “knows” is FALSE.  This book is one of the best at proving that most of the money in American politics is spent to promote the causes and policies of the Left.

            The Horowitz-Laksin (H-L) volume focuses on foundations and their creations.  Most of the enormous wealth of these foundations is spent subsidizing Left Wing organizations.  These groups, over the past few decades, have greatly changed America – diminishing the concept of citizenship, and of assimilation, and demanding instead open borders and for illegals: free public schooling, health care, welfare, translators in courts, ballots and driver’s tests in various languages  - in short, the decline of citizenship.  And though the authors do not mention this – the Left has foisted on America affirmative action preferences and privileges for immigrants of color over white citizen, privileges granted even to illegals once they are granted amnesty. (See Hugh Davis Graham’s Collision Course, for more on this).

            A misconception that wealth and the Right are linked, while the Left represents the poor, this common misconception was exposed as ludicrous in 2003 when the US Supreme Court considered the question of affirmative action (AA) in cases originating at universities in Michigan.  Before the court decided, it received numerous friends-of-the-court briefs; almost all favoring the continuance of AA.  What is most noteworthy is that the large corporations like Proctor & Gamble, Coca Cola, General Motors, Pepsi, all favored the position of the Left, i.e., retaining AA.  In addition, high-ranking military men had their attorneys submit friends-of- the-court arguments also favoring extension of race-based preferences.  These briefs had their impact on the court, for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor quoted from some when she wrote the Court’s majority decision upholding AA.   In 2003 the military-industrial complex of America publicly aligned itself with the Left on AA.  So did the leaders of academe.  They wanted to keep in place the discriminatory practices that denied equal opportunity and rights to poor and middle-class whites and others.

            Horowitz and others have previously exposed the Left-Wing bias of the universities and most who watch television news are familiar with its Leftist bias.  Thus, lined up on the Left side are 1) the military-industrial complex, and 2) the academedia complex.

            The major contribution by H-L in this work is the revelation of the vast wealth of foundations and how they have created tax-exempt organizations that work to implement Left-Wing policies.  Worse, these efforts have been so successful, they have indeed changed America so that the nation now seems almost as unrecognizable to the elderly as the shock that accompanies suburbanites who traverse to the old neighborhoods in the inner city in which they were born and raised.

            H-L observe that most of this foundation money did not originate with Left-wingers.  Henry Ford may have been a revolutionary industrialist, but few ascribe his political views to the Left.  Yet, to avoid heavy taxes, Ford established a foundation.  After his death, the members of the board moved the philanthropy steadily to the Left.  By the 1960s Ford Foundation grants are, in effect, creating and subsidizing anti-assimilationist (some might say anti-American) groups like the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF), La Raza, and providing funds to such ideologues who succeeded in pushing the older, more traditional League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) into the radical, anti-assimilationist camp.  Whereas in the early 1960s most Latin immigrants to the US sought assimilation into America, by the late 1970s – thanks to the pernicious influence of MALDEF, La Raza, et al, - the Jimmy Carter Administration and liberal judges – changed public schooling requiring them to enroll illegals, requiring bi-lingual education (which often meant hiring poorly trained, Spanish speaking teachers who never bothered, or wanted, to teach their pupils English.

            The harm these foundations have caused is delineated in chapters on open borders and the assault on assimilation, attacks on national security, mobilization to promote socialized medicine, to increase governmental regulations and power, and to expand government unions.  The foundations have also underwritten attempts to increase the price of energy, to halt construction of buildings and roads to preserve rare spiders or other pests that would adapt even if the road or homes were built.  The foundations try to undermine the foundations of our freedoms in the Constitution, seeking to restrict our diets, forbid us weapons, deny free speech if offends some fanatics, etc.

            Not only do H-L expose the Left-wing nature of most modern, large foundations, but their indices display the overwhelming disparities in foundation funding for Left and Right.  I include only one of their many statistics; total foundation grants in 2010 (the date is unfortunately unclear and may refer to that one year or many; this ambiguity is a weakness of the book) to causes of the Right, $831.8 million; and for the grants to the Left, $8.81 billion.  On some specific issues like the environment, the Left Right ratio is over 100 to 1.  Even if the amounts listed are for one year or for many, the discrepancy is stark – the Left received millions more in funding from foundations than the Right, and on numerous issues.  With the vast wealth now dominated by the Left, the foundations have created organizations, front groups, legal specialists, promoted various studies at universities, contributed to media organizations like National Public Radio, etc.  These millions have helped set the agenda for America and even the world, helping to ban DDT, seeking to panic parliaments about alleged global warming into restricting capitalist development, and even causes unmentioned in this book like abolishing the death penalty, open borders in Europe, “hate” speech laws to end free speech, etc.

            Also absent from this book is the Leftist charge that when the US Supreme Court invalidated the McCain-Feingold law, that it unleashed the millions from Right-wing millionaires and corporations to corrupt the democratic process.  The answer to that charge is precisely in this book.  The millions from the Right are but a tenth of the surplus given to the Left by foundations to “non-partisan” groups like La Raza, the NAACP, the ACLU, NPR, etc.  The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court simply allowed the Right to have some voice against the massive media monopoly of the Left – a monopoly broken somewhat by the internet, talk radio, and Fox News.

            Though it is beyond the scope of their book, H-L might have raised the issue of American foundations creating and subsidizing organization in other nations for subversive purposes.  Is President/Premier Putin so wrong when he suspects Non-Governmental Organizations of subversion and demands that they register as foreign agents if their funds come from abroad?  How many of these foundation-subsidized NGO’s were linked to the “Arab Spring” and the rise of fanatical, terroristic Islam in much of the world?  (What happened to the “google guy” in Egypt?)  And, what are the possible connections between the foundations, the NGO’s, and Hillary Clinton’s State Department?

            The foundations have enormous wealth and their boards are self-perpetuating, un-regulated cliques answerable to no one.  Some of the George Soros backed foundations have been accused of helping to subvert and overthrow governments in various nations.  The money that founded these foundations was usually accumulated by conservatives, but the boards they created moved Left.   President Eisenhower warned of the influence of the military-industrial complex.  Today, that complex stands on the Left.  So too does the academedia complex.  Horowitz and Laksin introduce us to the enormous dangers stemming from the massive foundations of the Left.  They have written a book essential to the understanding of modern American politics.

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.