TECTONIC PLATES ADRIFT? - Wilson, Lenin; Putin, Obama - rUSsiA

                                                    by Hugh Murray
     I was away for two weeks in Asia, and spent less than 3 hours on the net.  The cable TV in my hotel room was quite limited, and I had trouble finding real news of the world.  BBC and CNN seemed to show nothing but homages to Nelson Mandela, the South African radical who was jailed for years and then emerged as a negotiator for the dismantling of apartheid.  Day after day, the funeral seemed to be the only world news on the British and American channels.  Deutsche Welle showed talking heads.  The local Thai stations showed the continuing demonstrations in Bangkok, but I did not understand the language, so quickly changed the channels.  The Fox Sports channel showed little soccer, and then mainly from the Dutch league, which I do  not follow.  I did chance upon one channel, in English, that kept my attention.  Oliver Stone was interviewed for about an hour, with a co-author on the Hidden History of the US.  I generally disagreed with his views, and yet because of his terrific film, JFK, I kept watching.  There was other news from the Washington bureau.  Yet, I had never heard of the channel.
     Then there was a program on army life, but the language was a Slavic one.  The news showed the demos in Thailand, but much more time was devoted to those in the Ukraine.  Then it dawned on me, RT must stand for Russian Television, Russia Today.  The Ukrainian reports were substantial.  American Sen. John McCain was shown as he asserted among the anti-government protestors that the Ukrainian government's decision not to join the European Union was unacceptable.  We were informed that an American State Dept. official was among the crowd handing out food to the protestors.  But there was additional commentary.  One surmised that if the Ukraine joined the EU, it would be among the most impoverished, joining Greece, and Spain in poverty, while the wealth of the country would be sent to EU bankers.  Later, RT stressed that while anti-gov. protestors were in one square, pro-gov. protestors were just a short distance away in another square.  Clearly, many wanted to move closer to the EU and Western Europe; just as clearly, the govt. and many others preferred to stay closely allied to Russia.
     RT also devoted considerable time to Russian leader's State of the Union speech this December, 2013.  When I heard the analysis of his speech on RT, I began to think the tectonic plates of the world may be changing.
     Soon after the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, the new Communist government did many things.  Like Snowden who exposed so many secret documents, the Soviets exposed the double-dealing of the Allies, and how they intended to divide the world into colonies and spheres of influence if the Western nations defeated the Central Powers - i.e, if the UK, France, the US, etc. defeated Germany, Aus.-Hungary, and Turkey.  The Soviets also abolished the supremacy of the church in the new Soviet state, and abolished the anti-homosexual laws that had been on the books.
     The West did win the war, and American President Woodrow Wilson seemed a savior of democracy and the world, for a short time.  The religious man, who demanded racial segregation of the American federal bureaucracy, who was determined that the new League of Nations would not cave to the Japanese demand for a statement of equality of all races, had also used federal troops to close the bordellos in New Orleans where a genre of music had originated.  Unable to find work in the closed cat houses, the musicians moved North to Memphis, St. Louis, Chicago, New York and eventually Paris and the world.  From the houses of jizz and sex, jazz became an international rage.  Under Wilson, the religious strain could also be seen in the enactment of Prohibition, the ban on drinking alcohol.  By 1920, Americans were disillusioned with Wilson and his war.  Wilson's Democratic Party was swept out of office, and the Republicans led the nation to a return to Normalcy.  Not quite.  Women cut their hair, shortened their skirts, began to smoke, and dance ( and even drink, in defiance of the new law).  The new automobiles were becoming bordellos on wheels, according to some preachers.  Yet, even in this relaxed atmosphere in America, with some jazz titles like Masculine Women and Feminine Men, homosexuality was still illegal and strongly stigmatized.  By contrast, homosexuality was no longer illegal in the New Red Russia.  And Communist front-groups, like the League of Militant Athiests in the West, made it clear that they rejected the old morality of the church.  And though illegal in the new Weimar Germany, it was becoming quite open, and even films were made like, Different from the Others, and A Man's Young Girlhood, and Dr. Magnus Hirschfelt's sexual institute and campaign for legalization of homosexuality made Berlin a center of research and agitation on this issue.  Christopher Isherwood would stay at the institute when he moved to Berlin in the early 1930s.  In the 1920s then the new Soviet Union, and to some extent Weimar Germany may have been viewed as gay havens.  Dispite flappers and speakeasy (illegal liquor) in the US, the KKK marched down the streets of Washington DC and traditional values were upheld; religion was popular, and evolution was condemned even in the courts.
     The Depression brought out new demands for morality, to clean up the filth that may have caused such economic misery.  Admittedly, it was not so clear in the US, for with the election of Democrat Franklin Roosevelt, one of the first acts was to end Prohibition, so Americans could drink alcohol legally once again.  But there would be no more immorality portrayed on the silver screen, as the Hays office would censor Hollywood films.  No more homos portrayed in the movies, no more exposure of so much skin by the young starlets, and dialog had to be decent.  Just a few weeks before FDR took the oath as President of the US, Adolf Hitler became German Chancellor, and he too demanded greater morality of the Germans.  Quickly, the Hirschfeld institute was raided and closed, and its books and research volumes were burnt.  Most gay publication were now illegal, as were most gay bars.  And in 1934, when Hitler killed Roehm and other leaders of his Storm Troopers, then homosexuality was utterly condemned in the new Germany.  Hitler's New Germany was to be a Moral Germany.  Not to be outdone, Stalin created a new constitution for his USSR, and each state in that union was now required to ban homosexuality.  The Webb's assured readers that homosexuality had been imported into the USSR by foreigners, anyway.
      In WWII, the various nations went to war expressing their own versions of "morality," and incarcerating, criminalizing, and sometimes exterminating those deemed immoral or unworthy of life.  By the 1950s, there were basically 2 super powers and views of the world, atheistic communism, which still outlawed homosexuality, and free, religious America.  To illustrate the contrast, the American pledge to the flag was changed again.  Initially, one was to raise the right arm to the flag, palm up, and recited the pledge.  But that was to similar to the fascist salute, so the right hand over the heart replaced the outstretched arm.  In the 1950s, the wording was changed: "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" was lengthened by the insertion of "under God" after nation.  Judeo-Christian morality against atheistic Communism.
     By 2009 with the election of Barack Obama as Pres. of the US, one can see the enormous changes.  Judeo-Christian morality is no longer on a pedestal in the age of multiculturalism.  Moreover, the foreign policy of Obama and Hillary Clinton is openly pro-Muslim, and helped the fanatical Muslim Brotherhood achieve power in Egypt, and its allies take power in Libya, and almost in Syria.  Europe has ever more Muslim immigrants who achieve a privileged status thanks to liberal judges and bureaucrats in the EU.  Londonstan has areas of sharia law today, as do many cities in the UK, the Netherlands, France.  The Left has allied itself with the most anti-feminist, most anti-gay crowd, the Muslims.  Obama generally accepts this view inside the US.
    Putin's Speech of December 2013 is in some ways amazing.  The former KGB official comes out defending Christian morality, implicitly attacking gays, Muslims, and the cult of the multi.  Meanwhile, America's President Obama has become a champion of gays, illegal aliens, Hispanics, Blacks, single mothers abortions, etc.  While Obama demands a liberal agenda for most nations, Putin now urges nationalism, national traditions, traditional values, religion.  Suddenly, the former KGB Communist seems to have more in common with the right wing in Europe that seeks to preserve national traditions, that opposes liberal judicial edicts from Brussels, that opposes economic diktats from Berlin.  The Left of the KGB seems to be meeting the Right of Marine LePen in France, of UKIP in Britain, and of various right wing parties throughout Europe.  One contrast, some of the Rightwing parties, as those in the Netherlands, have be led by gays who are horrified by the violent hatred of the Muslims.
     In the 1950s, America stood for traditional religion and traditional values and traditional bigotries.  Today, it stands for multiculturalism and persecution of any speech that offends one of the many "favored" minorities or women.  Today, Putin proclaims the New Russia stands for traditional values and religion and (traditional bigotries).
    American Rightwinger Pat Buchanan had long criticized Pres. G W Bush and Obama for meddling in Eastern Europe and antagonizing Russia.  He would not agree with Sen McCain in the Ukraine.  Indeed, in his most recent column, Buchanan sees Russia's Putin as one of "us," a Paleoconservative.
    Bottom Line - In the 1920s America, even with its flappers, represented nationalism and traditional religious values.  In the 1920s the New Soviet Union represented internationalism, and a sexual revolution in which a woman official declared sex was like a "glass of water," (perhaps she should have said like a box of chocolates) with abortion, homosexuality, and more open-type marriages.  Religion in the USSR was persecuted.  Today, there has been a reversal - Putin represents nationalism and traditional religious values; Obama represents internationalism and secularism, feminism, abortion, homosexuality, etc.   How the world has changed?  Or is this just cosmetic?  And how will it continue to change?

OBAMA'S IMMIGRATION POLICY: THE WRONG THING TO DO -Part 1

WHY OBAMA’S IMMIGRATION POLICY IS 

THE WRONG THING TO DO,

UNJUST, AND UNFAIR

by Hugh Murray

            Earlier this year addressing an Hispanic group, President Obama was questioned about immigration reform.  The former professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard explained to his audience that he, by himself, could not change things.  There are three departments of government: the executive, legislative, and judicial, and the President simply could not act on his own concerning this issue.

On 15 June 2012 President Obama announced his change of the immigration policy regarding those who were brought here by others (presumably their parents) before they were 16, who are now under 30, who have no criminal records, who have a high school diploma or who have served in the armed services – they will no longer be deported.  Even though Obama, had only recently declared that even as President he did not have the power to do so, in June he proceeded to do just that.  The presumed Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, attacked Pres. Obama’s announcement as being political, and as being temporary rather than part of a general reform of immigration, but Romney did not denounce the new attempt at amnesty for illegal immigrants.

While Obama was openly declaring that he would not enforce the law already on the books, his Department of Justice was in court trying to prevent the State of Arizona from enforcing the federal immigration law that had been enacted by Congress and signed by a previous president.  Arizona had enacted a state law, not different from, but to supplement the federal law.  The main difference was Arizona planned to enforce the law.  The Federal Government had generally failed in implementing the law.  Now Obama declared he would not enforce the law!.  Worse, the US Supreme Court failed to uphold the Arizona law.  Justice Scalia, in dissent, said it boggled the mind that the court would not uphold Arizona’s attempt to enforce a law that the President openly refused to enforce.

However, my purpose here is not to expose the utter hypocrisy on immigration policy by President Obama.  Or that of Republican Mitt Romney.  My purpose is to reveal the long-term trend and its consequences.  And also to ask, how did we fall into this mess?  Did we stumble?  Or were we pushed?  

            What is totally neglected in the discussion is how Obama’s “amnesty” will discriminate against American citizens.

            Is it wrong to want the best for your children?  Is it wrong to prefer your family and your children to those of others?  To give to yours rather than to strangers?  To want yours to attend the best schools available?  To want a leg up for yours?  Is that wrong?  Or is that natural?  And good?

            According to the Obama Administration, some 800,000 young illegals will be “liberated” through his unilateral announcement.  The Pew Hispanic Center estimated the number at 1.4 million, with the vast majority Latinos, and about 70% of those coming from Mexico.  For the moment, assume that the total number covered by the President’s emancipation proclamation is one million, and 80% are Latinos.  Because they are Hispanic, they will receive affirmative-action (AA) preferences.  So when one of these illegals applies for university, they will receive an AA preference over an American-born citizen.  The President declares this is the right thing to do; it is just and fair.  And President Obama is an honorable man.

            When one of these illegals applies for a scholarship, they will receive an AA preference over an applicant who is an American-born citizen.  The President declares this is the right thing to do; it is just and fair.  And President Obama is an honorable man.  When one of these illegals applies for a job, they will receive an AA preference over an American-born citizen.  The President declares this is the right thing to do; it is just and fair.  And President Obama is an honorable man.  When one of these applies for a promotion, they will receive an AA preference over an American-born citizen.  The President declares this is the right thing to do; it is just and fair.  And President Obama is an honorable man.

            800,00 preferences over American citizens!  I think Obama’s policy is outrageous.  It is wrong.  Unjust.  Unfair.  The illegals not only move to the front of the line over thousands who have applied to immigrate legally.  The illegals also move to the front of the line ahead of American-born citizens in admission to university, in scholarships, in being hired, in being promoted, and in other ways.  This is scandalous!  The illegals here have broken the law.  And they will have advantages above American citizens who are law-abiding.  Obama’s policies are racist and discriminatory.  They are unjust, unfair, and he should be impeached for this act alone.

            Why has American policy turned so much against the majority of the American people?  Why does it favor foreigners above citizens?  Some may answer that Obama is not an American, he’s a Kenyan.  This misses the point.  Obama’s policy is quite similar to Republican Sen. Rubio’s.  It is not that different from that of Republican President Bush.  And Clinton, and President H. W. Bush.  And Republican Reagan amnestied millions when he was President – to solve the illegal alien problem.  Reagan only made the problem 11 million times worse.  Why have so many American Presidents followed policies that hurt the American people?

            After the American Civil War, in which more Americans were killed than in almost all the other American wars combined, a rocky peace followed.  There was still unrest, beatings, killings – in the West, settlers and troops against the Amerindians; in the South, Ku Klux against Republicans; in factories and mines, unions against owners and managers.  Nevertheless, American freedom and inventiveness brought about massive economic growth and improvement.  Britain was now being challenged for dominance, not only by traditional rival France, but by a newly united Germany and a reUnited States.  Yet, to many of the poor, the United States seemed to offer the best way to raise themselves with cheap lands to farm, jobs in ever newer industries, and various freedoms denied in other nations.  So immigration rose and grew to a million by 1900.  It remained high until the Great War of 1914  cut the ocean highway to Europe.  Suddenly, Americans were taking sides on the distant war, with many immigrants from Germany, Austo-Hungary, and Jews who hated the Czarist regime in Russia siding with the Central Powers.  Many others sided with Britain.  One English-speaking exception were the Irish, who had fled the British domination of the emerald island, and who were not interested in aiding the King’s forces.  On the other hand, President Wilson and the Eastern Establishment were pro-British, and when the Kaiser’s military and diplomats responded clumsily, eventually Wilson overcame the filibusters of the Mid-West and pushed America into war on the side of the British.

            Not only was Wilson a Progressive, who believed in a larger role of government, he was also something of a puritan.  To prevent the corruption of our boys in uniform, he sent federal troops to close down the Red Light district of New Orleans.  Because many of the early jazz musicians were earning a living playing in houses where jizz exploded, closing Storyville, meant jazz had to move to survive.  Thus, so many musicians left New Orleans for Chicago, Memphis, New York, etc.  The war required sacrifice.

            Criticism of the war could and did lead to prison.  Hatred of things German meant that some new immigrants quickly had to learn English.  Sour krout was cooked into liberty cabbage.  Even in Milwaukee, the German Club became the Wisconsin Club, the new Germania Building, the Liberty Building.  In New Jersey, a dachshund was stoned.  The Germans had their beer gardens and the Irish their taverns.  And both groups were now suspect as hyphenate Americans, un-Americans.  All the more reason to close their treasonable establishments.  The hatred of the Hun could turn into the hatred of liquor, and thus prepare the way for Prohibition.  (Also, as many young men were drafted, the Progressive interest in health and curtailing venereal disease led to circumcision as an American health measure – rounding up another example of American exceptionalism when compared to Europe.)

            With war’s end many Americans felt we had been duped into going to war.  And worse, a new international league with Britain’s Empire given many votes to only one for the US seemed yet another way to entangle us in Europe’s unending hatreds.  Immigration began to pick up again, but the old frontier had been closed.  The 48 states were no longer unpopulated territories.  America was filling up.  Perhaps, it should fill up with its own progeny, rather than millions of new immigrants.

            Even in the 1860s the Workers Party in California had demanded expulsion of Asian immigrants who were competing for jobs.  By 1900 the US and Japan had an agreement to prevent any more Japanese from coming.  By the 1920s, many Americans sought to keep America for themselves and their progeny.  There would be some immigration of course, but it would be to reflect and reinforce the population of the nation already here.  As most came from northern Europe, so too would most of the new immigrants according to the policy.  The new restrictive policy was endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan (Democrat Wilson had shown D W Griffith’s major film “Birth of a Nation” in the White House, and praised the pro-KKK message.  That film is often credited with causing the rebirth of the KKK).  But it was not only the Klan.  The AFL, the only major union at the time (the IWW had been anti-WWI and President Wilson destroyed that union, as he jailed Eugene Debs, leader of the major American railroad union and also candidate of the large American Socialist Party.  Debs was freed from prison by Republican President Harding.)  The AFL under Samuel Gompers saw an influx of new immigrants as competitors for jobs with American union men.  So the AFL sought to curtail immigration.  And it was curtailed in the 1920s, with a smaller number of legal immigrants based on quotas from mainly northern European lands.  Africans, Asians, Latin Americans would develop in their own ways, but in their own countries, not in the United States.

            In the depression era, both the Hoover and Roosevelt Administrations seemed incapable of restoring prosperity.  Some immigrants came, but finding no work, they returned to nations like Germany where another regime was producing jobs.  It may not have been as free, but “It’s the economy, stupid” as Democrats from another era phrased the sentiment.  Some in America even assumed that they might return to Europe and the new experiment occurring in the Soviet Union for a better life.  Of the many Finns who left America to return to Stalin’s workers paradise, almost all the men were executed.  Bottom line, there was little immigration to the US during the 1930s, and in some years more left than entered this nation.   War in the 1940s reduced immigration even more.  Even with refugees of the post-war period, it was still small in the late 40s and 50s. 

             Incomplete just now.  I will add more later.-----Hugh