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.        

INJUSTICE

INJUSTICE: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department

J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS, Author

Rev. by Hugh Murray

Adams may deserve 5 stars for courage, but his book receives a mere 3.  Why?

Adams is a whistleblower who worked in the U.S. Department of Justice until he resigned in 2010.  He reveals many of the inner workings of this influential federal bureau.  Though most of his book concerns enforcement of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Adams peripherally discusses issues such as school discipline, Braille for Kindle, and examinations for police and firefighters.

It is the voting rights division that Adams describes most thoroughly, for that is where he worked for five years.  He reveals the friction in the department even during the Administration of Pres. G. W. Bush.  The problems first arose concerning alleged voter fraud in Mississippi’s Noxubee County, which is about 70% Black.  A Black man, Ike Brown, rose to political leadership of the county.  Although in 1984 he pleaded guilty to forgery and in 1995 was convicted for aiding and abetting on false income tax returns(p. 20), he became chairman of the Democratic Party in Noxubee.  When asked what might improve race relations in Noxubee, he replied, “Funerals.” [for whites](21)

Brown used his influence so white poll workers would be excluded, and many other means to insure his all-Black slate would be victorious for Democratic nominations. In 2003 the US DoJ sent observers to Noxubee; some wanted to charge Brown with violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Others, in Bush’s DoJ, strongly objected to this process – “Could you believe we are going to Mississippi to protect white voters?”(49) and “I know that Ike Brown is crooked, everybody knows that, but the resources of the Division should not be used this way.”(49)  However, these Leftwing careerists in the DoJ were overruled by Bush’s political appointees, and the DoJ filed suit against Democratic leader Ike Brown.  Those inside the DoJ who supported this suit were chastised by their Leftwing extremist colleagues, some even being called “Klansmen.”(52)  The extremist refrain was simple: “I didn’t come to work in the Civil Rights Division…to sue black people.”(53)  Their opponents responded that if Blacks were violating the Voting Rights Act, they should be prosecuted like anyone else.  The split in the DoJ was simple – Should Blacks who violate the Voting Rights Act be prosecuted?  The Leftists said, No; the Right said, Yes.

When the DoJ prosecuted Brown, some Leftists in the department sought to sabotage the case against the Black Democrat.(56)  On 29 June 2007 US District Judge Lee ruled that Ike Brown violated the law when his “racially motivated decision to count the votes of black voters while rejecting those of white voters is discrimination.”(60)  Not only did the Leftists in DoJ not celebrate the department’s victory, they were ashamed the suit had been brought and that the DoJ had convicted a Black man of massive voter fraud.(60)  The Fifth District Court upheld Judge Lee’s decision against Brown.  Nevertheless, the radicals of the DoJ did not believe a Black should be prosecuted if he violates the voting rights of white people.  Under Pres. Bush, the Left was forceful in the DoJ, but there were also those who believed the law should be enforced, whatever the race of the violator; whatever the race of the victim.

After Obama’s victory in 2008, he appointed Eric Holder as Attorney General, and it quickly became evident that a new policy was set.  “In the view of the Holder DOJ, whites aren’t protected by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.”(69)

Shortly after Obama’s inauguration, the Civil Rights Division hired many more employees.  Whereas in the past, during interviews of prospective employees, they had been asked if they would enforce the law in a race-neutral manner against all law-breakers, under Attorney General Eric Holder, that question was not to be asked.  Only when Blacks were the victims and whites the perpetrators was the Holder regime interested in filing suit.

The new Administration’s policy was highlighted in the case of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia.  In November 2008, two members of that party, in party uniform, one waving a baton, harassed and threatened voters outside a polling place.  Videos showed their hostile presence outside the voting venue.  They were clearly violating the Voting Rights Act, and Adams worked on the case to prosecute them.  The NBPP itself did not even respond to the suit.  One of the members was also a minor official in the local Democratic Party, and the other, with the baton, had on other occasions (on video) called for the killing of all white people, including all white babies.  In effect Adams had won the case, when the Obama DoJ now demanded that the case be dropped.  Only the man with the baton was convicted, and his punishment amounted to little more than that he refrain from doing it again.

Happily, Adams includes photographs in his book showing candidate Obama in 2007 marching and, just behind him, leaders of the NBPP with their arms raised in Black Power salute.  Elsewhere Obama is shown on a platform with NBPP leaders.  And Obama was a member of Rev. Wright’s church for two decades.  President Obama proves that one need not be born in Kenya in order to harbor Mau Mau ideals.

A large part of this book is about details of voter fraud perpetrated by Black Democrats in Mississippi and Alabama.  It is tedious reading, akin to a shortened legal brief.  However, it does make a salient point – Black Democrats are capable of massive voter fraud.  While the Left and the Obama Administration refuse to prosecute such Black racists, Adams details their hypocrisy.  Strangely, Adams almost never calls their anti-white policies racist; they are merely “racialist.”

In his last chapter, Adams provides suggestions to a future Republican President to end the “racialist” policies now in place and restore a race-neutral approach to law enforcement.  He assumes that laws should be applied to all, whatever their race.

Where has Adams been for the past four decades?

            Civil rights had not been one of President John Kennedy’s urgent priorities.  However, as pressure mounted in the early 1960s with the sit-ins and the Freedom Rides, President Kennedy was pushed to move on the issue.  On 28 February 1963 in his special message to Congress on civil rights, Kennedy stressed that the American Constitution is color blind.  Nevertheless, neither Kennedy’s speech nor Black demands for more jobs would be the catalyst that would hurl civil rights legislation onto the Congressional agenda.  It was Birmingham, where television exposed police who blasted young Black protestors with fire hoses and terrorized others with fang-baring dogs.   And it was Birmingham where four young girls were bombed inside a church.  It was Birmingham that propelled most Americans to accept the need for a civil rights law. 

   To promote that law, a massive march on Washington was mobilized for 28 August 1963, at which Martin Luther King’s speech struck the cord that rang the freedom bell.  That day it mesmerized many Americans; today, it’s memorized by many throughout the world.  It is the only speech one recalls from that event: the speech in which King dreamt that Blacks will “one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

  

   This very spirit would be crystallized into the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The proposed law encountered unrelenting opposition from Southern Democrats, some 22 members of the Senate.  Most of the northern Democrats supported the bill, but could not muster 67 votes to end a filibuster.  So, Republican cooperation was essential for passage.  While a few, like Arizona’s Barry Goldwater, opposed it, most Republicans were willing to be swayed, if they were certain of the nature of the bill to be passed.

 

   When Congress debated the proposed civil rights legislation, there were ominous trends.  In late 1963 Pitney-Bowes, a major manufacturer of postage equipment, announced it would give Negroes preferences in hiring. (Hugh Davis, The Civil Rights Era, p. 116)  Other major corporations were quietly hiring Blacks by quotas and providing them preferential treatment. (Davis, 105)  Moreover, the Labor Dept.’s Bureau of Apprenticeship Training issued new guidelines that appeared to grant favoritism to Blacks and quotas in recruiting. (Davis, 114-15)

   When the proposed civil rights act was before Congress, preferential hiring and quotas were clearly part of the debate.  Was the Civil Rights Act to become a quota law?  Opponents, mainly Democrats like Sen. Sam Ervin (NC), contended that the law would inevitably result in quotas and preferences for Blacks.  Not so, assured the liberals.  A leading supporter of the legislation, Dem. Sen. Hubert Humphrey (Minn.), responded to such fears by clarifying:

     there is nothing in it [the bill] that will give any power to the Commission [the EEOC] or to

     any court to require hiring, firing, or promotion of employees in order to meet a racial “quota” 

     or to achieve a racial balance…

     In fact the very opposite is true…Title VII is designed to encourage hiring on the basis of            

     ability and qualifications, not race and religion. [Davis, 150]  

   Furthermore, the floor managers in the Senate for Title VII [the employment section of the proposed law], Democrat Sen. Joseph Clark (Pa.) and Republican Sen. Clifford Case (NJ) issued a joint memorandum to answer opponents of the new law who complained that discrimination was not even defined.  “To discriminate means to make a distinction, to make a difference in treatment or favor…which is based on any five of the criteria: race, color, religion, sex, and national origin…There is no requirement in title VII that an employer maintain a racial balance in his work force.  On the contrary, any deliberate attempt to maintain a racial balance would involve a violation of title VII because maintaining such a balance would require an employer to hire or refuse to hire on the basis of race.  It must be emphasized that discrimination is prohibited to any individual.” [Davis, 150-51].

   Another event would affect the debate in Congress. In the fall of 1963 a Black, high-school dropout sought a job at Motorola.  Like all applicants, he was given a general ability test. He failed it.  He then complained to the Illinois Fair Employment Practice Commission alleging he was not hired because of his race.  The Illinois state commission appointed a Black to hear the case, and in January 1964 that examiner ruled that the test was unfair to culturally deprived groups and issued a cease and desist order.  Motorola was ordered to stop testing to hire the best qualified applicants.  To many Americans, requiring companies to hire people who could not pass basic tests seemed unfair and a threat to merit hiring and an efficient work force.  Because of this threat, the proposed civil rights legislation was amended in Congress, as the Clark-Case memorandum explained: “There is nothing in Title VII that employers abandon bona fide qualification tests where, because of differences in background and education, members of some groups are able to perform better on these tests than members of other groups.” (Davis, 151)  Illinois Sen. Everett Dirksen, Republican leader also had the legislation amended so that only intentional discrimination was barred.  In June 1964 the Senate voted 71-29 to end the filibuster against the legislation, and passed the bill 73-27.

   This is the law that America wanted, Congress passed, and President Johnson signed in July 1964.

   Indeed, I would contend that this is still what most Americans understand as the meaning of civil rights in general, and of fair employment practices in particular.

   Yet, how did a law meant to insure non-discrimination, merit hiring, maintenance of testing; a law that forbade quotas and racial balance come to mean the opposite?  How could the Civil Rights Act be used to enforce quotas (using euphemisms of “goals and timetables” or more recently “diversity”)?  How could the law be used to forbid aptitude testing when some groups do poorly?  How could it be used to prevent an employer from inquiring of a prospective employee about high school grades, or high school diplomas, or criminal records (as such queries would certainly affect groups differently)?  So today, in the name of equal opportunity, whites with far better records are rejected and Blacks, or later Browns, with far worse records are hired and promoted.  How could it be that a Chair of the Civil Rights Commission some years later would declare that civil rights laws did not apply to white people!  How could it be that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would be a major springboard for the attack on equal opportunity for all: the end of non-discrimination; the end of merit hiring and promotion; and the general decline of the American work force?  All this in the name of equal opportunity!  As Orwell might reply to those questions: all are equal, but some are more equal than others.

   Over the next few years it became clear that liberals had pulled a major, classic con-job on the American people: bait and switch.  Enact a law to insure the civil rights of ALL Americans, non-discrimination, merit hiring, no racial balance, no quotas, and then use that very law as a basis to implement the opposite.

Here is the essence of the weakness in Adams’ book – he does not place the anti-white discriminatory practices of the Voting Rights Division of the DOJ in perspective.  Adams makes a strong case that the Obama-Holder DoJ is determined not to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in a race neutral manner.  They will prosecute violators when they are white; and not prosecute when they are Black.  They will prosecute when the victims are Black; and not when they are white.  Adams makes the case.

But Adams fails to connect this to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  It too was race neutral legislation.  However, it was subverted by bureaucrats in the EEOC and other agencies.  They were aided by court decisions written by activist liberal judges.  However, it was Republican President Richard Nixon who made affirmative action a national policy and extended it to include Hispanics, Amerindians, and whoever the bureaucrats determine is their next pet group.  Republican President Ford did not interfere with affirmative action.  Despite his rhetoric, neither did Republican President Reagan.  President G H W Bush even signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, what he called a quota bill, which only solidified the quota programs.

With affirmative action, whites, especially white men, were denied equal opportunity, despite the clear wording of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  By the 1980s Mary Frances Berry, the  Chair of the Civil Rights Commission, could declare that the Civil Rights Act did not apply to white people.

Now, the DoJ under Obama-Holder covertly declares that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 no longer applies to white people.

To summarize: Stage 1- equal rights and basic civil rights are denied whites, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Stage 2- voting rights are no longer guaranteed for white people, in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  The Obama Administration is simply taking the anti-white programs of previous administrations to a new level.  And Obama will probably do nothing to prevent illegal aliens from voting – if they vote for him.  Children of illegals may be given affirmative action admission and scholarships to universities above citizen-born whites.  And when whites become a minority in the US, one can expect their rights to diminish even more.  Stage 3?  Stage 4?

The trend to make whites second-class citizens, or less, is continuing to a new level under Obama-Holder.  The book by Adams makes clear the anti-white racism and policies of the Obama-Holder Administration.  But Adams fails to place these in context.  And his pleas to change things in a future Republican Administration makes one question his grasp of reality.  Anti-white policies expanded and become entrenched national procedures under Nixon, and continued with every Republican President after him.  Is Adams naïve to expect any better from today’s Republicans?  On the other hand, Adams clearly exposes how Obama’s Administration has escalated the war on whites.

I favor equal rights and equal opportunity for all citizens.  I am so old I remember when the mantra of civil rights forces was - to treat everyone without regard to race, creed, or color.  But the civil rights organizations of today have abandoned civil rights.  They have embraced preferences for pet groups, privileges for those whom they define as oppressed.  And they are most willing to oppress any who oppose their view.  The civil rights community, like the civil liberties community, has evolved into a community of tyrants.  I oppose race and gender preferences.  Since the late 1960s American policy has been anti-white.  These anti-white racist programs are accelerating under Obama, speeding toward an America where whites are a persecuted minority which may lose all rights of citizenship.  Adams’ book underscores the acceleration; but not the decades-old process, and not the looming, nightmarish Mau Mau future.   

   When one successfully over-represented group lost its citizenship, it was announced with great fanfare at party rallies.  There will be no Nuremberg rallies in America.  America is different.  Nevertheless, if whites in the US continue to lose basic rights, it is done behind closed doors by devious folks in black robes or bureaucratic suits or community-organizing casuals.  And it is done amid hypocritical howls that it is not being done at all.  Adams gives us a glimpse of the stealth theft by bureaucrats who steal citizen’s rights from the whites of America.               

Anthony Chen's Fifth Freedom and war on whites continues

   I had posted most of the following review at amazon.com in the review section of Chen's prize-winning book, the Fifth Freedom.  However, the last quarter of the reveiw was chopped off due to length.  Here is the full review.  

 The war on whites continues with Prof. Chen’s award-winning work.  He and I skirmished in the pages of the Journal of American History several years ago.  Now, reviewing his new book, I stress how Chen’s ideology distorts his discussion of civil rights and employment.

   Chen asserts that “few pieces of legislation enjoy more widespread approval than the Civil Rights Act of 1964”. (Chen, p. 173)  Yet, he understands that employment was not the issue that propelled the nation to enact the law.  Civil rights had not been one of President Kennedy’s urgent priorities.  However, as pressure mounted in the early 1960s with the sit-ins and the Freedom Rides, President Kennedy was pushed to move on the issue.  On 28 February 1963 in his special message to Congress on civil rights, Kennedy stressed that the American Constitution is color blind.  Nevertheless, neither Kennedy’s speech nor Black demands for more jobs would be the catalyst that would hurl civil rights legislation onto the Congressional agenda.  It was Birmingham, where television exposed police who blasted young Black protestors with fire hoses and terrorized others with fang-baring dogs.   And it was Birmingham where four young girls were bombed inside a church.  It was Birmingham that propelled most Americans to accept the need for a civil rights law. (Chen, p. 180)

   To promote that law, a massive march on Washington was mobilized for 28 August 1963, at which Martin Luther King’s speech struck the cord that rang the freedom bell.  That day it mesmerized many Americans; today, it’s memorized by many throughout the world.  It is the only speech one recalls from that event: the speech in which King dreamt that Blacks will “one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
 
   This very spirit would be crystallized into the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The proposed law encountered unrelenting opposition from Southern Democrats, some 22 members of the Senate.  Most of the northern Democrats supported the bill, but could not muster 67 votes to end a filibuster.  So, Republican cooperation was essential for passage.  While a few, like Arizona’s Barry Goldwater, opposed it, most Republicans were willing to be swayed, if they were certain of the nature of the bill to be passed.

   When Congress debated the proposed civil rights legislation, there were ominous trends.  In late 1963 Pitney-Bowes, a major manufacturer of postage equipment, announced it would give Negroes preferences in hiring. (Hugh Davis, The Civil Rights Era, p. 116)  Other major corporations were quietly hiring Blacks by quotas and providing them preferential treatment. (Davis, 105)  Moreover, the Labor Dept.’s Bureau of Apprenticeship Training issued new guidelines that appeared to grant favoritism to Blacks and quotas in recruiting. (Davis, 114-15)

   When the proposed civil rights act was before Congress, preferential hiring and quotas were clearly part of the debate.  Was the Civil Rights Act to become a quota law?  Opponents, mainly Democrats like Sen. Sam Ervin (NC), contended that the law would inevitably result in quotas and preferences for Blacks.  Not so, assured the liberals.  A leading supporter of the legislation, Dem. Sen. Hubert Humphrey (Minn.), responded to such fears by clarifying:
     there is nothing in it [the bill] that will give any power to the Commission [the EEOC] or to
     any court to require hiring, firing, or promotion of employees in order to meet a racial “quota”
     or to achieve a racial balance…
     In fact the very opposite is true…Title VII is designed to encourage hiring on the basis of           
     ability and qualifications, not race and religion. [Davis, 150] 
[Interestingly, Chen refers to Humphrey’s explicit denial that “the law would require racial quotas or racial balancing,” (Chen, 88), but Chen acknowledges this NOT when he discusses the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but when explicating the debate over New York State’s Fair Employment Policy law in 1944-45!  I suggest there is a reason for this ‘disconnect.’]

   Furthermore, the floor managers in the Senate for Title VII [the employment section of the proposed law], Democrat Sen. Joseph Clark (Pa.) and Republican Sen. Clifford Case (NJ) issued a joint memorandum to answer opponents of the new law who complained that discrimination was not even defined.  “To discriminate means to make a distinction, to make a difference in treatment or favor…which is based on any five of the criteria: race, color, religion, sex, and national origin…There is no requirement in title VII that an employer maintain a racial balance in his work force.  On the contrary, any deliberate attempt to maintain a racial balance would involve a violation of title VII because maintaining such a balance would require an employer to hire or refuse to hire on the basis of race.  It must be emphasized that discrimination is prohibited to any individual.” [Davis, 150-51].

   Another event would affect the debate in Congress. In the fall of 1963 a Black, high-school dropout sought a job at Motorola.  Like all applicants, he was given a general ability test. He failed it.  He then complained to the Illinois Fair Employment Practice Commission alleging he was not hired because of his race.  The Illinois state commission appointed a Black to hear the case, and in January 1964 that examiner ruled that the test was unfair to culturally deprived groups and issued a cease and desist order.  Motorola was ordered to stop testing to hire the best qualified applicants.  To many Americans, requiring companies to hire people who could not pass basic tests seemed unfair and a threat to merit hiring and an efficient work force.  Because of this threat, the proposed civil rights legislation was amended in Congress, as the Clark-Case memorandum explained: “There is nothing in Title VII that employers abandon bona fide qualification tests where, because of differences in background and education, members of some groups are able to perform better on these tests than members of other groups.” (Davis, 151)  Illinois Sen. Everett Dirksen, Republican leader also had the legislation amended so that only intentional discrimination was barred.  In June 1964 the Senate voted 71-29 to end the filibuster against the legislation, and passed the bill 73-27.

   This is the law that America wanted, Congress passed, and President Johnson signed in July 1964.

   Indeed, I would contend that this is still what most Americans understand as the meaning of civil rights in general, and of fair employment practices in particular.

   Yet, how did a law meant to insure non-discrimination, merit hiring, maintenance of testing; a law that forbade quotas and racial balance come to mean the opposite?  How could the Civil Rights Act be used to enforce quotas (using euphemisms of “goals and timetables” or more recently “diversity”)?  How could the law be used to forbid aptitude testing when some groups do poorly?  How could it be used to prevent an employer from inquiring of a prospective employee about high school grades, or high school diplomas, or criminal records (as such queries would certainly affect groups differently)?  So today, in the name of equal opportunity, whites with far better records are rejected and Blacks, or later Browns, with far worse records are hired and promoted.  How could it be that a Chair of the Civil Rights Commission some years later would declare that civil rights laws did not apply to white people!  How could it be that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would be a major springboard for the attack on equal opportunity for all: the end of non-discrimination; the end of merit hiring and promotion; and the general decline of the American work force?  All this in the name of equal opportunity!  As Orwell might reply to those questions: all are equal, but some are more equal than others.

   Over the next few years it became clear that liberals had pulled a major, classic con-job on the American people: bait and switch.  Enact a law to insure the civil rights of ALL Americans, non-discrimination, merit hiring, no racial balance, no quotas, and then use that very law as a basis to implement the opposite.  Unfortunately, one will find little information as to how this reversal of civil rights policy occurred in Chen’s Fifth Freedom.

   And whom does Anthony Chen blame for this perversion of the civil rights laws?  Why it is the fault of the conservatives! (Chen, xiii, 22, 23, 26, 231, 233, 238)  They opposed the Fair Employment Practices legislation on the state and national levels.  Consequently, they got affirmative action and “racially attentive” programs instead!  Notice, Chen prefers to use a politically correct phrase rather than “race preference” programs, or the more accurate, “anti-white-male discrimination programs.”  Before answering Chen’s thesis, I shall discuss some of his other points.

   Beginning with the proposals for Fair Employment legislation in the 1940s, Chen makes a good argument that, outside the South, it was Republicans who usually opposed such laws.  Of course, the South in 1945 was overwhelmingly Democratic, legally segregated, and vigorously opposed to FEP laws.  However, outside Dixie, the Democrats usually received the northern Black vote and began to urge this type of legislation.  Furthermore, it would affect not only Blacks, but Jews, Italians, and some of the more recent immigrant Catholics, all of whom tended to vote Democrat.  Some labor unions, especially the CIO’s left-wing, also advocated FEP laws.  On the national scene, passing such a law through Congress where a 2/3s vote was necessary to end a Southern filibuster, derailed proposals for FEPC in 1945 and again in 1949.  Even after Truman’s surprise victory over Dewey in 1948, the victorious Democrats in 1949 could not overcome their Southern wing to pass FEPC.

   Outside the South, on the state level there were no elected Southern Democrats.  So why did not the other states enact FEPC?  A few did so quickly.  The first major debate occurred in 1944-45 in New York.  Liberals gathered a multiracial, multi-religious coalition to support the proposed bill.  There had been a riot in Harlem in 1943, and in 1944 the New York legislature deliberated an FEP law.  Republicans held a 2/3s majority in both houses of the State House in Albany.  While liberals expected little opposition to the FEP proposal, upstate Representative Frederic Bontecou organized others to halt passage of the bill.  (Prof. Chen calls him the “ringleader” of the opposition (p.88), indicating Chen’s bias.  Would he refer to Sen. Hubert Humphrey as a “ringleader of those supporting civil rights legislation?)  Chen notes even in this early debate that opponents maintained passage would lead to the end of free markets, the end of merit hiring, displacing merit with racial balancing and quotas, (Chen, 88) blackmail, hiring of undesirables, and intensified racial conflict. (p. 100)  Opponents of the proposed New York law also alleged that it would create a commission that would search for discrimination where there was none, and then rule against the employer to justify the very existence of the commission. (Chen, 102)  In short, many saw nothing “fair” about the so-called Fair Employment Practices legislation.

   While Chen notes that one of the Republican opponents was Rep. Frederic Courdet, he fails to add that Coudet, along with State Assemblyman Hubert Rapp, had led the government’s effort to purge Communists from teaching in the state in wake of the 1939 pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.  That pact, in effect, made allies of the two powerful dictatorships.  Because Communists had often taken the lead in anti-racist movements, it was natural that staunch anti-communists would be suspicious of the FEP proposal.

   One of the highlights in the New York debate occurred when Rep. Bontecou read to the House a letter from Park Commissioner Robert Moses opposing FEP.  Moses asserted that if FEP passed, the logic of proportionalism in the workplace would result in quotas.  His letter then recounted the oppression that Jews had experienced in Europe from Medieval times to the 20^th century because of quotas.  Indeed, a right-wing newspaper columnist summarized Moses’ argument against FEP with the phrase, the “Hitlerian rule of quotas.” (Chen, 110)  Chen simply dismisses this objection when he writes: “It did not matter to Moses that Ives-Quinn [the New York FEP bill] mandated non-discrimination.” (Chen, 108)  Prof. Chen might be reminded that the wording of the 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly forbade quotas and implicitly forbade racial balancing – but after passage, the US was burdened with both.  Moreover, Chen seems oblivious as to why Moses would invoke the fear of quotas.  As this debate was occurring, Europe was still ablaze with bombs, tanks, and concentration camps. In the 1930s in Europe the rising demand for quotas were often the first step in efforts to deny Jews equal opportunity, steps that led to further discrimination, incarceration, and even extermination. (See my “Affirmative Action and the Nazis, anthonyflood.com).  Furthermore, such quotas had restricted opportunities for Jews not only in Europe, but in elite American universities as well. (See Steven Farron’s, The Affirmative Action Hoax, 2005; and Jerome Karabel’s The Chosen, 2005)  Chen does report that in 1945 controversy erupted because of racial and religious quotas proposed by the American Dental Assn. to increase the percentage of gentiles in the profession. (Chen, 109)  Thus, for Chen to wave off concerns about quotas with: the FEB bill “mandated non-discrimination,” is to ignore that similar proposals had been and would be the first wave that culminated in tsunamis and floods of quotas, racial balance, and discrimination.

   Chen’s bias is again evident when he writes of the debate in New York: “What the wartime confrontation over FEP reveals, however, is that there was nothing easy or straightforward about extending civil right to all Americans, even in the liberal, urban North” (Chen, 89, my emphasis)  Again, I remind Chen that Mary Frances Berry, former chair of the Civil Rights Commission, declared that civil rights laws did not apply to white people.

   After the opposition to FEP swelled in New York, the counter attack began.  Liberals mobilized – Blacks, Jews, liberal Protestants, ethnic Catholics, left-wing labor unions.  Nevertheless, two-thirds of the State House was Republican, many of them elected in districts impervious to the voters mobilized under the FEP umbrella.  Yet, undermining the Bontecou, Coudert, Moses position was the governor himself.  Republican Gov. Thomas Dewey fully supported the FEP legislation, endorsing it (Chen, 89) trying to “tamp down the unrest in his party, publicly throwing his full weight behind the bill.” (Chen, 105)  New York thus became the first state to pass an FEP law.  However, when he ran for President in 1948, Republican Dewey lost the Black vote to President Truman by 2 to 1.  In 1948 the NAACP clarified its “non-partisan” position when Democratic President addressed its cheering convention.  To emphasize, the NAACP fired one of its founders, W. E. B. Du Bois, because he refused to support Truman and openly endorsed Henry Wallace and the Progressive Party.  With the purge of dissidents from the NAACP in 1948, the organization was fast becoming a Democratic Party front-group.

  FEP was rarely placed on the ballot for a popular vote, but liberals in California felt confident enough to do so in 1946.  In the Senate election that year, Democrat Will Rogers, Jr. faced Republican William Knowland.  The off-year election was not a good one for Democrats, and Knowland won.  However, only half the Rogers electorate voted for FEPC (and half against), while Republicans voted overwhelmingly against it.  Overall, the FEP measure lost by a thumping 70% to 30%.  FEP legislation was not popular.  Chen inserts the liberals’ excuse: their opponents had used vicious propaganda.  One prominent Republican had linked the legislation to Communism.  Of course, the Communists did support it.  Indeed, Communists had been among the staunchest proponents of civil rights programs in the 1930s.  Though Chen does not mention it, there had even been a Communist-led March on Washington of some 3,000 in May 1933 demanding, among other things, equal rights for jobs.  However, because Chen generally begins his book with the introduction of FEP activities in the 1940s, this oversight is understandable.  But the link between Communists and integration was clear throughout the 1930s, and in the South, into the 1940s with the development of SNYC (snick, the Southern Negro Youth Congress, a precursor to the later SNCC, Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee of 1960), as well as the Civil Rights Congress, the Southern Conference on Human Welfare, and of course the Progressive Party campaign of 1948.  The Henry Wallace Progressive Party efforts against the Democrat Truman and Dixiecrat, Thurmond, was a 1940s civil rights campaign, in which even the Progressive’s VP candidate, Idaho Sen. Glen Taylor was arrested in Birmingham by Bull Connor’s police for entering the wrong segregated entrance to address a gathering of SNYC.  The links among the Progressives, Communism, subversion, integration were deemed so close that in the 1940s and 50s, when Truman was firing Communists from government, one test used by the FBI to determine if someone were a security risk was to investigate if they had friends of a different race.

   So when FEP was on the ballot in 1946, and Republican Rep. Jack Tenney broadcast to the state that FEP was linked to Communist totalitarianism, it was not a far-fetched allegation.  Liberal Democrat Helen G. Douglass blamed the loss of the FEP referendum on such “vicious” propaganda (Chen, 162-63)  She would have a greater opportunity to counter the charge in 1950 when she herself ran for the Senate against a young Republican Congressman, Richard Nixon.  The pro-FEP lady lost to Nixon (Chen, 168) decisively, 59 to 41%.  California would not enact FEP legislation until 1959, (Chen, 118), but this time it lacked many enforcement powers, and was not placed on the ballot for a popular vote.  (In 1996 affirmative action was placed on the California ballot, to the dismay of the elites in both major parties.  The proposition banning affirmative action passed 54.5% to 45.5%.  However liberal judges and university bureaucrats were fast at work to defy the people’s will by reinstituting racial preferences behind closed doors.)

   Much of Chen’s book is devoted to the states that debated FEP legislation from 1945 until passage of the national Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Because the issues were much the same in each state, Chen’s chapters become repetitious and tedious.  Worse, though he includes many charts and tables, (some almost incomprehensible), he fails to include an obvious one that would greatly simplify matters: a map of the US indicating (1) states that did not enact FEP, (2) those that passed FEP laws that were more voluntary and educational, and (3) those that passed FEP legislation that included enforcement through cease and desist provisions.  He could also have included the years each state passed such laws within the states’ boundaries on the map.

    What are some of the major points in Chen’s book?  The Democrats failed to pass FEP nationally because of the high hurdle of getting 67 Senators to vote to end a filibuster of the Southern Democrats.

   Because of the difficulties on the national level, liberals hoped to pass FEP laws in the states.  Once many states had done so, proving the effectiveness of the legislation, liberals hoped that would enhance chances of passing a national FEP.

   Outside the South, the Republicans were often opposed to FEP laws.  Exceptions might be those who sought state-wide or national office, but most of the Republican state Assemblymen were elected from rural districts with few Blacks, Jews, or even Catholic ethnics.  The voters of those districts often distrusted FEP proposals.

   If Republicans controlled the state government, FEP was less likely to pass [exceptions, like New York].  Even if the Democrats controlled the governor and one state representative body, FEP laws might still be defeated or delayed.  Chen describes “veto points,” in one of the assemblies, or in committee, or reconciliation committees, wherein Republican opponents might derail or delay such laws.  If pressure for FEP grew sufficient, then to prevent passage, Republicans might propose an alternative measure that would call for voluntary compliance, rather than the mandatory “cease and desist” orders written into the Democratic proposals.

   Chen’s view is summarized when he writes: would the states be laboratories of democracy [by passing FEP], “or would they instead serve as steam valves of reform or incubators of reaction?  The fate of the campaign for the fifth freedom hung in the balance.”(Chen, 114)

   Nevertheless, by 1964, 27 states had enacted some form of FEB legislation, though five of the most populous states had chosen the non-enforceable type.(Chen, 117)

   Because the GOP was less supportive of FEP and civil rights legislation, Chen sees no great discontinuity in the party when it nominated Sen. Barry Goldwater for President in 1964.  Goldwater had voted against the Civil Rights Act earlier that year, but Chen makes a sound argument that many northern Republicans were less enthusiastic about such legislation anyway. (Chen, 150)  Nevertheless, in Congress in 1964, Goldwater was in the minority of his own party, for a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act (though to discern this fact in Chen’s book, one might have to spend much time analyzing his charts).

   Chen also stresses the opposition of the business community to FEP.  Businesses generally opposed any additional governmental regulations and consequently opposed FEP.  Because it would be bad for a particular firm to lead opposition to FEP (making it vulnerable to boycott), the business community usually presented its view through the many Chambers of Commerce.  Such Chambers often had sufficient clout to defeat or delay FEP in many states. (Chen, 74, 100, 133)

   By the time of the 1948 election, only four states had passed FEP: New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.  Each of these states had Republican Governors.  Not one state with a Democrat had enacted FEP by 1948.  Nevertheless, the 1948 Republican ticket of New York Gov. Tom Dewey and California Gov. Earl Warren received far less of the Black vote in the North than did Missouri Democrat Harry Truman and Kentuckian Alben Barkley.  (On the net I could only find guestimates of the Black vote nationally for 1948, and that was restricted to the 2 major parties.  However, in some Black wards, the Henry Wallace Progressives garnered up to 15% of the vote.  Of the two parties, Truman received from 67 to 70%, Dewey 30 to 33%.  I suspect that this was not true in the South, where the Democrats openly championed segregation.  Fewer people – white or Black – voted in the South.  If I am not mistaken, the Republicans won the Black vote in most Southern areas in 1948, 1952, 1956, and 1960.  Recall that until late in the campaign of 1960, the father of Martin Luther King, Jr., had endorsed Republican Nixon over Democrat Kennedy.  Only when a Kennedy telephoned Coretta King about her jailed husband, did the elder King lead his congregation to the Democratic fold.  Yet, the small Black vote in the South was not decisive.)   FEP had been placed on the ballot in California in 1946, and decisively defeated.  While Chen is skeptical of the motives of the Republicans who supported FEP (they were interested in seeking state-wide or national office and needed possible Black voters), he fails to impugn the motives of Democrats.  So in 1948 Truman bested Dewey and Wallace in Black precincts throughout the North.

     Incidentally, what were some of Truman’s views on race?  After Truman had served his terms as President, and no longer sought Black votes, he continued to speak out.  Author Merle Miller interviewed Truman for a biography and was surprised how the elder statesman usually referred to Blacks as n_____s. (Miller, Plain Speaking, 183)  When sit-ins at lunch-counters began, Truman asserted in March 1960, “If anybody came to my store and tried to stop business, I’d throw him out.” (New York Times, 25 March 1960)  Truman also opposed the Freedom Rides and the 1963 March on Washington. (NYT, 4 June 1961, 24 August 1963)   And his views on Rev. Martin Luther King were hardly politically correct, calling King a “troublemaker,” a “rabble-rouser,” and a “damn fool.” (NYT, 13 April 1965, 14 April 1965, ibid.  For more on this see my Civil Rights History-Writing and Anti-Communism)

   Chen’s discussion of Republicans and civil rights, as with so much else in this volume, is distorted.  Some believed that FEP laws would result in quotas, racial balance, and discrimination against whites.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964, with all the assurances that words could muster to the contrary, did lead to quotas, racial balance, and discrimination against whites.

    Yet, Republicans were often as guilty –if not more so – of initiating the anti-white policies.  For example, the Philadelphia Plan – with its quotas camouflaged by the phrase “goals and timetables,” started in the final year of the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson.  With the defeat of Democrat Hubert Humphrey in 1968, the Philadelphia quota plan was scrapped.  But not for long.  Newly elected Republican President Richard Nixon revived the Philadelphia Plan, and then extended the quota policy throughout the entire government in its contracts and employment. (Dept. of Labor, 970, Revised Order #4, see Chen, 221)  Nixon also broadened the quota program to include women and other minorities. (Davis, 409)

   Even earlier, one might consider how Republican President Eisenhower handled the school crisis in 1957 in Little Rock.  Ike sent in troops to prevent violence and maintain order.  Contrast Eisenhower’s  action with what happened under Democratic President Kennedy.  When James Meredith appeared for classes at Ole Miss, there were behind the scenes negotiations between Democratic President Kennedy’s office and that of the Democrat Ross Barnett, Governor of Mississippi.  Force was delayed.  The result was rioting, for only too late did Kennedy send troops.  There were two deaths, and over 200 injured.

   Much of the Executive branch’s use of quotas and racial balance hinges on Executive Order #10925  issued by President Kennedy.  When Republican President Reagan was elected in 1980, some requested that he rescind that Executive Order, and thereby halt affirmative action with its anti-white preferences.  Reagan did not do so.  Moreover, under President Reagan, civil service examinations were administered to job applicants, but their scores were “race normed,” in effect hiding the true scores and revealing only the “normed” results, thereby providing a huge advantage in scoring to Blacks and Hispanics.  President G. H. Bush campaigned for the Presidency: “Read my lips – no new taxes.”  He also vetoed a new civil rights bill, which he rightly deemed a quota bill.  Later in his term, he raised taxes and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (the quota bill).  Bush was deservedly defeated in the election of 1992.  In addition it should be stressed, there would be no affirmative action had not Republican Presidents nominated to the Supreme Court Justices like Earl Warren, William Brennan, Warren Burger, Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, et al.  Their votes were crucial for developing and maintaining race preferences, quotas, affirmative action and other programs that denied equal rights to whites.

   Many Republican voters were more conservative on racial issues than many Northern Democrats in the 1930s and beyond (though the reverse was probably true in the South until the 1970s.  (I still recall a 1964 full-page ad in a New Orleans newspaper urging voters to remember that Lyndon Johnson is a Southerner who understands “our way of life,” whereas Goldwater’s Arizona had an FEP law, and the best way to keep segregation was to vote for LBJ).  The Republican voters may have been more conservative on racial issues, but the Republican elite, may have been just as or even more liberal than the Democrats.       

   Overlapping with Republicans as a source of opposition to FEP, Chen stresses the role of business.  I shall use the spotlight in reverse.  When affirmative action reached the US Supreme Court in 2003 in a major case concerning admission policies at a Michigan university, there were numerous friends-of-the-court briefs filed by a roster of major American corporations: Pepsi, Proctor & Gamble, Coca Cola, General Motors, etc., all in support of affirmative action.  Joining them was a brief submitted by major military officials.  It was clear that the military-industrial complex supported affirmative action.  When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion upholding AA, the academedia complex applauded.  Yet, Prof. Chen is so far to the Left, that he views O’Connor as part of the conservative anti-AA nucleus on the Supreme Court! (Chen 251)

   Chen recognizes that by the time of passage of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act in 1972, business was in support of the racial and gender preferences commonly known as AA.  Businesses may have continued to oppose granting cease-and-desist powers to the EEOC, but accepted the idea of racial balance and racial preference to achieve it, either through negotiations or under court order. (Chen, 195-201)

   I would suggest that large corporations were either implementing quotas or moving in that direction by the early 1960s.  Note my quotes from Davis earlier in this review, and Chen also writes how large corporations were pledging to implement racial preferences even before passage of the Civil Rights Act.  Global business may well have quietly endorsed and begun hiring and promoting minorities using preferences at the same time smaller companies continued to oppose FEB, quotas, and preferences.  The interests of large corporations may have diverged from that of small businesses on this crucial issue.  Indeed, corporate America could more easily afford to hire some illiterates, junkies, and violent bullies, than could a small enterprise.  And if labor relations grew so tense because of the lower quality of workers in America, global corporations could more easily move their factories to third-world countries.  The small business person was stuck here and stuck with the problems created by affirmative action.

   And unions?  In New York in 1944-45, the Railroad Brotherhoods were among the major opponents of FEP (Chen, 101).  But the Progressive, left-wing unions supported FEP.  So did major labor leaders like A. Philip Randolph of the Black Sleeping Car Workers, and Walter Reuther of the Auto Workers.  By the time of Brian Weber, the corporation and the union colluded to deny the poor white worker the same rights as a Black.

   Brian Weber began work at Kaiser Aluminum in 1968 and several years later applied for an on-the-job skilled training program.  He did not get it.  He discovered that Blacks with less seniority than he had won the posts.  The corporation and his union had made a “voluntary” agreement whereby to achieve a racial balance they would promote Blacks until they held 39% of the skilled positions, to reflect the 39% of Blacks in the workforce in that Louisiana community.  Until that time, half of the enrollees of the craft training would have to be Black. The agreement was “voluntarily,” but Kaiser was aware if it did not have a quota like policy, it would be sued by the federal government for discrimination!  It was voluntary as a shot-gun wedding.

   A poor white worker has little to rely upon except his seniority, and when Blacks with lesser seniority received the posts, Weber believed he was discriminated against.  He read the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and decided to act.  In the lower courts, Weber was successful in proving discrimination.  But in 1979 in the US Supreme Court, Justice Brennan ignored the wording of the law and the history of the debate over the law to present his interpretation of what the law should have said.  Brennan wrote for the majority on the high court.  The result, because of a law that banned quotas, quotas were declared legal.  One might conclude that the real problem occurred when Mr. Weber read the law as written.  Perhaps, in future, poor whites should not be encouraged to read.  And with public school quality declining due to diversity, poor whites in future may well lack the ability to do so.

   In this suit, worker Weber had sued, not the federal government, but his union, the United Steelworkers of America.  The union, like Kaiser Aluminum, was hoping to avoid a discrimination suit filed by the federal government on behalf of Blacks.  So the union made an agreement with Kaiser to discriminate against its white members.  In the case of Dredd Scott, Chief Justice Taney ruled in 1857 that Blacks “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”  With the Weber case, the US Supreme Court in 1979 affirmed that white workers have no rights which the liberal elite was bound to respect.

   The alliance of the unions with the Democratic Party has been detrimental to the white workers in many ways.  It became most evident in the 1990s when managers at various Tyson chicken processing plants were accused of importing illegal aliens to work.  When news of the scandal rose, the unions did not demand deportation of the illegals, and their replacement by American workers.  Instead, the unions simply sought to unionize the illegals!  It was not the union, but individual workers who sued Tyson and also Mohawk Corporation for doing the same as Tyson.  The workers alleged that the importation of illegals had depressed wages by 10 to 30%.  Big unions, like big business, are thinking more in global terms, than the rights of its workers in America.  Also, unions are strongly allied with the Democratic Party, and will defend race preferences, rather than the rights of all its members.

   Though Chen spends many repetitious pages on the debates in various states regarding FEP, he includes little on the history of those state agencies.  He fails to note that the left-ward drift of the Illinois FEP would influence the debate on the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  He also fails to report any reactions of the FEP commissioners when the national EEOC usurped their state FEP powers (safeguarded by the 1964 law) when the EEOC sent out questionnaires to employers demanding to know the racial composition of their employees.  (This was of course a first step to forcing racial balance, race preference hiring, and quotas. [Davis, 193-94]).  Did any state FEP commissioner object when the national EEOC seized some of their powers?  And if they did not, does it not indicate that, had there been enacted a national FEP, it would have moved to affirmative action just as did the EEOC?  Simply, as a history of FEPs, or of the EEOC, or of the development of affirmative action, Chen’s book is deficient.

   As a discussion of business opposition to FEP, it is interesting.  Yet, here too it fails to sufficiently analyze big business and its romance with quotas, preferences, and racial balance, even prior to the civil rights act of 1964.  As a discussion of Republicans, Chen includes the academic barbs and spin words so endemic in academia to prove his credentials as an anti-Republican.  Yet, he fails to include the role of Republicans in legalizing, expanding, and maintaining affirmative action.  Even more, he omits how leading Republicans, like Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, have fought to prevent affirmative action from being subjected to a direct vote by the people.

   And it is instructive to relate that in Michigan, home of the famous affirmative action cases appealed to the US Supreme Court wherein affirmative action was upheld in a 5-4 decision in 2003, Ward Connerly succeeded in having affirmative action placed on the ballot.  As Proposition 2, the amendment would follow the wording of the CRA of 1964, guarantee non-discrimination, and forbid racial preferences.  The elite of both parties sought to defeat the measure.  The usual coalition of Black, Hispanic, feminist, and other minority interest groups, along with the liberal religious and ideological enemies of “white male privilege” mobilized for the November 2006 plebiscite.  In an Op-Ed debate in the Detroit Free Press, Prof. Chen presented the academic case against Prop. 2 and for continued race-preference programs. (2 Oct. 2006)

   In November 2006 the people of Michigan voted.  The anti-affirmative action Prop. 2 passed, winning in 81 of Michigan’s 83 counties.  It lost only in counties containing Lansing and Detroit.  Prop. 2 passes with 57.9%, while the elite’s opposition garnered but 42.1%.  Most significantly: in the same election incumbent Gov. Democrat Jennifer Granholm was re-elected with 56.3% over a Republican who received only 42.3%.  Clearly not all Democrats are fans of the anti-white male discrimination of affirmative action.  And clearly, Prof. Chen’s arguments hold greater sway with the academics than with the people.

   (It should be stressed that where voters have an opportunity to vote on the issue of affirmative action and race preferences, most often they choose to abolish them.  In California in 1996, affirmative action was defeated with 54.5%; in Washington state in 1998, with 59%; in Michigan in 2006, by 57.9%; in Nebraska in 2008 with 58%; in Arizona in 2010 with 59.5%.  Only in Colorado in 2008, when Obama was also on the ballot, was affirmative action spared by a slim margin of 51% to 49%.  Because affirmative action is so unpopular with the American people, the elite do everything possible to prevent a referendum on this issue.  Republican Jeb Bush of Florida blocked an affirmative action initiative in his state; and in 2008, liberals had it stricken from the Missouri ballot.)

   Affirmative action, like immigration, is a political issue wherein the elite are in opposition to the American people.  The elite, with support of the military-industrial complex, and the academedia complex, continue to try to convince Americans that all are equal, but some are more equal than others.

   Chen’s prize-winning volume, The Fifth Freedom, should be viewed in that light.

   If one wants to learn more about the destruction of the 5^th freedom for white male workers, read Hugh Graham Davis’s The Civil Rights Era, or my articles, “White Male Privilege,” (J. of Libertarian Studies), “The Elite War against White Males,” and “Affirmative Action and the Nazis,” available on line.
 
   Chen also notes the importance of elite groups (rather than grass roots) in making and shaping policy. (23)  He states that his book presents a new perspective – “how elite mobilization, political parties, and political institutions interact over time to shape the development of policy.” (30)

   ……..

   Why have I spent so much time reviewing a book I find so deficient in objectivity and shoddy in scholarship?  In part because it is all too typical of the research concerning race produced in the social science departments of America’s universities.  The book is published by Princeton University Press.  It is co-winner of the 2010 Gladys M. Kammerer Award of the American Political Science Assn.; co-winner of the 2010 H, David Greenstone Award in Politics and History section by the APSA; winner of 2010 Best Book Award, Race, Ethnicity and Politics section by the APSA, winner of the 2008 President’s Book Award of the Social Science History Assn.  Prof. Chen received his doctorate from the U. of California Berkeley, and has taught the U. of Michigan and Northwestern in Chicago.  For 3 years he was supported by a fellowship from a Soros foundation.  Prof. Chen is a rising star representative of the academic elite.  He coats a veneer of scholarship onto Leftist notions of fair employment to bolster policies aimed at discriminating against poor and middle-class whites.

   One of the intriguing assertions in this volume is that conservatives are responsible for affirmative action.  This appears to be against commons sense.  I find it so unlikely as to be absurd.  Had there been no conservative opposition to FEP legislation, and a national FEP board similar to that of the National Labor Relations Board been established, with cease and desist powers, Chen argues that it would have imposed non-discriminatory policies.  That may have been the case in 1949, but would it have been the case by 1969?   Even in the early 1960s, the NAACP’s Herbert Hill was promoting racial balance in the work force, not non-discrimination, because non-discrimination often meant that whites got the better jobs.  These liberals wanted preferences for Blacks.  They wanted to end testing.  They wanted quotas.  The process was beginning under FEP.  This was the importance of the Motorola case before the Illinois FEP.  Indeed , the FEP undermining of a non-discriminatory practice (testing) thrust the issue before the nation, and the Congress included amendments to guaranty the continuance of tests where the unqualified would be rejected – even if the proportion of Black rejectees was high.  On objective tests, on objective credentials, on criminal background checks, Blacks, as a group, were far less qualified than their white competitors.  Non-discrimination meant white men got the jobs.  This is not the outcome promised by the Left and desired by the elite.  The Left, and the elite, then sought to destroy objective approaches, destroy merit in hiring, and replace it by enforcing racial balance through quotas.  Along with this, they would lower standards so much to refute any charge that they were hiring unqualified minorities.  By making exams so simple that almost anyone could pass them, they could maintain that they were hiring only qualified applicants.  Yet they were hiding that they were hiring less qualified, and often much less qualified applicants, than the white men whom they were NOT hiring because they were white men.  So “fair employment practices” hiring would have meant the same as “equal employment” hiring - hide the truth that one was hiring lesser qualified applicants because of their race, and denying employment to better qualified poor and middle-class white men.  This is what liberals call “fair” and “equal.”  To think that any FEP regulations about non-discrimination would stop the liberals determined march to deprive white men of equal rights is foolish.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also guaranteed non-discrimination.  Look what happened!

   With all the safeguards in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prevent race preferences, the EEOC –established to enforce that law, became a center of the conspiracy to subvert that law.  Does Chen really think that a national FEP board to enforce a non-discriminatory FEP law would have been any different?

   Had there been enacted a national FEP in 1949, the result might not have been called “affirmative action,” but it would have resulted in affirmative action in reality.  Just as the code words for the process of not hiring better and best qualified white men were later be euphemized into “goals and timetables” and more recently “diversity.”  They assure us that “Diversity is our strength,” but how does hiring and promoting lesser- and un-qualified people make us strong?  Especially when those who are better and best qualified are not hired and not even considered because they may be white men?  The thrust of the elites in both parties, in big business, big military, big unions, big universities, big media, was the same – toward elevating women and minorities even when they were: 1) physically weaker (lower standards so women could pass the physicals for firefighters and police, etc.); or 2) culturally or intellectually deprived (lower the standard so that authorities could pretend that many minorities were qualified); or 3) criminally suspect (again, lower the standards to pretend that more minorities are qualified.)  The result has been massive discrimination against whites in general and white men in particular, and a lowering of the quality of the American work force.

    When Ward Connerly sought to end such hypocrisy and discrimination by having voters decide to continue affirmative action or end it, the elites in both major parties tried to prevent him from getting the proposition on the ballot.  The elite does not even want to debate the issue, for the evidence of anti-white discrimination usually is revealed, despite the shills of the establishment who write Op-Eds favoring continuance of the present unfair policy.  Thus, when President Clinton announced his dialogue on race, it was clear with his appointment of people like John Hope Franklin that he really wanted a monologue.  He wanted to tell Americans why affirmative action was just and must continue.  There was no dialogue.  When Connerly got his proposition on the ballot in California, which used words from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require non-discrimination and an end to race preferences, the elites were furious.  Worse, when those who favored the proposition sponsored an ad using footage of Rev. King giving his “Dream” speech about judging people by their character and not by the color of their skins, the King family sued to prevent use of news footage of the speech, claiming copyright infringement!.  (True, King may have favored race-preferences later in his life, but he did not convey that in 1963.  In order to help pass a civil rights bill, King enunciated the color-blind ideal.)

   Chen is correct to write that affirmative action is not an orderly, unitary approach directed from one agency, but a hodgepodge of court decisions and bureaucratic rulings.  That may be so.  But the effects are unitary throughout the nation.  It may not be as simple as if the US had enacted a national FEP in 1949.  But I maintain the content is the same, even if the forms are multitudinous and varied.  A national FEP board would have confronted the same problem as the EEOC.  Non-discriminatory high standards favored white men.  To raise the rate of hiring of women and minorities, the elites joined the Left in constantly lowering standards and using race balancing, racial favoritism, quotas, to hire lesser qualified applicants above better qualified poor and middle-class white men.

   The elite have long used the statistics provided by the academics to justify such discrimination.  Women are underrepresented in this job category; Blacks, in another; Hispanics, in yet another; etc.  My point is simple: even if every CEO in the United States were a white man, that is no reason to discriminate against a poor or middle-class white boy in school activities, university admissions, scholarships, jobs, promotions, etc.  Yet the elite and their intellectual servants will go to extremes to justify just such discrimination.

   A quotation illustrates the chasm between myself and Prof. Chen.  He quotes Lyndon Johnson’s Sec. of Labor Willard Wirtz in a 1964 speech to business leaders on why special efforts were required to aid Blacks (preferences without calling them preferences).(Chen, 216)  Wirtz had seen a study of those rejected by the draft, many of whom were minorities.  He shocked his elite audience:”’Over 80% of them are the sons of fathers who did not finish high school,” he noted “a great many of them…come from broken families.”  So Wirtz explained to the business elite why Blacks had to have special consideration.  On a personal note – my mother finished school at 8^th grade.  My dad used to lie a bit – he would say he completed 5^th grade when he only finished 3^rd.  Of course, my parents remained together.  So, to the liberal elite, I should be discriminated against because my parents were married, and of course, because I am a white male.

   Prof. Chen, recipient of a Soros fellowship for three years, is oblivious to the racism he quotes and spews.  At university, no one would question such statements.  In the academy, they all share the anti-poor white bias.  Chen writes what the academy wants to read.  Chen wins academic prizes for his book.  The academic elite supports affirmative action.  Why question it?  Yet to those like myself, Chen’s book is an example of the condescension of the elite and their spokespersons, an example of its ignorance of and hostility toward poor and middle-class whites.  Moreover, his book is also an example of unquestioned, questionable presuppositions, combined with a trivialization of research.  No wonder his volume won so many awards in today’s academy.  It is a sad commentary both on the academy and on America, where all are equal, but some are clearly more equal than others.