US OPEN DOOR IMMIGRATION - WHY?

Because I am delayed in writing my piece on immigration, I include this provocative piece by Gwynne Dyer, who appears to be writing from Vancouver.  It is a most interesting piece, and I shall be referring to the ideas in this article in my article, still to be written.----------Hugh Murray

Why the U.S. Opened Its Doors to Mass Immigration

Gwynne Dyer, Straight, June 5, 2012

What if China, flush with its new wealth, opened its doors to mass immigration? It would make sense from an economic and social point of view, because its one-child-per-family policy has produced a young generation far smaller than the one that now does most of the work. China’s population is “aging” (i.e. its average age is going up) faster than any other country in history, and it could certainly do with some more young people.

If it had an immigration policy like that of the United States, it could fill all the gaping holes in the workforce that will open up when the present adult generation retires, and there would be enough people working and paying taxes to support that older generation in its “golden years”. Otherwise, there will be barely one worker for each retiree, and their post-retirement years will be far from golden.

So let’s suppose China opens the gates. (Stay with me on this.) The immigrants would come, from all over the world. Probably most would be from south and south-east Asia (India, Pakistan, Burma, Indonesia, the Philippines), but plenty of Russians would come too. So would Arabs from the slums of Cairo, and Congolese from the slums of Kinshasa, and Mexicans fleeing the bloody war on drugs.

{snip}

They would all come, and China would be transformed. In 50 or 60 years it would be one of the world’s most diverse societies. Almost all the new immigrants would learn to speak some Chinese, of course, but their children would be fluent in the language. Indeed, they would think of themselves as Chinese, even though their skins were white, brown, or black and their religions Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, or Hindu.

Some tens of millions of them would already have intermarried with ethnic Chinese, if only because there are tens of millions of young Chinese men who will otherwise remain unmarried. (The Chinese have been killing too many of their baby girls.) And everybody would live more or less happily ever after.

I know. It’s never going to happen, because the Chinese would never let it happen. But that’s precisely the point. The Americans have let it happen. Why?

I’m not saying it is a bad thing. Personally, I like it. But it is an extraordinary thing. Sixty years ago the United States was a country whose population was overwhelmingly of white European descent. The only really big minority was the black and mixed-race descendants of African slaves, who accounted for about one-eighth of the population. And then the United States opened the gates very wide.

Last month, the U.S. Census Bureau revealed that non-white births in the country narrowly exceeded the number of births to white Americans for the first time. {snip}

{snip}

So why did the last two generations of Americans, who were still mostly of European descent, let it happen? Did they welcome and encourage it, as a good thing for the country’s future? Or were they just asleep at the wheel?

Some Americans certainly did encourage it, arguing that turning the United States into a microcosm of the whole world was fulfilling its destiny, and that the sheer diversity of its future population would give it a huge competitive advantage in the world. But there were not many people who made that argument, and there is actually little evidence to show that ethnic diversity makes a country more competitive.

Nor did this immense change happen while the old white population was just not paying attention. There were debates about immigration policy all the time, there was plenty of information about where the current immigration policy was leading, and Americans simply let it happen.

{snip}

Maybe the last two generations of Americans were a lot less racist than many people—including many Americans—thought. Or perhaps they were all silently aware that only 500 years ago, none of the births in North America were white.

Scientist James Lovelock Questions Global Warming Predictions

THE following is taken from the toronto sun via drudge.com.  my comment is at the end.---Hugh Murray

BY LORRIE GOLDSTEIN ,TORONTO SUN

FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, JUNE 23, 2012 10:56 AM EDT | UPDATED: SATURDAY, JUNE 23, 2012 11:09 AM EDT

James Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist.

r

Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.

The implications were extraordinary.

Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.

Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.

His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.

Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.

Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.

Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.

Among his observations to the Guardian:

(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.

As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)

(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.

“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”

(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.

As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”

(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.” 

READER'S COMMENTS »

By adding a comment on the site, you accept our terms and conditions and our netiquette rules.

·         8

·          

                Sort by popular now                 Sort by best rating                 Sort by newest first                 Sort by oldest first

Showing 1-11 of 204 comments

·        

humura

   Many of the scientists have taken a dismissive view of history.  A thousand years ago, when Greenland was much greener and warmer than today and when England's wines competed with those of France,  Ever earlier, some early inhabitants of the Shetland Islands ate tropical fish, north of Scotland.  The earth during human times has been both warmer and colder than today.
   The predictions of the Greens have proven false.  We should not base American or UN policy on false premises, false predictions, and politicized science.  For now, we cannot ignore the Greens, who are ever making new demands to restrict energy usage - we must oppose the Greens with their irrational, unscientific religion. 

"What is democracy?"

The following was a report from The Blaze.com, a Glenn Beck site.  I repost it here because it illuminates much about American politics in a few sentences.-------Hugh Murray

A member of an Arkansas Tea Party group has resigned her committee seat after she opened an event last week by telling a racially-charged joke.

Inge Marler told the joke as an ice-breaker before a June 9 rally of the Ozark Tea Party. It details a fictitious conversation between a black boy and his mother after the boy asks about democracy:

“A black kid asks his mom, ‘Mama, what’s a democracy?’

“‘Well, son, that be when white folks work every day so us po’ folks can get all our benefits.’

“‘But mama, don’t the white folk get mad about that?’

“‘They sho do, son. They sho do. And that’s called racism.’”

My comment:

Posted on June 17, 2012 at 6:38pm

Many Black Nationalists have promoted Ebonics and urged that it be taught as a language in public schools. Yet, when a Tea Partier speaks in Ebonics, she may be denounced as a “racist.” More double standards. More anti-white racism. More too much sensitivity for the liberal media who will report racism no matter what.
The content of her joke is solid. If the media ever truly wanted to find racism, note how one racial group voted about 95% for Obama.

HOW FEMINIST LAW CONVICTED BRIAN BANKS AND REWARDED HIS ACCUSER WITH OVER $1 MILLION By Hugh Murray

Years ago I wrote about the Scottsboro cases of the 1930s in which two white women accused nine young Black men of rape.  They lied.  But prejudice was strong in that era, and the youths were convicted, and at first, eight sentenced to death.  Communists came to the rescue, providing both a top-notch legal defense inside the courtroom, and international agitation outside.  It was the first time since the American Civil War that American racism was put on trial throughout much of the world.

Liberals and Communists and the literary crowds applauded the play on Broadway, "They Shall Not Die," the poems and plays on the case by Langston Hughes, and the poems describing the prejudice in The Daily Worker.

With the Cold War, the literature on the issue had to change.  In the novel by Don Mankiewicz, and subsequent film starring Glenn Ford, "Trial," an Hispanic in California, rather than Blacks in Alabama, is the center of the struggle.  But in this Cold-War version, the boy is still innocent, but the Communists leading his defense are really out to have him convicted and execute so he will be a martyr to the red cause.

Another Cold War novel and film on the subject is Harper Lee’s "To Kill a Mockingbird,” which starred Gregory Peck.  In this version, the Black man is innocent, but there are not Communists to intervene.  The good liberal attorney is able to expose much of the local racial prejudice, but not enough to sway the jury.

In the 1960s a newer, more militant feminism emerged.  One Leftist, who had once sat in lectures by Herbert Aptheker, the Communist historian, wrote her womanifesto in the 1970s, Against Our Will.  In it, Susan Brownmiller asserts that the Left had taken the wrong tact on the Scottsboro case.  They should have considered it more from the women’s point of view.  The attitude that women do not make false charges was to infect some of the later writing on the Scottsboro case, and I had letters in major academic journals complaining that trendy historians had caved to the feminists.  Moreover, had the feminist-inspired “rape shield” laws been in effect in Alabama in the 1930s, the defense lawyers would never have been able to expose the lies of the gals.  (I say the boys were innocent because I interviewed one of the judges who presided at one of the trials.  He had spoken in private to a doctor who examined the young women.  They were giggling and laughing.  He told them directly, “Those boys didn’t rape you, did they?”  And they laughed again.  The judge urged him to tell this under oath on the witness stand.  The doctor said he would lie, for to tell the true with such intense emotions in the area, he would lose his practice.  The judge eventually overruled the jury’s guilty verdict and ordered a new trial.  That judge was not re-elected.)

By the 1980s false charges of rape could become page-1 stories for nearly a year.  The Tawana Brawley case of alleging rape by a white policeman should have been exposed as fraud rather quickly.  But since she was a young Black woman, and Rev. Al Sharpton and other “civil rights” activists joined her cause, the daily news lesson was simple – the evil white man of power who rapes the poor, defenseless, Black girls.  (Sorry, women.  Feminist language did away with ladies and almost eliminated girls.  Woman became the word.)

The trend was unmistakable.  By the time of the Clarence Thomas hearings, the Left went all out to destroy his reputation.  On National Public Radio, far-Leftist “reporter” Nina Totenberg assured her listeners that “women do not make up stories,” so clearly Anita Hill was telling the truth about Thomas harassing her.  Happily, most of the Senate ignored the authority of Ms. Totenberg, and Thomas still sits on the United States Supreme Court.

Yet then notion that the women are always right and truthful in making charges, and the men, especially white men, but also Black men, are fiends determined to rape, is almost a tenet of today’s feminism.  Even the definition of rape was broadened so it might not have been rape at all a few decades ago.  Today, wives can be raped by their husbands.  “Date rape” can be nothing more than consensual intercourse at night, but anger roused when he fails to call her the following day.  So her Women’s Studies counselor urges her to file a rape charge.  The entire Zeitgeist makes it much easier for her to charge him with rape.  Even if she goes to his hotel room at 2am – as did the gal who then charged prize fighter Mike Tyson with rape.  That charge led him into prison and a changed life.  For once I agreed with Rev. Farrakhan who stood up for Tyson and against the gal who was happily fondled on film by the prizefighter earlier that day by him – and then she went to his room at 2 am.  Rape?  And his reputation was then destroyed.

In the 21^st century the media and academia worked to convict Duke U. lacrosse players, accused of rape by a stripper.  Immediately the academedia complex went to work to convict the middle-class white men.  The university leaders condemned the racism on campus.  Even the sport season was cancelled, as lacrosse suddenly had a seedy reputation.  TV news telecast rich, playboy, whites, abusing a poor, struggling Black woman.  Then the case collapsed.  Were there any apologies for ruining the reputation of the players?  And when the same woman was involved in a murder charge, how much media play did that get? 

And now the case of high school football player Brian Banks.  He is suddenly charged with rape and kidnapping by a gal with whom he had consensual sex.  What is he to do?  In my era, they would have looked at the reputations of both the boy and girl (sorry, man and woman).  But in the new feminist era, “women do not make up stories.”  Though he tells his attorney, he is innocent, the lawyer understands that that may mean little in the world of Totenberg’s mantra.  So the lawyer gets him to plea bargain so he will not rot in jail for 41 years.  Banks finally gets out, his accuser Wanetta Gibson, contacts him and wants to forget the whole affair.  He is naturally suspicious of meeting her, and records the encounter.  She confesses, there was no rape; there was not kidnapping.  It was recorded.  A lawyer now wants Banks declared innocent and his record cleared.

However, Ms. Gibson will not repeat her confession!  Why?  Her mother sued the school district as a result of the “rape and kidnapping,” and the family made some $1,500,000.00 because of the lie.  She was paid over a million dollars to lie.  That is what the new feminism is all about.  Lies, putting men in their place (prison), getting feminist judges in divorces to give the children to the wives, along with exorbitant child support, and many of the belongings.  It is only in such an atmosphere that a lying teen could get over a million dollars and ruin so many chances for the boy with whom she had consensual sex.

It is time to abolish feminist law.  It is as unjust as sharia law.  Women, like men, can lie, cheat, even kill.  When charges are made, both accuser and accused must be questioned without “shields,” and probes made as to which is telling the truth.  In the era of equality, one should be treated equally.  Both may tell the truth, and both may lie.

I hope the Long Beach school district immediately files suit against the Gibson family to recover tax-payers money that simply encouraged a lying feminist.  In future, judges should ponder before granting such large sums.

Rape is a serious charge.  But because it is “serious,” that does not make it true.  Women can lie just as men do.  The charge should be investigated before there are verdicts of guilty and huge payouts.

Simply, feminist law is unjust law.  It must be repealed. 

BRIAN BANKS and the EVIL of FEMINIST LAW

Onetime top football prospect exonerated after rape accuser recants

Published May 24, 2012

Associated Press

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/24/onetime-top-football-prospect-seeks-exoneration/#ixzz1w8SjREwv

LONG BEACH, Calif. –  The kidnap-rape conviction of a once-promising prep football star was dismissed Thursday following a recantation by his accuser.

Brian Banks collapsed in sobs on the counsel table during a court hearing where a prosecutor quickly conceded the decade-old case and moved for the dismissal.

In the summer of 2002, Banks' future looked bright: He was a 17-year-old high school football star being heavily recruited by a number of colleges. But in a single day that changed with the accusations of kidnapping and rape by a female student.

He maintained there was no rape and their sexual contact was consensual, but his lawyer urged him to plead no contest rather than risk a sentence of 41 years to life in prison if convicted. He followed the advice and went to prison for six years, shattering his dreams of gridiron glory.

Lawyers for the California Innocence Project were prepared Thursday to argue he should be exonerated.

In a strange turn of events, the woman who accused him a decade ago friended him on Facebook when he got out of prison. Wanetta Gibson explained she wanted to "let bygones be bygones."

According to documents in the case, she met with Banks and said she had lied; there had been was no kidnap and no rape and she offered to help him clear his record.

But she subsequently refused to repeat the story to prosecutors because she feared she would have to return a $1.5 million payment from a civil suit brought by her mother against Long Beach schools.

She was quoted as telling Banks: "I will go through with helping you but it's like at the same time all that money they gave us, I mean gave me, I don't want to have to pay it back."

Justin Brooks, a lawyer who heads the innocence project, said that Banks has remained on probation, under electronic monitoring, has had to register as a sex offender and has had trouble getting a job.

He said Banks continues to train for what he hopes will be a future chance at a football career.

US Fed Dept of Education - $ to End Race Gap

Because I had already used my one-call a week to Wisconsin Public Radio, I emailed this comment to Kathleen Dunn and her guest discussing the Obama Administration's announcement of millions of dollars to various school districts to close the racial gap.  The Administration did this without Congressional approval, part of the dictatorial approach of Obama and the Democrats.  Here I attack.  My comment was not read on the radio program.

Kathleen Dunn, Wisconsin Public Radio:  
   The objective of the Fed. Dept of Education and Obama's Race to the Top is to reduce and end the racial gap in testing.  Today's announcement about a new program by the Feds. is another example of this - with millions more appropriated to close the racial gap.  Thus, if white students as a group do as poorly as Black students, the Feds can cheer and call their program a success.  Bush's No Left Behind program was just as foolish.
   Here is one more reason to abolish the Federal Dept. of Education.  "Race to the top"?  Or waste at the top, bottom, and all over?
   Schools should ignore race gaps and teach to improve the education of all students.-------Hugh Murray

PBS - The West and the Rest, or the West in Decline

Niall Ferguson presented an interesting program on PBS TV – The West and the Rest,  22 May 2012, which asked the question of how the West came to dominate the globe during the past few centuries.  Ferguson wonders if that dominance will continue.  He mentions various topics that he thinks led to Western dominance.  However, by discussing the Turks in one topic area, and the topic of competition, more with the Chinese, and never mentioning the taboo topic of affirmative action in the US, Ferguson plays it safe.  He had better not offend the Left that makes the decisions about programming on PBS.  I went to the PBS web site and posted the following comment.  One wonders if my comment will remain or be removed.-------Hugh Murray

Hugh 

Ferguson also stresses the importance of competition later in the program, when he notes that when the Ottoman Turks were ascending, they used a merit system for the civil service. Later, the service was opened to Turks, merit abandoned, corruption flourished, and the empire declined. The US once had merit as the basis for advancement in its civil service and in industry. The merit system, however, was abandoned as affirmative action preferences were awarded to pet groups, while better qualified candidates experienced the negative action of being white males. Merit has been abandoned in the US for 50 years. Instead of hiring the best, one is hired because they are this minority or that. No wonder America is in decline. No wonder other nations may rise to dominate the 21st century.
A reply:
The comments of “Hugh” provide a glowing example of how Ferguson’s hackery and BS ahistory appeal to racists in bThe comments of “Hugh” provide a glowing example of how Ferguson’s hackery and BS ahistory appeal to racists in both the US and Europe. The US is failing because of affirmative action….Wait! didn’t Ferguson claim that segregation had to do with the rise of US prosperity? He did…but slavery had EVERYTHING to do with it.

Reply ↓

·         Hughon May 23, 2012 at 2:16 am said:

If slavery had everything to do with it, why did not the other slave areas prosper? North Africans raided Italy, France, Spain, even on occasion up to Iceland, taking slaves. The sub-Saharan Africans sold to the New World had been slaves in the Old. It is America that sent ships to Tripoli to end the Arab piracy and taking slaves of Western seamen.

Merit was once part of the American system. The Left elite used affirmative action to destroy it. The Left elite knows it will cause the destruction of America and the West; but the Left elite hates the West, and is overjoyed to see our demise. Recall the chant at Stanford, “Hey, Hey! Ho, Ho! Western Civ. has got to go.”oth the US and Europe. The US is failing because of affirmative action….Wait! didn’t Ferguson claim that segregation had to do with the rise of US prosperity? He did…but slavery had EVERYTHING to do with it.

T