LONDON OLYMPICS OPENING: FILTH, NIGHTMARES, SICKNESS, STENCH

              (from letters to blog)
To Chris,

     I most liked the Bj and the Shanghai Special Olympics for massive, coordinated music and activities.  Both were spectacular.  The Barcelona one is more difficult to recall, but I think it occurred during the day; it was brighter, tho I do not remember much.  The London one, OK the importance of children's literature, the Mary Poppins, etc.  OK.  True, the industrial revolution may have begun in Britain, but do you need to include the stench of the industry?  I assumed the smokestacks would transform into cannon for WWI.  I just felt it missed something.  And the music, BORING.  The only exception was the finale, with McCartney singing "Hey Jude" and getting the athletes involved.  It was a simple song, one where many knew the lyrics, and many could sway and sing.

      On the bright side, there were no terror attacks.  And it did not rain.  The lighted boat with Beckham reminded me of boats on the river in Shanghai. 
      And some of the dance routines!  Ok some people are fat, ugly, and crippled.  Yet, in a setting that glorifies the body - strength, endurance, training - why not have pretty dancers?  Some of the gals dancing made me look skinny.  "Stronger, faster, higher" was once a motto of the games.  These are never enough to live by - some disabled people are terrific, some fat folks are wonderful, some ugly people are great - but in the festival that glorifies the body, why not have dancers who are more attractive?  And then why spotlight the ugliness of the industrial revolution?  Show how it improved life.  Made things easier.  Reduced the mortality rate, the number of deaths in childbirth.  Instead the London opening highlighted Nightmares.  Ugliness.  Sickness (and the National Health Service)?!  And political correctness ruined even the historical aspects of the program.  In the 19^th century the vast majority of those in the UK were white people.  How many high-hatted Blacks or Asians resided in Britain in the 19^th century.  But to be politically correct, the camera had to show a “pretend” history of Asians and Africans in a multicultural UK in the 1850s.  It is all pc bs.  And why not show how British imperialism actually helped develop some other nations round the world?  That the Olympics are an example of “Western Imperialism,” western values that spread through the world.  But, that would be politically incorrect.  So instead, the program emphasized filth, stench, and sickness.  How Britain has fallen.
     The motto of the Olympics used to be "faster, higher, stronger."  But this is in conflict with the egalitarians who produced the London Opening Ceremony.  They despise the word "best."  So their ceremony did celebrate "slower, lower, weaker."  Once again - how Britain has fallen! 

     Instead, why not mention the British schools where football began?  Where rugby started?  Cricket?  Indeed, even the notion of fair play?  And even attempts at reviving the ancient Olympic Games?  Britain was once Great.  Perhaps if it can shed its politically correct, egalitarian ideologues, it might become Great Britain again.

  ---------Hugh Murray

To all from Chris,

   What do you think of yesterday's opening ceremony at London Games?

    I think it's only OK. I like the fist several parts, which showed to us the British history in modern time---how the traditional way of life was challenged by the Industrial Revolution, how this revolution finally changed not only Britain but the whole world as well. I like the part when protesters holding bands and slogans for the rights of workers, feminism movement, etc. They showed us a picture of history that's created/pushed forward by all the people, not just those engineers and early capitalists but people living at the grassroots level, they stood up for their rights and with their struggle, the world is a better place. And also, the National Anthem of G.B, " God Bless the Queen", they sang high of the Queen but also sent her a message that she should not break the rule of law--" May She Defend the Rule of Law", as part of the lyrics. I also was amazed at how they recreated the Olympic Cauldron, when most other countries were struggling for a better idea on how to light the fire, they redesigned the fire and this i think is a major breakthrough. The Cauldron is a flower made of all the participants to the Games, a flower of world that each country is part of....These above is what I truly like.

But, I think they were stupid in showcasing British movies, famous songs, hip-hop dances, raps, social networks and the man who brought us" world wide web", These had nothing to do whatsoever with Olympics and its spirit. They chose the wrong things to boost. The US has Hollywood, the center of movie-making, the US is the birthplace of those music/dancing styles, Americans first invented computer and Internet; Social Networking tools like Facebook and Tweeter were also brought to this planet by Americans---but the Britons are showcasing these as if they were the inventors.  To make matters worse, it's boring so talk about songs/movies/dances at an Olympic opening ceremony, and they spent a huge part of the time on something they were not that closed related to, and they did it badly.

The Queen made a big "entrance" with the short vide-clip, but the final part of it, the Queen jumped off the helicopter to the Stadium, that's just ridiculous. It does not go well with the beginning part of that video where the serious-looking Queen living in quite a serious/solemn/majestic palace...how can such a woman(86 yrs old) suddenly jump down on the Stadium from the helicopter? Is this the British style of being humorous? So humorous that even the Queen is part of the "joke"?

In general, it's in no way even comparable to the Beijing Olympics. In our opening ceremony, we showcased our traditional culture. Important representatives are the brushes (we use in calligraphy and painting), paper-making procedures (we invented paper), Chinese Tai-ji, Confucius' Analects, the spectacular drum-beating served as the last 10 seconds countdown of the Games, and also a HUGE welcome to all the visitors; Chinese characters demonstrating the spelling of the word "peace" of different period in our history, and "peace" is exactly what the Olympic Game is all about; the magnificent fireworks play;  the theme song " You and Me",( do the Britons even have a theme song for the Olympics?)  the slogan " One world, One dream".(theirs is "our moment to shine" ???)  ... We demonstrated so many aspects of not just our culture, our country but also the Olympic dream/spirit, too many to name but a few.

The Britons showed the children's dream, the nightmare with fairy tales, they boosted their national health system...They told us their children are taken good care of, and after all the nightmare chaos, they went into dreams again (they may be designed the match the poem read at the beginning). By showcasing those dances, songs, etc, they may want to tell us that the young people in Britain are passionate....But these are just small topics. Don't you agree? Young people are passionate and energetic elsewhere, too.

Let me know what you think of the ceremony.

Chris 

LAW TO REGULATION TO TYRANNY: CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS & SENATOR EVERETT DIRKSEN

                                               By Hugh Murray

            On June 29, 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts surprised the nation by voting with the liberal bloc of four to rule that Obamacare was legal under the Constitution.  His ruling caused both amazement and confusion.  Roberts did side with the conservative four to rule that the mandate to purchase health insurance under the commerce clause was unconstitutional; this part of the court’s decision was read first, causing both CNN and Fox News to conclude that the essential financial part of the law had been struck down.  However, Roberts went on to write that the law was Constitutional because it was covered by the taxing powers granted to Congress.

            Roberts and the Supreme Court had been under some attack by the liberal media because of the Court’s decision, earlier that week, to reaffirm the Citizens United ruling of 2010 allowing corporations and unions to spend as much as they like supporting political candidates  under the rubric of free speech.  Moreover, ever since the oral arguments on the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare), many feared that the Court would find the law unconstitutional.  Both liberals and conservatives assumed that the swing vote would be Justice Kennedy, a Republican appointee whose voting pattern is rather unpredictable.  But in this instance, Kennedy voted solidly with the conservatives of Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.  It was the usual conservative Justice Roberts who abandoned the conservative camp to save Obamacare.  And suddenly, there were more favorable stories in the media praising Roberts, and his picture was the cover of Time Magazine, 16 July 2012 with the clever title, “Roberts Rules.”

            My point here is not to analyze the health care law of over 2,000 pages.  Nor is it to analyze the sophistry of Roberts ruling.  My objective is to compare Roberts to another Republican leader who, at a crucial time, also stepped forward to save the day for liberals – Sen. Everett Dirksen of Illinois.

            In 1964 Democratic President Lyndon Johnson urged passage of civil rights legislation.  The trouble was that most of the opponents of the proposed law were some of the most influential Democratic Senators.  As in the past, these Democrats threatened to filibuster, that is, talk the bill to death without ever voting on it.  The Southern opposition was composed of 22 Senators (21 Democrats and one Republican).  Northern and liberal Democrats had more votes than the opposition, almost 40 Senators.  But to stop a filibuster, a vote of 2/3s of the Senate was required – some 67 votes.  How could the liberal Democrats attain enough votes for cloture and the end of debate on the law, so that finally a vote on the proposed law could be taken?

            The Southern opponents of the bill were led by Georgia’s Sen. Richard Russell, but they included men like Sen. Sam Ervin, who would win the acclaim of liberals later in his career when during the Watergate investigation into dirty tricks by the Nixon Administration, Ervin pressed hard questions on the defenders of Presidential Privilege and secrecy.  Also, among the opponents of the civil rights bill was Arkansas Sen. William Fulbright, who would become one of the early critics of the Vietnam War, and an inspiration to a young Arkansan, Bill Clinton.

            Northern Democrats promoting the civil rights law were led by Minnesota’s Hubert Humphrey.  He had first come to prominence in 1948 as the young Mayor of Minneapolis who proposed a civil rights plank to the 1948 Democratic Convention.  The hot convention hall became even more heated in the debate on this issue, and when it passed, with only 52.8% of the delegates favoring it, numbers of other delegates stormed out of the convention.  They abandoned Harry Truman’s Democratic Party to establish the States’ Rights Democratic Party (known as Dixiecrats) and carried four states in the November election.  Humphrey had led the victorious fight for adoption of the civil rights plank in the Democratic platform in 1948.  In 1964 he was leading the fight for passage of a civil rights bill for all Americans.  In the convention, he needed only a simple majority.  Similarly, to pass the legislation in the Senate would merely require a majority, but to cut off debate so the Senate could vote on the legislation would require a  2/3s majority, or 67 of the 100 Senators.  To achieve that large a majority, the Democrats would have to rely on Republican Senators.

            The eastern establishment of the Republican Party was quite comfortable with civil rights legislation.  The first state Fair Employment Practices law had been passed in New York state with the support of Gov. Thomas Dewey.  It earned Dewey few Black votes when he ran against Truman in 1948, and the NAACP basically became a front-group for the Democrats, even firing a founder of the organization, W. E. B. Du Bois, when he endorsed Progressive Henry Wallace.  Some of the more Mid Western Republicans were undecided about a federal civil rights bill, and one prominent Senator, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, opposed a national civil rights law.

            Not all Americans were pleased with the prospect of the federal civil rights legislation.  1964 was a presidential election year, and everyone assumed that Lyndon Johnson, sworn in only in late November 1963, would easily become the Democratic nominee.  However, segregationist Democratic Governor George Wallace of Alabama entered several Democratic primaries in Northern states.  Johnson was not on the ballot, but had surrogates run on his behalf as favorite sons.  The returns were a shock to many liberals.  Staunch segregationist Wallace won 25 to 42% of the Democrats voting in the primaries in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Maryland.  Clearly, some Northern Democrats were expressing their opposition to the proposed civil rights movement, Black riots, and pending civil rights legislation.

            The Republican Establishment promoted several presidential candidates acceptable to the liberal, Dewey wing of the party, and most of these fell behind another liberal, New York Republican Governor, Nelson Rockefeller.  The more conservative wing rallied round Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, who, though supporting civil rights at the  state level, had voted against the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.

            In hindsight, we know Goldwater lost to Lyndon in a landslide.  Yet surely, some Republicans hoped to win by wooing that 25-42 % of Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights law – those who showed their beliefs by voting for Wallace.  In this effort, Goldwater failed.  He lost the vote national 60 to 40, and carried only his own Arizona and the four Dixiecrat states of 1948 and Georgia.  The era of Reagan Democrats would have to wait.

            The point is that in the spring of 1964 there was no guaranty that the CR Act would pass Congress and become law.  Republican Senate minority leader, Everett Dirksen stepped to the plate.  He had already become famous for his discussion of federal finances: “A billion here, a billion there; and soon you’re talking about real money.”  Dirksen declared that he and other Republican Senators would vote for cloture of debate (and thus allow a direct vote on the proposed CR legislation) if the bill were modified by accepting some of his amendments.  Most of his amendments, and those by a few others like Sen. John Tower of Texas, were meant to make it abundantly clear that the new legislation would not be a quota bill, that standardized examinations could be used, and if some groups failed to pass, there would be no hiring to promote racial balance.  Indeed, that would be illegal, for that would be hiring for racial reasons.  Only intentional discrimination in hiring was to be a crime.  All these amendments were incorporated into the CR bill.

            In summer 1964 most Republican Senators joined with the liberal Democrats to vote cloture and end debate.  Voting for cloture were 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans; voting against were 21 Democrats and 6 Republicans.  While 69% of the Democrats wanted to end the filibuster, 82% of the Republicans voted to do so.  A few days later the bill passed 71-29, with similar percentages.  The media would have us forget that a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the CR Act than did the Democrats.  Indeed, 78% of the no votes came from Democratic Senators.  President Johnson signed the bill into law in 2 July 1964.  Sen. Dirksen had saved the day, and he too was featured on the cover of Time Magazine, 22 June 1964, with the cover story, “The CR Bill: Product of Principle and Compromise.”  Of course, in 1964 Time’s influence was far greater than in 2012.

            However, despite all the guarantees that language and law can provide, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was subverted and perverted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency meant to enforce it.  With the aid of liberal judges, and worse, the appointees to the Suprme Court by Republican Presidents, the CR Act was twisted into a quota law, requiring hiring for racial (and later ethnic and gender) balance.  Statistics were used to find guilt of discrimination even when no intent to discriminate was proven.  For example, if an employer sought to hire only high-school graduates, the EEOC charged that this was illegal for it would have a disparate impact because a smaller percentage of Blacks than whites had attained that level of education.  And so that requirement was struck, as well as performance on aptitude tests, IQ tests, criminal records, etc.  The only objective test permitted was the quota test for racial and other balance. (Indeed, on 5 July 2012 a federal judge in New York struck down a firefighters’ exam because few Blacks could pass it, and ordered quota hiring instead.)

            Liberal President Nixon offered a Supreme Court seat to liberal Republican Tom Dewey, but Dewey declined.  Nixon then appointed as Chief Justice Warren Burger, who wrote the Griggs decision, which was sophistry at it worst, and which turned a law which forbade quotas into the quota bill we have endured for 40 years.  Under Nixon, quotas became the law of the land, and he expanded them to include women, Hispanics, Amerindians, and later, some Asians.  Nixon made affirmative action preferences and quotas national policy.

            Some readers will be incredulous that I refer to Nixon as “liberal.”  This is not what they learnt at university and on television.   Yet, as Phil Ebersole summarized on his blog, Nixon “created affirmative action in its present form. He responded decisively to an economic emergency by imposing wage and price controls.  He proposed a Family Assistance Plan which would guarantee a minimum income for all Americans, and a Comprehensive Health Insurance Act which would have provided a public option as an alternative to private health insurance.  He endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment for women.

“The Comprehensive Health Insurance Act was rejected by Congress. So was the Family Assistance Plan, but the Earned Income Tax Credit was enacted as a substitute and compromise.

“The President did sign into law the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Air Act.  His administration established the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration and the Council on Environmental Quality.”

            Early in his Presidency, the Nixon Administration had to lobby the NAACP to support the Philadelphia Plan, with its hiring by racial quotas.  The bill barely squeaked through the House of Representatives.  Yet, this was the official beginning of affirmative action as we now know it.  And in addition to domestic policies, the Nixon Administration negotiated with Mao’s China, severing some of our foreign policy from rigid anti-Communism.

            Sen. Dirksen, by the late 1960s was clearly disillusioned with what was happening in the name of the Civil Rights Act, some of which had been written in his senate office.  Dirksen went to Nixon to complain about the subversion of that law into quota requirements with preferences given to lesser qualified and unqualified applicants for positions, in clear violation of the wording and spirit of the law.  Dirksen was even thinking of openly opposing Nixon on these policies.  But Dirksen had cancer, and passed from the scene in November 1964.  Liberals then used their domination of universities and media, the academedia complex, to convince most Americans that the Civil Rights Act had been passed to impose quotas, racial balance, and preferences for the pet groups of the EEOC.

            Dirksen was crucial in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  However, once the camel’s head was under the tent, it moved in, not with one hump, but with two and more.  Despite the clear language to the contrary, the US has been suffering under quota hiring, quota promotions, quota university admissions, quota scholarships, quota contracts since Nixon – and in obvious violation of the words of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

            Perhaps, the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can clarify what happened.  Speaking of the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare), she said  on 9 March 2010 we should pass the bill to find out what is in it.

            The liberals and the bureaucrats KNOW what is in the Obamacare law: ANYTHING THEY WANT TO BE IN IT.  They do not care about the wording of the law.  They care about the back-door committees that will implement, interpret, and expand that law.  They care about their power.   Just as the EEOC turned the Civil Rights Act of 1964, - a law that forbade quotas, hiring for racial balance, that permitted tests in which some groups might do poorly, forbade racial discrimination (race preferences), all this was consciously subverted by the EEOC, the agency meant to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964.   And so Obamacare will be manned by those who will make the law into anything they want it to be, even if it directly contradicts the law they are supposed to enforce.

            I suspect one day Chief Justice Roberts will rue his Obamacare decision, as Sen. Dirksen was disturbed by the subversion of the civil rights law he did so much to enact, and the subversion of which was already evident prior to his death.

OUTSOURCING AMERICAN JOBS - ROMNEY V. OBAMA

Obama says a Romney presidency would create 800,000 jobs–abroad

By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 6 hrs ago  16 July 2012

President Barack Obama blasted Mitt Romney's economic plan during a stop in the pivotal swing state of Ohio on Monday, saying the blueprint would create 800,000 jobs—just not in America.

"Today, we found out, there's a new study out by a nonpartisan economist that says Gov. Romney's economic plan would in fact create 800,000 jobs," Obama said at a town hall-style event in Cincinnati. "There's only one problem. The jobs wouldn't be in America."

"They would not be in America. They'd be in other countries. By eliminating taxes on corporations' foreign income, Gov. Romney's plan would actually encourage companies to shift more of their operations to foreign tax havens, creating 800,000 jobs in those other countries," the president added.

"This shouldn't be a surprise because Gov. Romney's experience has been investing in what were called pioneers of the business of outsourcing," Obama said, reprising one of his core arguments against the Republican standard-bearer. The president has been assailing Romney over allegedly encouraging businesses to ship jobs overseas.

Obama was referring to a study of Romney's proposals in the Tax Notes newsletter by Reed College economist Kimberly Clausing. But conservatives quickly pointed reporters to data showing that Clausing has given $492 to Obama's re-election effort. And ABC News reported that:

Romney is far from alone in endorsing a territorial tax system, which would allow the profits made by an American corporation in another country to escape U.S. taxation. In fact, a number of advisers to the president support the idea as well — including members of the President's Export Council, the commission the president set up to recommend ways to reduce the deficit, and members of his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

Hugh Murray's comment:

What a joke!  Just a few weeks ago Obama granted his version of amnesty to what he says will be 800,000 illegal aliens in the US.  Pew Hispanic research estimated the number will be 1.4 million illegals.  At least a million of those will be Hispanic.  So with Obama's amnesty, these illegals move not only to the front of the immigration line, in front of legal applicants, they move to the front of the employment line because they will receive affirmative action preferences above American citizens.  OBAMA IS OUTSOURCING A MILLION AMERICAN JOBS TO ILLEGAL ALIENS!  That is a million reasons to vote against Obama and his hate-the-American-citizens administration.

Anti-Male Discrimination in Sports in the US

     A lengthy article by Lisa Neff praises the 40^th anniversary of the adoption of Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972. But due to enforcement of this law, by 1999 colleges had eliminated 171 men’s wrestling teams, 84 men’s tennis teams, 56 men’s gymnastic teams and men’s track squads. Universities that might have initiated men’s soccer, undoubtedly declined to do so because of the Title IX requirement, but it is hard to have statistics on what might have occurred.  How could a law meant to prevent sex discrimination in sports be used to exclude men from participation in college sports?

     Supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 assured Americans that the proposed law would not be a quota bill. The liberals sponsoring the legislation asserted that hiring and firing to establish or maintain a racial balance was illegal. Yet, by the time of the liberal Nixon Administration, quotas had become mandatory. Because the law forbade quotas, euphemisms were created, such as “goals and time-tables” and more recently, “diversity.”

     To enforce the Civil Rights Act, the EEOC required quota-like practices to achieve racial balance. Democrats and liberal Republicans forget that affirmative action on behalf of one group is negative action against others. In practice it amounts to discrimination against whites, males and sometimes Asians.

Like the Civil Rights Act, Title IX provides a safeguard against the quota mentality, rejecting “preferential or disparate treatment because of imbalance” or “statistical evidence of imbalance.” But under President Jimmy Carter, the quota crowd in the Civil Rights section of the Dept. of Education demanded that colleges seek to have women in sports.

     Lisa Neff writes, “A 2005-06 study found women make up 55 percent of the student population at NCAA schools but less than 45 percent of the athlete population.”  Implicit is the belief that there is something wrong with that statistic.

     Should men be discouraged from sports until women are represented at a rate of 55 percent? But shat about women who are pregnant or not interested in sports? What about women who embrace traditional feminine roles? Democrats will keep pushing women into teams, even when they have little interest in them, thereby denying access by young men to college sports.

     We should end affirmative action and offshoots like Title IX. The fastest way to destroy these injustices a is to vote against liberal Republicans like Nixon who made affirmation action a national policy and against the Democrats who seek to expand these injustices.

Hugh Murray

     Just last week, July 2012, the Obama Administration announced it plans to extend Title IX to the universities departments of math and science.  They will soon be requiring 55% female math and science majors.  More quota madness from the Democrats.--------HM

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

WHY OBAMA’S IMMIGRATION POLICY IS 

THE WRONG THING TO DO,

UNJUST, AND UNFAIR

by Hugh Murray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.