[VIDEO] CLARKE: ‘SHAME ON THE LEFT’ FOR ‘EXPLOITING’ WDBJ SHOOTING ‘TO PURSUE A POLITICAL AGENDA’

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke (D) declared, “shame on the left” for “exploiting misery and tragedy for a — to pursue a political agenda” on Thursday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel.

Clarke said, “Well, shame on the left, shame on the Democrats for once again exploiting misery and tragedy for a — to pursue a political agenda. Shame on the president of the United States to invoke terrorism into this horrific incident that happened in Virginia.”

He continued that the Constitution should not be used in a “knee-jerk” fashion, and is not designed to protect from horrific acts, but is rather designed to “freedom and liberty.”

Clarke then argued that the real solution to crime is to arrest criminals, try them, and then give them the harshest sentence allowed by law. He then criticized President Obama’s pardons of federal prisoners.

He added, “This was a chance for the president, Sean, to bring the country together, and once again, the divider-in-chief goes out and further separates us.”

Clarke also said that people should be more “humble” about their ability to prevent every bad incident, but that improving mental health screening and background checks would help.

He concluded that if the president thinks “this is so easy,” he should eliminate his Secret Service protection so he has to fend for himself. And “I am done asking people in my community to outsource their personal safety to the government.”

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

You will never guess what liberals think of illegal aliens!

We are told repeatedly by the liberal media that opposing citizenship for illegal aliens is electoral poison.  It's automatic racism and will alienate the electorate and is a guaranteed path to losing an election.  The liberal media wants you to believe this despite the truth of the opposite: that an overwhelming majority of the country opposes illegal immigration.  That is their big lie.

We know that conservatives by and large are against illegal immigration, but what do liberals, who are a big chunk of this country, think about illegals?  The answer might surprise you.  In a recent article about the return of the term "illegal aliens," the comments section of the Times was filled with remarks, presumably by their typical liberal readers, in support of the term:

Mark

Vancouver WA 16 minutes ago

         Don't like "illegals"?

         How about "invaders" instead?

Thinker

Northern California 16 minutes ago

Nobody's claiming "illegal immigrants" aren't human -- just that they're "illegal."

Basic Human Being

USA 37 minutes ago

Of course the term is disrespectful. It is mean to convey contempt for those contemptuous foreigners who hold our laws in contempt and imagine they can disrespectfully ignore them.

Next question?

Basic Human Being

USA 37 minutes ago

Those people impose large costs on the rest of us. They require interpreters because they do not bother to learn English before getting here. They have large families we are told to educate in Spanish at taxpayer expense. They do not have the skills to earn much meaning they pay little if taxes. They usually lack medical insurance in the US (though Mexico has medical insurance for their citizens) and do not get it from an employer so are on the hook for them.

Are we even allowed to point this out without being accused of bigotry?

Stanford Professor AC

Missoula, MT 3 hours ago

Why does this group of Mexicans - and their white liberal side kicks - believe they are exempt from the migratory rules that every other ethic group and industrialized nation follow?

PK

Atlanta 3 hours ago

This has to be one of the most ridiculous articles I have ever read on this website! "Oh no, don't use the term 'illegals' because it will hurt their feelings!" Seriously? These people entered the country illegally, and therefore the term is apt. This is political correctness gone nuts!

Even the most popular comments ranked by readers (which are too long to quote here) are in opposition to illegal aliens.  And in previous articles on the subject in the Times I have seen, time and time again, in the comments section the overwhelming sentiment of liberal readers against illegal aliens.

I think polls have it right, and the overwhelming majority of Americans, conservative, moderate, and liberal, are against this flood of illegal aliens.  Any candidate who takes a firm, believable line on it and doesn't back down could be our next president.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

Why Liberals are Dangerous

The Left (liberal mainstream media) practically had a ticker tape parade for Ohio Gov. John Kasich for answers he gave on two issues during the GOP debate. Liberals' praise of Kasich shows they have chosen emotion over logical, reasoned thinking. This makes liberals irresponsible and dangerous. These people must never be in charge.

The Left praised Kasich for his entitlement program that is $1.4 billion in the red, thus far -- in only 18 months. Kasich defended his program saying it was the Christian thing to do.

First of all, the Bible does not support stupid business practices and irresponsible spending of other people's money. Proverbs 22:29 “Have you seen a man who is expert in his business? He will take his place before kings; his place will not be among low persons.”

In 1972, Hurricane Agnes flooded our small black Baltimore suburban community. Dad and my brother rescued residents from the roofs of their homes in a rowboat. As a community leader, my dad, Rev. Marcus, assisted residents in acquiring relief checks from the Red Cross. My parents were among those who lost everything in the flood. What if Dad took his family's relief check and distributed it among needy neighbors? Liberals would praise Dad for his compassion for the poor. The reality is Dad's behavior, though well-intended, would be irresponsible to my mom and younger siblings living at home. Such common-sense adult thinking seems to escape liberals.

Gov. Kasich is furthering an entitlement program that is void of economic sense is irresponsible to taxpayers, no matter how well-intended. Feelings trump common sense these days in America. Liberals will call me a mean Republican who does not care about people for suggesting that politicians spend responsibly. Most liberals are brain-dead emotion-driven fools.

Kasich's answer regarding gay marriage was the second issue that won him great praise from liberals. Kasich said while he is a traditional guy, the courts made gay marriage law and he will comply. Kasich added that he attended a friend's gay wedding because we must love people. I am sorry, Gov. Kasich and Leftists, but it is absurd to suggest that loving someone means embracing everything they do. Once again, more brain-dead emotion-driven liberal reasoning. Sometimes, love means rejecting a friend or family member's behavior.

My daughter married a woman. I explained to my daughter why as a Christian, I could not support their union. She understood. We still have a great loving relationship, though we differ when the Patriots play the Broncos. Go Manning!

Here is an interesting observation. Like many youths, a handful of Dad's adult grandkids have gone through a rebellious stage; straying from their Christian upbringing like the prodigal son. Each of them hid their sinful behaviors from my dad. They hold Dad's opinion in high regard with a desire to make him proud. Even my daughter seems to care more about my dad's opinion of her than mine.

I asked myself, why? Dad is not a tyrant in any way. He is loving and easygoing. So why do the millennials in our family care so much about their granddad's opinion of them?

The answer is all of their lives, they have witnessed the consistency in Dad's Christian walk and his commitment to biblical standards. The grandkids know Dad loves each of them dearly, but is faithful to his commitment to Christ. My daughter and the other grandkids love Dad greatly and give him their utmost respect.

Perhaps, millennials are looking for trustworthy leaders/politicians who stand for something. GOP presidential contender Sen. Ted Cruz comes to mind. Too many wimpy baby-boomers embrace every Leftist anti-Christian and anti-American socialist/progressive agenda item; desiring to be thought of as modern and enlightened.

People in positions of power who place feelings above common sense, responsibility and reasoned thinking are dangerous. They (liberals) must never be in charge.

Take sanctuary cities. These are liberal-governed U.S. cities that have officially decided to disobey federal law by sheltering illegal aliens.

Liberalism has been described as a “mental disease.” For whatever reasons, liberals who run sanctuary cities feel it is unfair that we in America have so much. Consequently, they roll out the red carpet to illegals; gifting them welfare, college tuition, and benefits unavailable to legal American citizens.

Years ago, a businessman friend moved to California. He made more money than ever. And yet, he had to move back to the east coast because the cost of living was too high. Amazingly, my friend said if he had been an illegal alien, he and his family could have survived just fine in California. Does that make sense? Of course not. I wrote a satirical song about his experience titled, “Can't Afford the Sunshine.”

Talk about crazy brain-dead thinking – even with epidemic high numbers of murders, rapes, and assaults on Americans by repeat criminal illegals, nothing seems to soften sanctuary cities' commitment to welcome and protect illegals. Wacko liberals in charge are dangerous, folks.

Liberals wrongfully get high marks for compassion. The truth is real compassionate leadership makes wise responsible decisions. Liberals define a compassionate nation as how long that line is of people showing up for their daily allotment of free fish. In America today, 94 million Americans are unemployed. And yet, they have all the necessities and many of the luxuries of working Americans. Forty-seven million Americans are on food stamps. Millions of capable Americans are receiving disability. 

Conservatives define compassion as liberating citizens from government. Government handouts are always accompanied with government dictates and controls. There ain't no free lunch.

Conservative government says, we will gladly give you fish for the short term. However, our greater goal is to help you experience the dignity, pride, and independence of catching your own fish. We will get rid of the overreaching government controls on catching fish and help you acquire a fishing rod.

Who do you want running the show (your county) folks -- brain-dead emotion-driven liberals or adult conservatives?

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

Massachusetts Republicans are more liberal than Arkansas Democrats

Massachusetts Republicans like Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito and Gov. Charlie Baker are comparatively moderate.

The Boston Globe

Those of us in the Bay State know that Republicans in Massachusetts aren’t like those more conservative politicians yakking it up on Fox News. Now there’s firm statistical proof of that.

Massachusetts Republican state legislators are more liberal than Republicans in every other state legislature, and they are even more liberal than Democrats in Arkansas, according to a data-heavy political study from Princeton and Georgetown University researchers.

As The Boston Globe explains, the researchers culled roll call votes of legislatures in every state. They then compared those votes to how those across the political spectrum voted in similar topics. Politicians who vote along similar lines were grouped together.

“Strictly speaking, then, this data doesn’t show that Massachusetts legislators hold a particularly liberal set of beliefs,” the Globe writes. “Rather, it shows that they support the types of policies that are embraced by California and Connecticut, contested in much of the country, and anathema in Oklahoma and Missouri. That, by itself, turns out to be a pretty good definition of liberalism.”

Massachusetts Democrats aren’t radically liberal compared to Democrats in states like California or New York, according to the study. Instead, it’s Republicans’ moderate positions that make the state shift so far to the left.

Via: Boston.com

Continue Reading....

The British Left’s Hypocritical Embrace of Islamism

Anti-extremist campaigner Maajid Nawaz embodies grievances that liberals claim to care about. So why is he being viciously attacked by them?

The desire to impose religion over society is otherwise known as theocracy. Being veterans of the struggle to push back against fundamentalist Christians, American liberals are well acquainted with the pitfalls of the neoconservative flirtation with the religious-right. How ironic, then, that in Europe it is those on the left—led by the Guardian—who flirt with religious theocrats. For in the UK, our theocrats are brown, from minority communities, and are overwhelmingly Muslim.

Islam is a religion like any other. Islamism is an ideology that seeks to impose any version of Islam over society. When expressed through violence, I call it jihadism. It is obvious to an American liberal that Christian fundamentalism must be made to respect personal choice. Likewise, it is as plain as the light of day to me—a Pakistani-British liberal Muslim—that any desire to impose any version of Islam over anyone anywhere, ever, is a fundamental violation of our basic civil liberties. But Islamism has been rising in the UK for decades. Over the years, in survey after survey, attitudes have reflected a worrying trend. A quarter of British Muslimssympathised with the Charlie Hebdo shootings. 0% have expressed tolerance for homosexuality. A third have claimed that killing for religion can be justified, while 36% have thought apostates should be killed. 40% have wanted the introduction of sharia as law in the UK and 33% have expressed a desire to see the return of a worldwide theocratic Caliphate. Is it any wonder then, that from this milieu up to 1,000 British Muslims have joined ISIS, which is more than joined the Armyreserves. In a case that has come to symbolize the extent of the problem, an entire family of 12 recently migrated to the Islamic State. By any reasonable assessment, something has gone badly wrong in Britain.

But for those who I have come to call Europe’s regressive-left how could Islamist tyranny—such as burying women neck deep in the ground and stoning them to death—possibly be anything other than an authentic expression of Muslim rage at Western colonial hegemony? For don’t you know Muslims are angry? So angry, in fact, that they wish to enslave indigenous Yazidi women for sex, throw Syrian gays off tall buildings and burn people alive? All because… Israel. For Europe’s regressive-left—which is fast penetrating U.S. circles too—Muslims are notexpected to be civilized. And Muslim upstarts who dare to challenge this theocratic fascism are nothing but an inconvenience to an uncannily Weimar-like populism that screams simplistically: It is all the West’s fault. 

It is my fellow Muslims who suffer most from this patronizing, self-pity inspiring mollycoddling. And just as American Muslims, with some reason, fear becoming targeted by right-wing anti-Muslim prejudice, British Muslims are being spoon-fed regressive-left sedatives, encouraging a perpetual state of victimhood in order to score their petty ideological points against “the West.” In the name of cultural diversity, aspiration is being stifled, expectations have been tempered and because Muslims have their own culture don't you know, self-segregation and ghettoization have thrived. 

Finally, on July 20 the British Prime Minister David Cameron mustered the political will to deliver a comprehensive speech setting out the UK’s approach to tackling the long rising tide of theocratic extremism in our communities. At last, Cameron named and shamed the Islamist ideology as a major factor behind the rise of such extremism. As founding chairman of Quilliam—an organization that seeks to challenge Islamism though civic debate across political divides—I was proud to have played a role in advising Downing Street on some of the core messages for this speech. I did this despite my being a Liberal, and not a member of the Prime Minster’s Conservative party. I did this because extremism affects our national, not just party-political, interests.

Via: Daily Beast

Continue Reading.....

Leftists Use Black Lives Matter to Exploit Blacks, Again

Recently, my black brother shared an unfortunate incident. Years ago, police in two unmarked cars blocked his car. They jumped out pointing guns, demanding that he exit his car. My brother immediately raised his hands, but did not exit his car because he was frozen with fear. An officer pulled him out of his car onto the ground. My brother said, “Calm down! I am not resisting!”

After checking him out, the officers realized he was not their suspect. Rather than sending my brother on his way with an apology, the police framed him. My brother had an unopened six-pack of beer on the floor. An officer opened one of the beers and said, “You're under arrest for drunk driving.” The bogus charge did not stick and my brother was released hours later, angry, and with a bitter taste in his mouth.

Ironically, my brother's reason for telling me about the incident was to defend the police in the recent shooting and arrests covered 24/7 on CNN. He said the cops who framed him were a few bad apples which are everywhere in every profession. Amen to that. Jesus had 12 disciples and one was a bad apple. My brother made the point that he was not harmed because he submitted to the police's authority. He noted that the blacks in the videos shown on TV did not submit to the police.

My brother's point is correct. In each incident caught on video in which people are second-guessing officers’ behavior, bad outcomes could have been avoided had the persons simply respected authority and complied.

A friend of mine is a veteran Baltimore black cop. He told me that upon arriving at a scene, a cop must immediately take control of the situation. If not, the cop could end up dead – stabbed in the back by a weepy girlfriend or mom. The most hazardous part of a police officer's job is the routine traffic stop: 62 officers killed 2002 - 2011.

Democrats, CNN and other liberal bias media have an insidiously evil agenda to convince black America that Republicans, conservatives and police are out to get them. These Leftists would love to feature my brother's bad boy cops story 24/7, claiming the cops were unequivocally motivated by white racism.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

[Commentary] How can we talk rationally about abortion?

“#PPSellsBabyParts” was the gut-punching hashtag that quickly sprang up on Twitter in response to the sting videos in which a Planned Parenthood official casually discusses the donation — or, some say, sale — of organs from aborted fetuses.

So far, the reactions have been along predictable partisan lines. Nonetheless, the videos may well be a new turn in the abortion war, pushing many in the ambivalent center closer to the anti-abortion position.

Is there any way to strive toward a middle ground in this emotionally charged debate?

Abortion-rights liberals and feminists have focused on attacking the messenger, pointing out the videos were made by anti-abortion advocates who engaged in deception (setting up a fake biomedical firm) to secretly record the footage. But it’s a fair bet that no liberals would raise the same objections if, say, anti-racism activists had used deceptive tactics to expose racist practices in hiring or apartment rentals. There are widespread claims the videos are “selectively edited,” yet the full footage of the conversations was made available at the same time.

For conservatives and other anti-abortion-rights folks, the videos confirm what they have long believed: The “abortion industry” is an evil enterprise that dismembers babies for profit. Republicans are planning to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding (which accounts for up to 40 percent of its budget if you count Medicaid payments). State investigations are underway in Florida, Wisconsin and Louisiana.

Even many pro-abortion-rights commentators agree that, whether the financial discussions in the videos are about illegal organ sales or legitimate recouping of donation expenses, the videos are disturbing. The casual tone in which the Planned Parenthood staffers talk about better ways to “crush” the fetus to obtain more intact hearts and livers is appalling to anyone with a conscience. Some say battle-hardened doctors can sound equally callous when discussing other procedures. But the fact is that other medical procedures are intended to restore health or save lives; abortion ends, at the very least, a potential human life. To dismiss our revulsion as a mere emotional reaction is to deaden our moral instinct.

This is not to say that those who are anti-abortion have no agenda beyond “life.” Many are deeply hostile to sexual freedom and attached to a traditional view of motherhood as women’s calling. Conservatives assail the presumed hypocrisy of abortion-rights advocates for whom the difference between an unborn baby and disposable tissue is the mother’s intent. Yet those who want to ban abortion with an exception for pregnancies from nonconsensual sex are inconsistent: No one would advocate killing a baby born from rape or incest.

The moral muddle of abortion may be inevitable given the complexities of the issue itself. Abortion, at least past early pregnancy, is a repugnant procedure; feminists who call for “abortion without apology” could alienate far more people than they convert. But for many of us, forcing a person to go through with pregnancy and childbirth against her will is also repugnant.

While there is no persuading the committed activists on either side, polls show that most Americans are open to compromise solutions. Limiting post-first-trimester abortions to true medical necessity could be one such measure. Another way to de-escalate the conflict would be to stop taxpayer funding for organizations that perform elective abortions.

For Planned Parenthood, which offers many other women’s health services, this would mean either giving up taxpayer funds or stopping abortion services; low-cost abortions could be provided by new clinics relying on private donations.

A politician who could steer the way toward such a compromise would be a national hero.

Via: Palm Beach Post

Continue Reading....

Video: Liberals Sign Petition To Support Imposing A “White Privilege Tax” On All Caucasians…

Via: Weasel Zippers

Barack and Valerie’s Great Communist Party Marriage

Rich new information on Valerie Jarrett’s red diaper loyalties and ties.

In my current book, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage, I write of the phenomenon of Communist Party marriages. “Theirs was the first ‘party marriage’ that I observed,” wrote Whittaker Chambers in Witness, describing the decidedly non-sacramental marriage of two of his Communist Party comrades, before writing of his own “party marriages.”

From Marx and Engels, to Herbert Marcuse and Wilhelm Reich, to Betty Friedan and Kate Millett, to Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, our comrades on the far left have bequeathed a legacy of noxious ideas on marriage and family. Their political-cultural wreckage is being felt today more than ever. In many ways, it has come to full fruition only now in a culture that gleefully redefines marriage and gives us the likes of Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett in the White House, a damaging political marriage if there ever was one. For seven years now at their home-base at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Obama and Jarrett have been politically and ideologically inseparable. Their White House wedding has fundamentally transformed the country.

Sure, Barack’s matrimonial vow might be to Michelle, but his ideological soulmate has long been Valerie Jarrett. And both Barack and Valerie hail from a truly remarkable line of mentors and family members with deep fidelity to the American Communist Party.

Those political bloodlines are so stunning, so bizarre, especially when they intersect across the generations, that people often react dismissively when presented with the information. I’ve laid out the linkages probably more than anyone, mainly in a book on Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, who was a hardcore member of Communist Party USA (card no. 47544) and in several major articles on Valerie Jarrett for The American Spectator, the first one running about 5,000 words and appearing in the July/August 2011 print edition.

Again, the common lines are just incredible—but they are real. And the connections get even more jaw-dropping when you toss in mentors for a third leg of the political trinity responsible for two presidential terms of Barack Obama, one David Axelrod. Axelrod was also influenced by comrades with fond commitments to Communist Party circles, and specifically in rotten, politically misbegotten Chicago. I’ve written of Axelrod’s background, too, for The American Spectator, including a cover piece in the March 2012 print edition.

So, why am I writing now? What’s the latest in this nightmarish political soap opera?

My latest offering here is prompted by the fine work of Judicial Watch, which has obtained by FOIA request the FBI files of three crucial figures who formed Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s most intimate adviser. The three are Jarrett’s father, James Bowman, her father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, and her grandfather, Robert Rochon Taylor. Judicial Watch has posted these documents online, and I’ve suffered through them carefully with a mix of amazement, agony, and despair for what has happened in this country. They are at once disturbing and depressing, yet further confirmation that the most politically extreme individuals who once agitated and propagandized in our blessed country were able to place their political children as high as the White House in the 21st century. For the old comrades, it simply took time for the seeds to root and flourish—and only then with the harvest made possible by really oblivious American voters who don’t understand the ash-heap of ideological baggage they’ve permitted to be brought into the country’s first house.

I’ll first highlight what’s new in the Judicial Watch cache and then delve into some further connections and insights unique to my knowledge of these individuals and their associations.

What is new is that these files show the highly disturbing level of communist work and associations by no less than three men very close to Valerie Jarrett. They show beyond any doubt that our current president—who I’ve here described as our first Red-Diaper Baby President—has been steered by a longtime leading adviser who, without question, has the classic rearing of a red-diaper baby. Beyond that, the FBI files on Jarrett’s father, James Bowman, are the single biggest revelation. I was plainly not aware of the reservoir of radical activity by Bowman. In my previous research, I could find nothing on Bowman, though I found quite a bit on Vernon Jarrett and a small amount on Robert Rochon Taylor. The Bowman material is shocking.

And finally, though I did not see the name of Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s mentor, in these files, I’m now even further certain that Davis would have not only known these men but worked closely with each. They were all in Chicago at the exact same time and all operating in the exact same close-knit circles of the city’s Communist Party generally and of a much smaller group of African-American communists specifically. Even tinier still, they were Chicago-based African-American communist writers, journalists, Party activists, and agitators. There is simply no way—no way—that James Bowman, Vernon Jarrett, Robert Rochon Taylor, and Frank Marshall Davis did not know and work together. Unimaginable. And thus, here’s an equally intriguing thought: There is simply no way that our nation’s political-ideological first couple, Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett, have not had fond conversations reminiscing about this common ancestry. Boy, to be a fly on the wall for one of those rosy reminiscences down the old Party lane….

That said, here is a person-by-person breakdown of what the Judicial Watch material has unearthed, courtesy of the now publicly viewable FBI files, sprinkled with my own observations:

First, James Bowman. Born in Washington, D.C., February 5, 1923, Bowman eventually resided in Chicago and Denver before moving to Iran in 1955, where Valerie was born. The FBI files state that he attended Howard University from 1939-46, earning a bachelor’s degree in biology followed by a medical degree. He would work for at least two different hospitals in Washington before moving to Chicago to work for Provident Hospital. It was in Chicago that—like Frank Marshall Davis, like Barack Obama—Bowman earned his radical sea-legs and began his political path. He lived in Chicago from roughly 1947-53, precisely when Frank Marshall Davis launched his Chicago Star Communist Party-line newspaper.

Valerie’s father had numerous communist ties. He was a member of a front-group that is new to me, the Association of Internes [sic] and Medical Students, which Congress described as “an organization which has long been a faithful follower of the Communist Party line.” He was very active on the student front, including with the communist group, American Youth for Democracy, one of Frank Marshall Davis’ favorite organizations. Among other groups listed in Bowman’s file that were likewise favorites of Davis were the International Labor Defense and the awful American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born (ACPFB).

A few words on ACPFB: This group had been so extreme that the Democratic Congress’s huge “Investigation of Un-American Propaganda Activities in the United States” (published in 1944) devoted a lengthy 15-page section just to ACPFB, atop innumerable added references elsewhere in the report. Key members included prominent African-American communists Langston Hughes and Paul Robeson, the gushing admirer of Joe Stalin, plus the usual assemblage of duped liberals/progressives, ranging from theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, to the great Orson Welles, to famed movie actor Edward G. Robinson.

As the Congressional report noted, ACPFB “was founded by the Communist Party in order to exploit racial divisions in the United States for its own revolutionary purposes.” Its modus operandi was to polarize Americans along racial lines in order to advance the Soviet agenda. Closely linked to International Labor Defense, the primary (concealed) intention of ACPFB was to protect foreign communists who came to America and agitated for the Soviet Comintern. The core objective was to prevent deportation of these foreign-born communists living in America. One such figure was German communist Gerhart Eisler, who became a major CPUSA cause, and whose name was omnipresent throughout Frank Marshall Davis’s Chicago Star.

Few communist fronts so directly served Soviet interests. Quite deservedly, ACPFB was designated as a subversive group by the office of President Truman’s attorney general, Tom Clark.

Via: Spectator

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] Problem solved, TV Land: Here’s your new, politically correct Dukes of Hazzard

The amazing thing about this is that it was made six years ago - when it was funny enough to imagine liberals trying to PC up the Dukes but still not to the point where you could actually imagine a major cable network pulling it because it isn’t. Hats off to Jeff Foxworthy and Larry the Cable Guy for actually having the prescience to see this coming.

Trying to remember: Was the gay rainbow flag sufficiently recognized back in 2009 for that to be the likely meaning of the rainbow atop the General Lee? Or is it just combined with the unicorn to signify something more like the whole peace/love/dope thing that’s now taking the form of fascist speech restrictions?

Oh, by the way, some of you who still shriek about “book burning” - which you imagine conservative Christians to be undertaking in an assault on subsersive books - would you mind explaining to me why that is an affront against all that’s good and decent, but banning the Duke boys over a flag on a car is perfectly OK?

I can’t wait to hear this.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

4 Liberal Myths About Ronald Reagan Debunked

Presidential historian H. W. Brands’ new biography of Ronald Reagan and his conclusion that modern American politics is best seen as “The Age of Reagan” has aroused liberals to circulate once again the hoariest myths about the man and his presidency, including the malicious charge that Reagan was deliberately indifferent to the lot of African-Americans and other minorities.

Liberal Myth No. 1: Reagan’s dangerously belligerent foreign policy had little to do with the disintegration of Soviet Communism. Mikhail Gorbachev was the leader most responsible for bringing the Cold War to a non-nuclear conclusion.

Reality: In the 1970s, as presidential scholar Kiron Skinner has written, Reagan formulated four key ideas about U.S.–Soviet relations and the Cold War. One, discussion of Soviet expansionism around the world had to precede any talk about arms control, not the reverse. Two, America was an “exceptional” nation obligated to match deeds with words in the promotion of freedom around the world. Three, because the Soviet Union was an “abnormal” nation with no popular base of support, it was prepared to foment global crises to maintain its control. Four, the Soviet Union’s inefficient economy and inferior technology “could not survive competition” with America. Once elected president, Reagan began carrying out a multifaceted victory strategy based on these ideas.

Reagan ordered an across-the-board buildup of the defense establishment, including land-based weapons, new ships, and new medium-range missiles. He launched a psychological offensive, declaring that the Soviets’ “evil empire” was headed for “the ash heap of history.” He made SDI (the Strategic Defensive Initiative) the cornerstone of the Reagan Doctrine and would not surrender it, even at the Reykjavik summit. He strongly supported anti-Communist forces in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola, and Cambodia.

He carried his crusade for freedom into the disintegrating Soviet empire. Standing before Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate in 1987, he directly challenged the Kremlin, saying, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” A little more than two years later, the wall came down and Communism in Eastern and Central Europe collapsed. Lech Walesa, Nobel laureate and founder of the Polish trade union Solidarity that confronted the Communist regime, said of President Reagan, “We in Poland … owe him our liberty.”

Democracy triumphed in the Cold War, Reagan wrote in his autobiography, because it was a battle of ideas—“between one system that gave preeminence to the state and another that gave preeminence to the individual and freedom.” The Cold War ended in triumph for the idea of freedom because of Ronald Reagan, not Mikhail Gorbachev, who as late as 1988 quoted the Communist Manifesto when asked his position on private property.

Liberal Myth No. 2: The ’80s were a decade of greed that benefited only the wealthy and overlooked the middle class.

Reality: Reagan inherited a dangerously weakened economy. High tax rates had severely limited jobs and investment and brought in less than expected government revenue. President Reagan reversed the process by cutting personal tax rates and government regulations, stabilizing the economy and encouraging entrepreneurs.

Via: Daily Signal

Continue Reading....

I Still Blame the Communists

What explains the years of rage on campuses?

Maybe American higher education was never all that serious about, you know, the education portion of its name. After more than a decade of teaching in the Ivy League, the philosopher George Santayana dubbed Harvard and Yale the nation’s toy Athens and toy Sparta. He actually meant it as a compliment—as much a compliment, anyway, as he could muster. Santayana resigned his Harvard professorship in 1912 and moved to Europe.

TWS PHOTO ILLUSTRATION

But something especially odd does seem to be happening on American campuses these days. I confess to a little schadenfreude about the widely reported situation of Laura Kipnis, the Northwestern University professor whose feminist essay in praise of faculty-student dating prompted her school to investigate her for violations of the antidiscrimination provisions of Title IX. Kipnis is a widely published controversialist, and over the years she fanned the feminist flames that have now tried to burn her. The revolution, as the old story goes, devours its children.

Still, from symbolic mattresses and op-eds against Ovid at Columbia, to students interrogated about their Jewishness at UCLA and Stanford, to the stories of lawsuits filed by the undergraduates accused by their colleges of rape, to the reports of the Boston University teacher who used her Twitter account for anti-white-male messages, to the creation of “safe spaces” lest a public lecture trigger a bad memory in someone, to . . . On and on it seems to go, each fresh day bringing some fresh account of militant outrage at American colleges. “Only the dead have seen the end of war,” Santayana once warned us. Certainly only the dead have seen the end of campus upset.

It wasn’t always thus. I’m not thinking of some supposedly idyllic moment in the 1840s, or the 1910s, or the 1950s. I mean that 20 years ago, in the mid-1990s, at least a small sense of relief was felt by a number of people. Back in 1987, Allan Bloom had out-Santayana’d Santayana with his bestselling lament, The Closing of the American Mind. In the early 1990s Roger Kimball and Dinesh D’Souza added widely read books on the radicalism of college faculty—even as the collapse of Soviet communism from 1989 to 1991 deflated the hopes of the Marxist professors they wrote about. 

It all seemed to add up to a slow but real generational retreat from an academic world still dominated by its proud memories of 1960s student protests. I remember the Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon explaining, around 1996, that she suspected the peak of political correctness had passed—since schools like Harvard and Princeton would feel embarrassed if they didn’t have one person on the faculty they could point to as a conservative. Not more than one, perhaps, but nonetheless, it seemed to mark a change that she imagined would soon filter from the Ivy League out into the rest of America’s schools. The poet Dana Gioia proposed something similar around that time, after he’d been approached by a major foundation for names of conservative authors it might support in order to blunt the charge of its being merely a subsidiary of liberalism.

Via: The Weekly Standard

Continue Reading.....

Shocking at Vox: 'I'm a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me' -

A top article trending on Vox, an exclusively online (and leftward leaning) news platform is entitled "I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me." According to a professor of a "mid-size state school" who preferred to remain anonymous to protect his job, "The student-teacher dynamic has been re-envisioned along a line that's simultaneously consumerist and hyper-protective, giving each and every student the ability to claim Grievous Harm in nearly any circumstance, after any affront, and a teacher's formal ability to respond to these claims is limited at best.

" Of course for anyone paying a speck of attention to the free speech environments of American campuses, this is nothing new. In 2012, George Will penned an article in The Washington Post entitled "Colleges have free speech on the run." He described, "The right never to be annoyed, a new campus entitlement" and the "Legions of administrators, who now outnumber full-time faculty, are kept busy making students mind their manners, with good manners understood as conformity to liberal politics." 

Meanwhile FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), whose president Greg Lukianoff describes himself as "a liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, lifelong Democrat," has been trying to bring the lack of free speech on public and private college campuses to public attention since its founding in 1999. 

But no matter. Now that college intellectual oppression is affecting not only the few conservative professors who dared to enter the polarized world of American academia but also liberal professors, some in the liberal media are prepared to listen. 

The professor described the he fear he held that students would rate him poorly on evaluations or report him for insensitivity to the administration if he assigned readings that "affect the student's emotional state." He pointed to "a simplistic, unworkable, and ultimately stifling conception of social justice" that focuses on emotions, as the culprit for turning millennial students into fragile flowers. 

According to the professor, this trend toward ever-increasing censorship "affects liberal, socially conscious teachers much more than conservative ones." It remains unclear how that logic pans out. However, he also believes these conservative professors will be liberal academia's savior from itself, as "there's nothing much to do other than sit on our hands and wait for the ascension of conservative political backlash.

" PS: The Wall Street Journal had the story of students going after liberal prof Laura Kipnis for an essay on "growing sexual paranoia" on campuses.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading.....

Biker Shootout: Libs Going Wacko over Race in Waco

Leftists are upset about what they view as a double standard with respect to the Baltimore/Ferguson affair and the recent Waco gang shootout. They’re right, too—there sure is a double standard.

And, as usual, it’s their own.

Consider, for example, an Associated Presspiece by one Jesse J. Holland titled “Differing perceptions of Waco, Baltimore bothering some.” Holland starts out writing that the “prevailing images of protests in Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri, over police killings of black men were of police in riot gear, handcuffed protesters, tear gas and mass arrests. The main images of a fatal gun battle between armed bikers and police in Waco, Texas, also showed mass arrests—carried out by nonchalant-looking officers sitting around calm bikers on cellphones.” The idea is that while the black thugs in Baltimore and Ferguson received harsh treatment and coverage, the primarily white thugs in Waco were, relatively speaking, handled with kid gloves.

But pardon my tongue, this brings us to another complaint. Holland cites people who say that while Barack Obama and other politicians called the Baltimore miscreants “thugs,” no such descriptive is applied to the white Waco punks. He mentions in particular radio and TV commentator Roland Martin, who tweeted, “So the mainstream media refuses to talk (hashtag)WacoThugs, huh?” And Martin has a point: While the black Baltimore rioters and looters were called thugs, no white Waco rioters and looters were thus characterized. I wonder, why might that be?

Oh, yeah, that’s right: there are no white rioters and looters in Waco.

Minor details such as this seem to escape the notice of two-brain-cell journalists in search of a story, but a prerequisite for having “police in riot gear” is actually having, you know, a riot. The incident in Waco was an unforeseen event, meaning, the cops had no time to don any kind of special gear.

Perhaps they don’t teach proper analogizing in journalism school, but the Waco biker thugs aren’t analogous to the Baltimore rioter thugs; rather, they’re analogous to the person the latter were rioting over: drug dealer Freddie Gray. And no one went out of his way to call Gray a thug.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....