Free Speech In America?

Conservative speech is under attack in America. Facebook has banned Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos. Admittedly, those two are not necessarily mainstream conservatives, but you get my point. David Horowitz is routinely suspended or banned from Twitter for telling the truth about radical Islam.

In case you haven’t noticed, there will be an election next year. If Twitter and Facebook can effectively squelch conservative speech on their platforms, how much will that impact the election? Right now more than 50 percent of Americans believe President Trump is guilty of Russian collusion. Those of us who don’t depend on the mainstream media for our news know that this is not true. The Mueller Report found no evidence of either collusion or obstruction of justice, but the mainstream media has somehow avoided making that clear. If conservatives don’t either stand up for their rights on social media or create an equally powerful social media network, our message will not get out. It’s that simple. Those who want to change America into something our Founding Fathers would not recognize can do it by controlling social media. That effort has already begun.

Common Sense Comes To The Park Service

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today about a recent decision by the National Park Service.

The article reports:

The National Park Service told the Washington Free Beacon it is no longer providing funding for a controversial project “honoring the legacy” of the Black Panther Party after outrage that the agency would spend taxpayer dollars to memorialize a group that murdered a park ranger in the 1970s.

The Free Beacon revealed last month that the Park Service gave roughly $100,000 to the University of California, Berkeley for a research project on the Marxist extremist group to “memorialize a history that brought meaning to lives far beyond the San Francisco Bay Area.”

“Committed to truthfully honoring the legacy of [Black Panther Party] BPP activists and the San Francisco Bay Area communities they served, the project seeks to document the lives of activists and elders and the landscapes that shaped the movement,” the National Park Service stated in the grant awarded for the project.

A captain in the Black Panther Party murdered National Park Service ranger Kenneth Patrick while he was on patrol near San Francisco in 1973. Patrick was shot three times by Veronza Leon Curtis Bowers Jr., who is currently serving a life sentence for first-degree murder. Patrick left behind a widow and three children.

In 1997 David Horowitz published a book called Radical Son. The book details Mr. Horowitz’s experiences as a 1960’s radical and details his involvement with the Black Panthers during that time. He details the story of the murder of a friend of his that he had recommended as a bookkeeper for the group. Shortly after she began asking questions about the books she was keeping and the financing of the group, she was murdered. This is not a group that needs to be either memorialized or celebrated.

Some Insight From Someone Who Understands What Is Behind The Unrest

David Horowitz is what is called a ‘red-diaper’ baby. His parents were admitted communists who taught in the New York City schools. He was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. In the 1990’s, after an incident during which he learned the true character of the Black Panthers, David Horowitz began moving toward more conservative thought. His story is told in his book Radical Son. Because of his involvement in leftist political causes as a young man, he understands how the political left works. Today he posted an article about the events in Charlottesville at Newsmax.

Here are a few of his observations from the article:

The tragedy in Charlottesville, Virginia, could have been an occasion to stop and consider how the tolerance for politically correct violence and politically correct hatred is leading the nation toward civil war.

Instead, the media and the political left have turned this incident into the biggest fake news story of the summer, transforming its real lessons into a morality play that justifies war against the political right, and against white people generally.

The organizers of the “Unite the Right” demonstration in Charlottesville were repellent racists.

But they came to defend a historic monument honoring a complex man and cause, and not to attack it or, presumably, anyone else.

They applied for a permit and were denied. They re-applied successfully in a petition supported by the local ACLU.

If they had come to precipitate violence, why would they have gone to the tedious trouble of applying for a permit?

Not unlike the Nazis who marched in Skokie, Illinois, years ago, they had the right to march. No one had to agree with them, but had they been left alone, they probably would not have even made the news.

The article further notes:

What “Unite the Right” actually demonstrated was that the assortment of neo-Nazis, pro-Confederates, and assorted yahoos gathered under the banner of the “Alt-Right” is actually a negligible group.

This supposed national show of strength actually attracted all of 500 people.

Compare that to the tens of the thousands who can readily be marshaled by two violent groups of the left — Black Lives Matter and Antifa — and you get an idea of how marginal “white supremacists” are to America‘s political and cultural life.

Yet “white supremacy” and its evils became the centerpiece of all the fake news reporting on the event, including all the ludicrous attacks on the president for not condemning enough a bogeyman the whole nation condemns, and that no one but a risible fringe supports.

Talk about virtue signaling!

Omitted from the media coverage were the other forces at work in precipitating the battle of Emancipation Park, specifically Black Lives Matter and Antifa, two violent left-wing groups with racial agendas who came to squelch the demonstration in defense of the monument.

Unlike the Unite the Right demonstrators, the leftist groups did not apply for permits, which would have been denied since there was another demonstration scheduled for that park on that day.

One major conclusion reached in the article:

Once the two sides had gathered in the same place, the violence was totally predictable.

Two parties, two culpabilities; but except for the initial statement of President Donald Trump, condemning both sides, only one party has been held accountable, and that happens to be the one that was in the park legally.

What is taking place in the media accounts and political commentaries on this event is an effort by the left to turn the mayhem in Charlottesville into a template for their war against a mythical enemy — “white supremacy” — which is really a war on white people generally.

The ideology that drives the left and divides our country is “identity politics” — the idea that the world consists of two groups — “people of color” who are guiltless and oppressed, and white people who are guilty and oppressors.

This is the real race war.

The media is playing a major role in tearing America apart. I can’t help but wonder if they will like the results if they are successful in separating us into warring groups and stealing our history and identity as Americans.

Who Is Paying The Protestors?

Front Page Magazine is a website run by David Horowitz, a red-diaper baby from New York who was involved with the Black Panthers as a well-intentioned liberal before becoming a conservative. His change of heart was partly due to the fact that the Black Panthers were responsible for the death of a friend of his who had done their  bookkeeping. The story is told in his book, Radical Son. Because of his childhood and his personal experience with the Black Panthers, David Horowitz is very familiar with the tactics used by those who are working against the freedom and prosperity we have as Americans.

On Friday, Front Page Magazine posted an article about the origins of the funding being used to pay protestors around the country after the Trump victory on Tuesday.

The article reports:

From reading the various mainstream media accounts of these events, one comes away with the distinct impression that they are grassroots actions that began organically among ordinary, concerned, well-meaning citizens.

But alas, if one were to think that, one would be wrong.

Contrary to media misrepresentations, many of the supposedly spontaneous, organic, anti-Trump protests we have witnessed in cities from coast to coast were in fact carefully planned and orchestrated, in advance, by a pro-Communist organization called the ANSWER Coalition, which draws its name from the acronym for “Act Now to Stop War and End Racism.” ANSWER was established in 2001 by Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center, a group staffed in large part by members of the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party. In 2002, the libertarian author Stephen Suleyman Schwartz described ANSWER as an “ultra-Stalinist network” whose members served as “active propaganda agents for Serbia, Iraq, and North Korea, as well as Cuba, countries they repeatedly visit and acclaim.”

Since its inception, ANSWER has consistently depicted the United States as a racist, sexist, imperialistic, militaristic nation guilty of unspeakable crimes against humanity—in other words, a wellspring of pure evil. When ANSWER became a leading organizer of the massive post-9/11 demonstrations against the Patriot Act and the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, it formed alliances with other likeminded entities such as Not In Our Name (a project of the Revolutionary Communist Party) and United For Peace and Justice (a pro-Castro group devoted to smearing America as a cesspool of bigotry and oppression). 

Another key organizer of the current anti-Trump protests is a group called Socialist Alternative, which describes “the global capitalist system” as “the root cause of … poverty, discrimination, war, and environmental destruction.” Explaining that “the dictatorships that existed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were [unfortunate] perversions of what socialism is really about,” this organization calls for a happy-faced “democratic socialism where ordinary people will have control over our daily lives.”

…The bottom line is this: The leaders and organizers of the anti-Trump protests that are currently making so much noise in cities across America, are faithfully following the blueprint of Hillary Clinton‘s famous mentor, Saul Alinsky, who urged radical activists to periodically stage loud, defiant, massive protest rallies expressing rage and discontent. Such demonstrations are designed to give onlookers the impression that a mass movement is preparing to shift into high gear, and that its present size is but a fraction of what it eventually will become. A “mass impression,” said Alinsky, can be lasting and intimidating: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have…. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

And that is precisely what we are witnessing at the moment.

If you have never read Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, now might be a really good time to take a look at it. Mr. Alinsky was one of Hillary Clinton’s heroes and was also admired by Barack Obama.

Recommended Reading For Fourth Grade

Breitbart.com posted a story today about the Fourth Grade reading list for Wake County, North Carolina, recommended under Common Core Standards. I realize that today’s fourth grader is a little different from fourth graders back in the age of dinosaurs when I was in school (Just for the record, I attended fourth grade in Greensboro, North Carolina, schools.) However, this reading list is scary to me.

Some excerpts from the article about the books:

…One Crazy Summer, by Rita Williams-Garcia, in which three sisters are sent by their negligent mother to a camp run by the Black Panthers.

Eleven-year-old Delphine is like a mother to her two younger sisters, Vonetta and Fern. She’s had to be, ever since their mother, Cecile, left them seven years ago for a radical new life in California. When they arrive from Brooklyn to spend the summer with her, Cecile is nothing like they imagined. While the girls hope to go to Disneyland and meet Tinker Bell, their mother sends them to a day camp run by the Black Panthers. Unexpectedly, Delphine, Vonetta, and Fern learn much about their family, their country, and themselves during one truly crazy summer.

The book is recommended for ages 8-12 years and grades 4-7.

The article mentions one of the goals of having the children read the book:

Delphine is a positive female African-American role model for girls. She displays tremendous responsibility and loyalty to her family. Her mother, however, is mean. At one point she tells Delphine that she should have gotten rid of her when she had the chance, but there is no indication that her true meaning is understood. The Black Panthers are portrayed in a positive light, and the reader is educated about some of the charitable community programs they set up.

Before the people supporting this book get too excited about the charitable community programs of the Black Panthers, they might want to take a look at a book called Radical Son by David Horowitz. David Horowitz was a ‘red diaper baby’ raised in New York City. His parents were avowed communists who taught in the New York City public schools. Throughout his younger years and college years, David supported such groups as the Black Panthers. He even got a friend of his a job as a bookkeeper working for the group. In the book he relates his belief that the Black Panthers killed that person when she started to ask questions about some of their activities and was no longer of use to them. There is also the matter of the New Black Panthers voter intimidation in Philadelphia in 2008. Are these the role models we want to hold up to our children?

Another book on the reading list is Esperanza Rising, by Pam Munoz Ryan.

The article summarizes that book as follows:

Told in a lyrical, fairy tale-like style, Ryan’s (riding Freedom) robust novel set in 1930 captures a Mexican girl’s fall from riches, her immigration to California and her growing awareness of class and ethnic tensions. Thirteen-year-old Esperanza Ortega and her family are part of Mexico’s wealthy, land-owning class in Aguascalientes, Mexico. Her father is a generous and well-loved man who gives his servants land and housing. Early in the novel, bandits kill Esperanza’s father, and her corrupt uncles threaten to usurp their home. Their servants help her and her mother flee to the United States, but they must leave Esperanza’s beloved Abuelita (grandmother) behind until they can send for her…

Ryan fluidly juxtaposes world events (Mexico’s post-revolution tensions, the arrival of Oklahoma’s Dust Bowl victims and the struggles between the U.S. government and Mexican workers trying to organize) with one family’s will to survive – while introducing readers to Spanish words and Mexican customs. Readers will be swept up by vivid descriptions of California dust storms or by the police crackdown on a labor strike (“The picket signs lay on the ground, discarded, and like a mass of marbles that had already been hit, the strikers scattered?”).

Where are the stories of George Washington, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, or Benjamin Franklin? Do the two books above really reflect an accurate picture of America? What are the ideas these children are going to have about America as they grow up? What kind of understanding of American history and the things that make America unique are these children going to have? It’s time to scrap the Common Core recommended reading list and go back to letting fourth graders be fourth graders and learn about the good things their country has accomplished.

Why I Don’t Believe Everything I Read

In his book Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution, The Alinsky Model, David Horowitz relates an incident that tells us all we need to know about how underhanded the game of politics can be.

The book states:

College student activists in the 1960’s and 1970’s sought out Alinksy for advice about tactics and strategy. On one such occasion in the spring of 1972 at Tulane University’s annual week-long series of events featuring leading public figures, students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations, a speech likely to be a defense of the Nixon Administration‘s Vietnam War policies [Note: the Nixon Administration was then negotiating with the North Vietnamese Communists to arrive at a peace agreement- DH] The students told Alinsky that they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush’s address. That’s the wrong approach, he rejoined – not very creative and besides, causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school. [Not very likely-DH] He told them, instead, to go hear the speech dressed up as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards, reading, ‘The K.K.K. supports Bush.’ And that is what the students did with very successful, attention-getting results. (This story is taken from a Saul Alinksy book, Let Them Call Me Rebel)

So why am I telling this story? The tactics really have not changed. A website called redflagnews is reporting that Renee Vaughan, who was holding a sign at a Trayvon Martin rally, was not who she appeared to be. Ms. Vaughan held a sign that stated, “We’re racist & proud,” and stood with the group supporting George Zimmerman.

The article at Red Flag News reports:

Austin resident Renee Vaughan echoed the sign’s ugly sentiments by yelling, “We’re racist. We’re proud. We’re better because we’re white,” at the Martin group as they passed, according to the Chronicle.

Brandon Darby interviewed Renee Vaughan at the rally. She told him her sign means that “there are people here who are racist and apparently think that’s OK. I’m not one of them. I’m being sarcastic.”

It looks as if Saul Alinsky’s tactics are alive and well among those who want to divide this nation along racial lines.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Free Speech At American Universities

On Friday, a story was posted at CBN.com about recent events at Portland State University. Erick Stakelbeck is scheduled to speak at the Portland State University chapter of Christians United for Israel (CUFI) on Monday night, May 14th. His topic is to be the latest developments in the Middle East and the increasing threats to Israel.

The picture below shows what has happened to some of the posters the CUFI put up to publicize the event (which is open to the public):

This is just inexcusable.

This article reports:

Portland State University administrators and campus police have been notified about the threats and I’m fully expecting that they will launch an investigation and have ample security on hand for Monday night’s event. If they do not, and if they allow anti-Semitic radicals to disrupt my speech, run amok during the Q and A, or intimidate others in the audience (click here to watch a particularly egregious 2010 example from UC Irvine) you will surely hear about it in this space come Tuesday morning.

There have been many recent examples of anti-Semitism on college campuses in America. David Horowitz routinely reports on such incidents at his website, FrontPageMag.com. Many of the Arab studies programs at American colleges are funded by countries or organizations that have strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Because that’s where the money comes from, anti-Semitism and basic tolerance of Sharia Law is being taught at American colleges. We are brainwashing our smartest young people. If you have a child in college or are sending a child to college in the near future, please pay close attention to what they are learning. Our survival as a free society depends on what our children are being taught.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta