02/10/15

Never let facts interfere with a lie

By: T F Stern
The Moral Liberal

AA - Obama Not Done Lying

Shakespeare had a line in his play, Hamlet; most are familiar with, “To be or not to be, that is the question”.  Taking considerable liberties with this, “To lie or not to lie, that is the question”.  Hamlet would have been a success either way; but for today’s purposes let’s have some fun.  Brian Williams of NBC might come forward on his nightly news forum claiming he was at the performance and might have the original Playbill in his files.

What’s the big deal, everyone lies or exaggerates; at least that’s the rationalization from those who idolize Brian Williams, the leftist agenda offered at NBC and other major media outlets.  What ever it takes to get the job done; lie a little, cheat a little and if we get caught we’ll admit that it was only a miscommunication or that we accidentally forgot to include a little just like everyone else does.

“You like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor! You like your plan, you get to keep it!”  Obama said that or something similar no less than 12 times; but we have learned that Obama knew from the get go that it was a lie, that most folks would not get to keep their doctor or their original health plan.  Obama knew this prior to twisting arms to pass Obamacare.  Is telling the truth important?

Then there’s the United Nations IPCC report which intentionally left out two fairly important statements which were supposed to be in the final draft regarding Global Warming.  If you’re not up on the IPCC report, that’s the focal point used by most of the nation’s leaders to justify and combat the man made global warming crisis.  (It’s sometimes referred to as the man made global warming hoax since that is a more accurate assessment of this scheme to redistribute wealth on a global scale.)

“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

And yet the U.N. continues to push for a global government based on impending catastrophic events which will certainly befall humankind due to man made global warming.  Based on intentionally misleading IPCC reports, would this be considered a lie?

Internet search engines can find most anything; but when you find what is offered can anyone be assured that the information supplied is of any worth?  Looking for graphs and charts regarding air pollution turns up some interesting; useless but interesting charts.

There were so many charts on CO2 levels as to be a bonanza; that is until you figure out that the ‘settled science’ on CO2 being the cause of global warming isn’t settled.  CO2 isn’t a pollutant at all; in fact it is a required component for plants to grow.  Turns out the increase in CO2 is helping plant life to flourish, thereby helping to feed those in need across this planet; but you won’t hear environmental alarmists talking about that little tidbit.

Then there’s the ‘climate change blame game’, which countries are at fault for the world’s miseries and how much should the ‘world court of opinion’ exact for their alleged crimes against Mother Earth and her inhabitants?

“South Africa, on behalf of a broad group of developing and poor nations, called for a show of good faith — including for rich countries to show how they intend to keep a promise to scale climate assistance up to $100 billion (88 billion euros) by 2020.”

China vs US top ten pollution citiesThere were a couple of interesting charts on general air pollution which caught my attention.  It became painfully clear that cities in Communist China far out ‘performed’ cities in the United States as the worst polluters based on suspended particles in the air, nearly 10 to 1.

Why would that be interesting?

It’s important because the so called environmental movement here in our country has been hiding, at least until recently, their close associations with communism and their desire to transform America into a pure socialist state.

“Until recently, those attacking the capitalist system as the cause of global warming were intentionally a little vague as to what will replace it if we are to solve the problem. But on Sunday in Oakland, that curtain was drawn back and the new system was finally revealed: Communism. Or at least hardcore socialism as Marx defined it — the necessary transitional phase before true complete communism (i.e. no private property, no families, no individualism). Most countries we tend to think of as “communist” actually self-defined as “socialist”: The USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for example, was (as its name reveals) socialist. I point out this detail in case anybody reading this article thinks that the “socialism” advocated at the rally was merely some kind of squishy soft-hearted semi-capitalism; no, it is the same type of socialism one finds in places generally thought of as communist.”

Wait a second; didn’t the chart show that Communist China was almost 10 times worse at polluting the planet than our capitalistic nation?

Never let facts interfere with a perfectly good lie; that’s how the left gets away with their tall stories, their yarns and the evening news.

02/8/15

Climate Change, the Pope, and World Government

America’s Survival

Propaganda over “climate change” is designed to usher in more socialism and an anti-human agenda. So what can we do about it? That’s the topic as Dr. Timothy Ball discusses his new book, “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.” This is critical because the Pope has joined Obama on the climate change bandwagon. Dr. Ball has written: “The Pope apparently did not think through his commitment to the IPCC [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] claims as expounded by the Obama White House. Likely, he was easily persuaded, because so much of the false claims fit his socialist ideology.”

02/7/15

The Great 2016 Tea Party Dilemma

By: Lloyd Marcus

I had the honor of hanging out with a great group of patriots, the Ft Lauderdale Tea Party. I was the keynote speaker at their 309th consecutive meeting. My message articulates why Conservatism is best for all Americans and why Liberalism is destructive. My presentation also includes me singing which enhances my message because music strikes a universal emotional chord.

The audience at the meeting included the president of a high school Republican club. I asked why he chose Conservatism. He chucked and attributed it to his high IQ. There is hope for the future folks.

The extremely faithful and fired-up patriot leaders of the group are Danita and Jack; new friends of my wife Mary and me.

Jack informed me that a poll revealed that Jeb Bush topped his group’s list of least favored presidential candidates for 2016. A gentleman bent my ear for quite a while, ranting about how he will stay home on election day if Jeb Bush is our candidate. He vowed never again to hold his nose and vote for a RINO, citing having voted for McCain and Romney.

Remember, Obama was reelected in 2012 because four million Republicans chose not to vote. Some thought what’s the point – Romney vs Obama, six of one, half a dozen of the other. Some Christians said they could not vote for a Mormon. I thought, “Great, so you sat at home and allowed a true devil to win!” Having said that, I do respect and appreciate that Conservatives are thinkers and are driven by character and principles.

I held my nose and voted for Romney because I knew the alternative was much, much worse; giving the most America hating arrogant out-of-control president in U.S. History four more years to urinate on our Constitution; purposely lower our status on the world stage and correct what he erroneously perceives as America’s injustices.

Our president is obviously an anti-America-as-founded far left radical operative; an enemy from within. During the Cold War some feared the Communists would overtake us without firing a shot. http://bit.ly/1D5VC6Q Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Barack Hussein Obama.

My faith in God keeps me upbeat and confident that we will overcome the evil seeking to destroy our great nation. God’s Word instructs us not to grow weary in well-doing.

As for Jeb Bush becoming our nominee, I am thumbs down on him because of his support for Common Core (big government overreaching control of education) http://bit.ly/1uyWoC8 and amnesty for illegals. http://bit.ly/1tWf57U

However, if it comes down to Jeb Bush or another flaming RINO as our candidate, the Tea Party will be faced with a difficult dilemma.

Think of the consequences of Hillary becoming the first woman to sit in the big chair in the Oval Office. The Dems and MSM will make every issue about her gender. To silence all opposition to President Clinton continuing Obama’s fundamental transformation of America (socialist/progressive agenda), the Democrats and MSM will update their propaganda, branding all opposition “sexist” rather than “racist.”

We’ve seen this movie before. The MSM will beat the public over the head 24/7 with their lie until the public is repeating it; opposing Hillary is sexist, white cops murder blacks, white privilege is a problem, Republicans are at war with women and so on.

Hillary Clinton occupying the White House will in essence mean at least four more years of a Democrat regime believing themselves invincible, free to continue using the Constitution as toilet paper.

We can not allow the deep-pocketed GOP establishment or mainstream media to select our presidential candidate.

So, how do we avoid the great 2016 Tea Party dilemma, having to vote for a RINO? We must rally around a conservative candidate who probably will not walk on water (be perfect on every issue). I can support a non perfect conservative candidate as long as they are fearless and laser focused on stopping Obama’s insane evil agenda.

I am starting to hear patriots say they are “all in” for their favorite 2016 presidential candidate; Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Dr Ben Carson and so on. Fine, I am cool with that. I am not ready to go “all in” for anyone at this stage.

All I ask is that we unite and rally around the last conservative standing. Folks, I pray that our nation can recover and turn back the mess of 8 years under Obama, America’s first king. The last thing America needs is Hillary, America’s first queen.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee

01/30/15

Sarah Palin Is Right: Go on Offense, Tout Conservatism

By: Lloyd Marcus

Sarah PalinForty years ago when my Aunt Nee was the pastor of the Holy Temple Church of Truth, an east Baltimore storefront, during testimony service Sister Davis or Sister Cleary would spontaneously lead the tiny congregation in singing, “We’re Livin’ In the Last Days.” “They’re calling wrong right. They’re calling right wrong. Surely, we’re livin’ in the last days!”

As I listened to Sarah Palin’s speech at the Iowa Freedom Summit, I was elated that she once again displayed her exemplary leadership by not joining the chorus of those on our side who believe touting true Conservatism is a loser. Palin said we should expose the Left’s false premises and educate the public to the benefits and virtues of Conservatism. http://bit.ly/1z1jW8y Wow! How simple and right on target is that?

Many Republicans believe we have lost the argument and the only way to win votes is to abandon core principles, surrender and campaign according to the Left’s/Democrats’ false premises. In essence, they want the GOP to call wrong right and right wrong.

For example: Dems argue that requiring a photo ID to vote disenfranchises blacks. A GOP presidential contender suggested that the GOP drop the requirement to show a photo ID to vote, citing that it offends African Americans. http://bit.ly/1K1KpEp Well, as an American who happens to be black, I find the absurd assumption that it is too challenging to ask blacks to find their way to the DMV to acquire a photo ID extremely insulting and offensive. Showing a photo ID is a reasonable common sense solution to combating rampant Democrat voter fraud. The GOP line should be the same for all Americans. If you want to vote, show a photo ID. Period.

Some on our side are pandering to Obama’s lie that raising the minimum wage will help fix income inequality; once again calling wrong right and right wrong. http://1.usa.gov/15N4Tmy As Palin suggested in her speech, the GOP should be educating voters to the truth; explain why free market solutions are most beneficial to all Americans and the right thing to do.

Some GOP presidential contenders have embraced Common Core, big government overreaching control of the education of our kids. http://bit.ly/1uyWoC8

I get a bit queasy when members of the GOP start using liberal lingo and embracing premises such as man-made climate change, income inequality and white privilege. My “danger Will Robinson” alert goes off when GOP members start talking about fixing Obamacare, despite winning the election on their vow to repeal it. Shockingly, many in the GOP secretly want to allow Obama’s outrageous executive amnesty to stand. http://bit.ly/1Df0GDO

Man-made climate change is a hoax. Period. http://bit.ly/1EpwKsd

Allowing absurd evil liberal Democrat premises to gain momentum have dire consequences. Their lie that white cops routinely murder blacks lead to the assassination of two NYPD officers. White privilege is another Democrat made-up crisis.

Remarkably, a St. Paul, Minnesota school district spend $60k of taxpayer dollars attending “White Privilege” conferences. Talk about the bigotry of lowered expectations, the conferences suggest that black students should not be expected to be on time or work hard because neither concept are a part of their culture. Give me a break. http://bit.ly/1yMf4nb

It is vital that our 2016 presidential candidate be over the “Obama is black thing”, unafraid to deal with Obama as an arrogant lawless tyrant.

Terrified of being called racist, the GOP has allowed Obama to act like a far left radical kid in America’s candy store; insulated from criticism and rebuke by his black-skin coat of armor.

Over the past six and a half years, a socialist/progressive zealot has crept out of the Left’s handsome well-spoken black man Trojan Horse. http://bit.ly/1EqjBzd His mission is to destroy America as founded from within; the Constitution, the law, congress, the senate and the American people be damned. Obama’s strategy is to federalize as much of our land http://bit.ly/1yNGtFf, economy and lives as possible, thus repealing as many of our freedoms as possible.

From the beginning, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party tried to warn America about Obama, only to be marginalized in the minds of many by the mainstream media. They branded Palin and the Tea Party stupid, crazy and a bunch of redneck racists hating on our first black president.

The mainstream media game plan to defeat us in 2016 is quite simple. First they hammer us with the notion that any GOP candidate who defends the Constitution and advocates for limited government is extreme. Thus, to win, we must embrace liberal Democrat false premises.

The MSM then selects a “moderate” candidate which they praise to the hilt. But once we fall for their con and make the moderate RINO our official presidential nominee, they launch a vitriolic campaign portraying our candidate as the devil incarnate.

As Palin has stated, in 2016 only a presidential candidate who inspires, pleasantly educates and boldly articulates Conservatism will do.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee

12/29/14

None Dare Call It Treason 50 Years Later

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

I recently asked John A. Stormer, author of the 1964 bestseller, None Dare Call It Treason, if he thought President Barack Obama was a Marxist. “He’s two things,” Stormer told me. “Is he a Marxist or is he a Muslim? He is really involved in both of these things. He’s anti-American.”

Obama’s policies have benefited enemies of the U.S. across the spectrum, from Muslim to Marxist. All of these anti-American forces have made dramatic gains under Obama. This means that the situation is far worse for America than when Stormer wrote his seven-million-copy bestseller.

Stormer’s book was described at the time as an exposé of how the U.S. government was ostensibly “fighting” communism with its right hand, while actually aiding, supporting, and promoting communism with its left. The book was self-published at a time when the U.S. was opposing communism in Vietnam and Southeast Asia, but doing business with countries like the Soviet Union, which were supplying the enemy that was killing American soldiers on the battlefield.

The difference now, as we have seen with Obama’s recognition and bailout of the Castro regime in Cuba, is that the U.S. government doesn’t even pretend to be anti-communist anymore. Obama has made the U.S. into a facilitator of international communism.

Our troubles are compounded by the spectacle of “conservatives” who pretend not to grasp what is going on. Columnist George Will writes at National Review that Cuba is a “geopolitical irrelevancy.” He says, “Cuba’s regime, although totalitarian, no longer matters in international politics.”

Will must have missed Vladimir Putin’s visit to Cuba in July, when he had meetings with brothers Raul and Fidel Castro and participated in a ceremony at the Memorial to the Soviet Internationalist Soldier. It is a tribute to Soviet soldiers who were stationed in Cuba in the early 1960s and died there. Putin forgave most of Cuba’s debt to the former Soviet Union.

Before that, in May, investigative reporter Bill Gertz noted that Cuba and Russia “concluded a security deal” aimed at bolstering “intelligence and military ties” between the two countries.

Will must have missed that dispatch.

But Russia isn’t the only U.S adversary that considers Cuba geopolitically relevant.

Toby Westerman, editor of International News Analysis Today, wrote a 2012 column noting that Communist China regards the island of Cuba as “strategically located for the interception of U.S. military and civilian satellite communications,” and that “China’s spy service also cooperates closely with Havana’s own world-class intelligence services.”

Westerman added, “The value Beijing places upon the information acquired via Havana can be seen in the October 2011 visit to the island by General Guo Boxiong, Vice Chairman of China’s Central Military Commission. Guo’s presence in Cuba underscored that China has a special military commitment in addition to a sizable economic investment in Cuba.”

Considering the damage that is being done to the United States, and the failure of “conservative” columnists such as George Will to recognize it, we are reminded that the title of Stormer’s book came from the famous John Harington quotation: “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

But it gets worse.

Just two days after Obama announced his new Cuba policy, Raul Castro received the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, Dmitry Rogozin, during an official visit to Cuba on the occasion of the 12th Session of the Cuba-Russia Intergovernmental Commission.

Will should be advised that all of this is being covered in the English-language version of the official Cuban Communist Party paper Granma. The information is not a national security secret.

The Cuba-Russia Intergovernmental Commission on economic-trade and scientific-technical collaboration held a meeting designed to “advance tasks and objectives established during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Cuba in July…” The objective, according to Granma, is “to realize agreements in order to increase exchanges in diverse spheres” and “address key areas of interest to both countries.”

While Raul Castro’s talk of a “new economic model” in Cuba has been trumpeted far and wide by the U.S. media, his December 20 speech to the “National Assembly of People’s Power” said this does not mean that capitalism will be tolerated. He said the “guidelines” for the new economy make it clear that “The economic system which will prevail in Cuba will continue to be based on the people’s socialist ownership of the fundamental means of production, governed by the socialist principle of distribution, from each according to his/her capacity to each according to his/her contribution.”

He referred to “the irreversibility of socialism in Cuba.”

To understand the strategic significance of Obama’s change in policy toward the dictatorship in Cuba, Castro said he will be participating in the Seventh Summit of the Americas in Panama City, Panama on April 10-11, 2015. The event is managed by the Organization of American States (OAS), a group that used to be dedicated to promoting democracy in the hemisphere.

How things change.

In January 1962, the OAS was an anti-Communist organization, having established a “Special Consultative Committee on Security Against the Subversive Action of International Communism.” The group declared, “The principles of communism are incompatible with the principles of the inter-American system.”

It passed a resolution declaring, “The present Government of Cuba has identified itself with the principles of Marxist-Leninist ideology, has established a political, economic, and social system based on that doctrine, and accepts military assistance from extra-continental communist powers, including even the threat of military intervention in America on the part of the Soviet Union…”

Nothing has changed over the years, except that Russia has replaced the Soviet Union and international communism has made dramatic gains in the hemisphere.

Another big change, of course, is that the U.S. President is either a Marxist or a Muslim. Take your pick. Perhaps, as Stormer says, anti-American is the best description.

Referring to Republican Senators Rand Paul (KY) and Marco Rubio (FL), Will writes, “As they brawl about Cuba, a geopolitical irrelevancy, neither seems presidential.” But this is the kind of debate that we desperately need to have. It will determine if the U.S. is a force for good or evil in the world. Senator Paul has sided with Obama and Castro. Senator Rubio has come down on the side of freedom.

This debate will not only determine if the Republican Party remains pro-freedom and anti-communist, but whether the United States will stay true to Ronald Reagan’s vision of a world free from communism.

It is troubling, 50 years after the publication of None Dare Call It Treason, that we have to go through this debate all over again—this time with the stakes even higher.

One thing is clear at this point: we need a new generation of conservatives in the media willing to take a stand for freedom, and to conduct a review of the “death of communism.”

12/23/14

A World Conspiracy

By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet

There probably is not a more loaded word these days than “conspiracy.” So often I hear people who may believe something nefarious might be going on anxiously qualify their position by insisting they are not a “conspiracy theorist.” And I completely understand the sentiment. Let’s face it, there are a lot of crackpot theories going around on numerous issues these days. So much so, the word conspiracy evokes an almost Pavlovian reaction in many people.

But just what is a conspiracy? It’s simply the act of two or more people agreeing to commit an illegal or immoral act. Conspiracies happen all the time—both big and small. The trick is to determine if it really is a conspiracy or not. And often times, the bigger the conspiracy, the harder it is to prove.

One of the greatest conspiracies of all time, in my opinion, is communism itself. Oh, and that’s not just my opinion. Conspiracy is one of the essential parts of communism, as I hope to point out in this article. Once again, this is not just my opinion, it comes straight from the communists themselves.

In my own experience, quite a few people I have encountered really have no idea what communism is all about. They might know the history of communism, but they often times don’t understand or grasp the ideology behind it. And let’s face it, the mere mention of the word communism is enough to make some people look at their watch and say, “Well, I better get going now.” The reaction is similar to when one uses the word “conspiracy.”

Another reason I believe a number of people glaze over when the subject of communism is brought up is due to the dangerously misguided belief communism was defeated when the Berlin Wall came down. But the fact of the matter is one out of every five people on earth still lives under an oppressive communist regime. The countries that still identify themselves as communist are:

  • China
  • Laos
  • Cuba
  • Vietnam
  • North Korea

Of course, I would still consider the regime in Russia as communist. Furthermore, the above list only includes regimes openly identifying themselves as communist. Most of South America and Africa are ruled by leftist regimes who embrace some form of socialism. (Brazil just elected a former communist terrorist for president.) And the ideological foundation of the European Union has been called Eurocommunism. Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has described the EU as a “pale version of the Soviet Union.”

Communist regimes have killed more than 100 million people worldwide in the 20th Century alone. And I would venture to say, that is a conservative estimate. So how can one think communism does not still pose a grave and ominous threat to all of humanity? It seems one must suspend all logic and reason to come to such a conclusion. This is why I feel so strongly that it is of paramount importance freedom-loving people understand the ideology and political goals behind communism and its implementation.

Naturally, it is not easy to boil a massive subject like communism down to a nutshell. But I have been studying the subject matter for several years know, and I’m going to attempt to do just that—boil some things down to a nutshell.

Most communist leaders rarely invoke the term communism. Instead, they talk of socialism. Remember, the USSR stood for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Stalin almost always referred to communism as socialism, as have many other communist leaders. The USSR’s Constitution states 57 times the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” is a socialist nation. Only twice is the word “communist” found in the Soviet Constitution. It is a political party that serves as “the vanguard of the working people in their struggle to strengthen and develop the socialist system and is the leading core of all organizations of the working people, both public and state.” (Article 6, Soviet Constitution)

Granted, there is a fair amount of debate between scholars and historians on how socialism and communism differ. But many of these perceived differences are merely academic. In practice, there is very little difference between socialism and communism. But there are some things worth mentioning concerning the differences between socialism and communism.

A more concise definition on the difference between socialism and communism: “A communist is a socialist in a hurry.” Others have stated, “A communist is someone who is not afraid to pull the trigger.” Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin) is quoted as saying, “Socialism is the road to communism.”

Of course, there would be no communism without Marxism. The economic, social and cultural theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels form the ideological foundation of communism, i.e. socialism. But Marx was a theoretician, not a practitioner of socialism, per se. It was Vladimir Ilyich Lenin who first put the theories of Marx & Engels into practice—referred to as Marxism-Leninism.

Interestingly, about ninety-percent of what Karl Marx wrote solely concerned economics, as evidenced by his seminal work Das Kapital—which coined the term “capitalism.” (From the best I can gather, the term capitalism was not used in the United States until the latter part of the 19th Century.) But it was Marx’s call for “revolutionary struggle,” as outlined in the Communist Manifesto (published in 1848), that so captured the imaginations of many radicals at the time—and to the present day.

The entire premise of the Communist Manifesto rests upon the notion of “class struggle.” This is immediately evident when one reads the introductory lines of the Manifesto:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another…

The concept of oppressor-oppressed lies at the heart of Marxian socialism—us versus them. The oppressor-oppressed model is prevalent in today’s political landscape, as is the notion of “class struggle”—rich vs. poor (see 1% vs. 99%), the haves vs. the have nots, the capitalist vs. the worker, the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat, and so on. Most Americans have been subjected to class rhetoric all of their lives—lower-class, middle-class, upper-classblue collar vs. white collar, etc.

Some modern-day Marxists and their fellow travelers (sympathizers) have expanded upon the oppressor-oppressed dynamic. A good example would be the godfather of “community organizing,” Saul Alinsky. Alinsky added yet another division to the mix: “the have some, want mores.” So now we have the haves (rich) vs. the have some, want mores (middle-class) vs. the have nots (poor), according to Alinsky.

It is important to note, that in the eyes of a Marxian socialist, the middle-class and upper-class represent the “petty bourgeoisie,” as Dr. Carroll Quigley disparagingly refers to the them in his mammoth work Tragedy and Hope.

The middle and upper classes are the economic engine of the United States. But socialism-communism wishes to control the means of production and distribution. In order to control production, one must control the producer—meaning, the individual. Individualism must be wiped out in order to create a true socialistic system, whereby the state will provide the individual with all of their emotional, spiritual and physical needs.

If I were to boil the Communist Manifesto down to its essence, it would be the abolition of private property. And if I were to reduce Marxism down to just one word, it would be sameness. We all will think alike, earn alike, live alike, work alike, dress alike … there will be no flavor for our fare, only sameness … a gray, dreary sameness. And all of this is sold to “the masses“ with lovable slogans like “unity in diversity” and “equality and fairness” and “progress and change.” Sound familiar? Once again, the more things change, the more they stay the same.


(Screencap credit: Yuri Maltsev)

There is another important point to consider regarding Marx’s theory of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” as outlined in the Communist Manifesto. Communism is a Utopia. It does not exist. The theory is the state will eventually “wither away” to nothing. And this will bring in the long awaited “workers’ paradise.” But this is all to occur sometime in the far distant future. Soviet defector Yuri Maltsev explains these concepts in greater depth in some videos I’ve posted here at the blog (see here and here).


(Screencap credit: Yuri Maltsev)

But before the long hoped for Communist Utopia can be realized (where every whim and need will be realized for all the “workers”), nations must be wiped out. This is what is referred to as the “transitional stage.” Many scholars have commented that this part of the Manifesto is not very well thought out. It is analogous to a person who does not like their house, so they decide to burn it down with themselves still in it. It is almost a juvenile belief that from the ashes will arise some great, new Utopia that embodies perfect fairness and equality. Joseph Stalin said the Communist Party must originally be destructive.


(Screencap credit: Yuri Maltsev)

So, at this point, I would like to start breaking down how communism is organized and implemented. I am going to refer to the lessons and experiences of ex-communists. Two of the sources I will be drawing from are Dr. Bella V. Dodd (19o4 – 1969) and Mike Vanderboegh (who claims he was the one who first broke the Fast and Furious story). Both are ex-communists who turned vocal anti-communists.

Bella Dodd points out there are three terms that are important to differentiate concerning communism—meaning: the Communist Conspiracy (world conspiracy), the Communist Party and the Communist Movement. These are three different concepts, and each one must be dealt with differently.

The Communist Conspiracy

The communist conspiracy should really not have the word communist before it, for it is a conspiracy for world control, according to Dr. Bella Dodd.

What is it that the world conspiracy hopes to accomplish?

The world conspiracy compromises a small group of elites located in New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Paris, London, Moscow, Hong Kong, etc. Dodd points out that they are a determined group who wish to control the resources of the world. They wish to control all of the world’s natural resources—oil, iron, steel, tin, uranium, timber, and the land itself. (Dodd mentions the late Freddie Fields of Vanderbilt Steel, a card-carrying communist.) In order to control all the natural resources of the world, one must control all the people of the world—all seven billion of them.

Dodd points out that this leads to a rather strange phenomenon—one that confuses many Americans, since they believe that those who would be interested in business and industry would stand staunchly against communism. But the world conspiracy is compromised of many different and disparate groups and individuals.

The world conspiracy operates under different labels at different times: communism, socialism, humanism, goodwill, global governance, internationalism, globalism, economic democracy, industrial democracy, social democracy, and so on—whatever it takes to move people to mass action.

Mike Vanderboegh, a former card-carrying communist, explains it is all just collectivism at the end of the day. Whether one wishes to call it nazism, communism, socialism, fascism, progressivism, liberalism, nativism, tribalism, racism—ism, ism, ism—everything is in service to the collective.

One of the main goals of communism is to divide the people. When people are busy fighting amongst themselves, they are unable to organize and form an effective opposition. The goal is to so thoroughly divide that the “target” is unable to resist. This is where all the class struggle and oppressed-oppressor rhetoric comes into play. And, unfortunately, the tactic has proved wildly successful. So much so, that even communists themselves have been astonished at how effective the tactic of pitting one group against the other has proven to be.

The communist conspiracy has a secret and a public face. Communists are taught to lie; they are masters of the “language of the lie.” Shrouding their true intentions in lovable labels and slogans (semantic manipulation, as the KGB/FSB calls it) is what communists do best. Examples include phrases like “sustainability,” “economic justice,” “environmental justice,” “global citizenship,” “assault weapons,” “gun control,” “white privilege,” “diversity,” “climate change,” “agents of change,” “progress,” “progressive,” etc.

“If you’ve got the language up front, you’ve already won the debate … They suck you into their worldview,” says Mike Vanderboegh.

The party teaches to never use an outright lie. Instead, communists employ disinformation (Soviet term) to agitate honest grievances. In a similar vein, Saul Alinsky taught, “Rub raw the resentments of the people.”

Mike Vanderboegh explains, “They [the party] take a kernel of truth and wrap it in a lie … packaged so credulous people will pass it on to other credulous people to influence their behavior to go in a certain way.”

There were less than 20,000 Bolsheviks in Russia during the 1917 October revolution who managed to wrest hegemony and control over 200 million Russian citizens, adding credence to the adage that “the organized minority will beat out the unorganized mob every time.”

The communist conspiracy has many different channels of offerings, but it all works toward the same goal: world control.

The Communist Party

The original Communist Party was founded in 1912 by the Bolsheviks, the majority faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party—a group of revolutionaries led by Vladimir I. Lenin. (Bolshevik means “majority” in Russian.)

In 1919, the Communist International (Comintern for short), also known as the Third International, was initiated in Moscow. In the same year, the Communist Party USA was founded in the United States. The Comintern was an international communist organization whose goal was to fight “by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State.”

The Communist Party was established as a blueprint and framework for a future world government. Communist parties (sometimes referred to as the Labor Party or Socialist Labor Party) were established in every nation of the world. Communist parties established internationally were, in effect, skeletons for a future government, not a political party.

The party focuses on politics, economics, social issues—and is particularly interested in the educational systems, and in the cultural life of the people. The party concerns itself with the “morality of the people,” but only for the sake of expediency. The party makes it a point to be out front on any social ill or injustice. But strictly for the purpose of gaining control, and for gaining the ear of the people.

Within the party, members are judged on their “ideological purity.” Mike Vanderboegh describes the levels of “purity” as follows:

“There are radishes, tomatoes and killer tomatoes. A radish (negative term) is a party member who is red on the outside but white on the inside. A tomato is a party member who is red through and through. But a killer tomato is a communist who is willing to pull the trigger.”

There really isn’t a lot of difference between a radical revolutionary and a religious zealot. (Note: I’m not disparaging religion, per se, but rather fanaticism.) A true revolutionary devotes themselves to the struggle much like a religious zealot devotes themselves to their religion. Marxian socialism is a religion in its own right—a faith, albeit one marked by fanatical, atheistic fervor. Nothing comes before the cause, i.e. “the struggle.” Nothing. The precepts of the Marxian faith are well spelled out in Cleon Skousen’s book The Naked Communist.

The Communist Movement

The purpose of the Communist Movement is to establish a social and ideological attitude that is pro-left. It comes to the people through very pleasing devices.

Communism in the U.S dates back to before and after the Civil War when Karl Marx visited the States. Marx lectured in New York City, Philadelphia and Boston. He even corresponded with the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. The First International (First Comintern) was disbanded at the Philadelphia Conference in July 1876.

The Communist Movement on a worldwide basis does different things at different times. Communists will do everything they can to unleash confusion, chaos, depravity, perversion, conflict—parent vs. child, black vs. white, gay vs. straight, one religion vs. the other, man vs. woman, etc., etc.

Promising members within the Communist Party were often sent to Lenin’s Institute for Higher Learning, where they were taught such things as racial agitation, trade union building, every facet of Russian history (apparently the Russian communists are rather “patriotic,” cf. irony), small arms training and guerrilla tactics.

Inflaming minds on a racial and ethnic basis has proven to be one of the most effective tactics for the communists to divide people and create conflict. (Sound familiar?)

Gaining complete dominance over media, entertainment and educational systems (see Common Core) is of intense importance to the communists, for these institutions and power centers have proven to be the most powerful and influential way to divide the people and forward the party agenda.

Dr. Bella Dodd believed there weren’t but a dozen universities that deserved the name “university.” All the others were simply institutions of indoctrination, moving people in a direction the elites wanted them to go. The purpose of these indoctrination centers is to demoralize students, creating within them a feeling of alienation with everything and everyone around them, particularly with their biological families.

Communists strive to make people ashamed, dissatisfied and unhappy with their country, for they eschew the very notion of national sovereignty and patriotism, since communism employs “radical social change” to move the world toward a “classless, borderless” society. This is why communists often refer to themselves as “citizens of the world,” and not proud citizens of their respective countries. (By the way, Barack Obama considers himself a “citizen of the world.”)

While the press is willing to expose the horrific crimes of Adolf Hitler (and rightly so), they have steadfastly refused to report on the monstrous crimes committed by communist regimes, such as the former Soviet Union and Red China, where mass killings occurred on an industrial scale. The astonishing brutality and barbarism employed by communist regimes is unlike anything that has ever been seen in the history of humanity.

For example, according to Bella Dodd, in North Korea, a million men were transported to Inner Mongolia because the “Korean type” was not a “type” the communists wanted to procreate. The communists decided they were the ones who will decide which nation shall exist, and which “racial stock” should be promoted.

Dodd claims the same forces that moved Communist development also moved fascist development. Communism enthrones the proletariat, the common man. Fascism enthroned the state.

The communist movement is not one monolithic block, but operates under many labels, i.e. organizations. The communist theory of change revolves around creating conflict. This is born out of the theory of dialectical materialism that states all progress is brought about by conflict. They will often create an organization for the sole purpose of creating conflict. If there is no conflict, they engender conflict in order to move public opinion to the left, in the direction of communism. They will create a right in order have people oppose it so they will be pulled toward the left. This is the notion of “controlled opposition.” Vladimir Lenin once said, “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”

From my own research into the origins of communist ideology, I have run up against some rather astonishing and incredibly disturbing claims and allegations. There is a real “heart of darkness” that lies at the center of all this. I can’t fully explain it at this point. I just don’t have enough verifiable and concrete information. But I have been coming to the rather startling conclusion that is something quite sinister that seems to be above communism itself.

In Cleon Skousen’s book The Naked Capitalist (1970), which is a critique of Dr. Carroll Quigley’s book Tragedy and Hope, Chapter One includes a rather sobering quote from Dr. Bella Dodd. When I first read the quote, I about fell out of my chair, because it corroborates a lot of related research I have done over the years. But I just didn’t want to believe it was true. It just seemed too incredible … like a bunch of crackpot nonsense. But I’m not so sure now. So, I’ll leave the reader with this excerpt from Chapter One of Skousen’s book, and the reader can make up their own mind.

“I think the Communist conspiracy is merely a branch of a much bigger conspiracy!”

The above statement was made to this reviewer [Cleon Skousen] several years ago by Dr. Bella Dodd, a former member of the National Committee of the U.S. Communist Party.

Perhaps this is an appropriate introduction to a review of Dr. Carroll Quigley’s book,
Tragedy And Hope.

Dr. Dodd said she first became aware of some mysterious super-leadership right after World War II when the U.S. Communist Party had difficulty getting instructions from Moscow on several vital matters requiring immediate attention. The American Communist hierarchy was told that any time they had an emergency of this kind they should contact any one of three designated persons at the Waldorf Towers. Dr. Dodd noted that whenever the Party obtained instructions from any of these three men, Moscow always ratified them.

What puzzled Dr. Dodd was the fact that not one of these three contacts was a Russian. Nor were any of them Communists. In fact, all three were extremely wealthy American capitalists!

Dr. Dodd said, “I would certainly like to find out who is really running things.”

12/20/14

Journalism Educator “Hates” Republicans and Loves Marxism

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

A feminist professor of communications at the University of Michigan has become a laughingstock for a poorly-sourced column in a socialist newspaper about the academic basis for hating Republicans. In the article, Susan J. Douglas began with the statement, “I hate Republicans” and declares that “marrying a Republican is unimaginable to me…”

A specialist on “Gender and the Media,” she is reportedly married with a daughter.

I’ve got something that beats that. Curtis J. MacDougall, the author of a journalism textbook that I used in college, was a Marxist with a 319-page FBI file, who wrote favorably about Fidel Castro and feared Joe McCarthy. MacDougall was an activist in the communist-dominated Progressive Party.

As a young journalism student, I studied from MacDougall’s textbook, Interpretative Reporting, which encouraged a form of advocacy journalism, and “learned” that Walter Duranty of The New York Times was one of the great figures in the media. I later discovered that Duranty was a stooge of Stalin and one of the greatest liars in the history of journalism. In fact, he helped Stalin cover up the deaths of 7- to 10-million Ukrainians in a forced famine.

A modern-day MacDougall, Professor Douglas tries to sound like an intellectual and apparently wants to be taken seriously. She insists in the article that a “series of studies has found that political conservatives tend toward certain psychological characteristics,” such as “Dogmatism, rigidity and intolerance of ambiguity; a need to avoid uncertainty; support for authoritarianism; a heightened sense of threat from others; and a personal need for structure.”

She cites unnamed “researchers” as proving that “the two core dimensions of conservative thought are resistance to change and support for inequality.”

Douglas, who graduated from Elmira College in New York and received a master’s degree and a doctorate from Brown University, is not only a professor but the head of the University of Michigan communications studies department.

Since MacDougall’s textbook, Interpretative Reporting, was instrumental in training a generation of journalists, perhaps he influenced Douglas.

Now, she is trying to influence her students. But her self-declared “hate” for Republicans has backfired. She has exposed the real purpose of her “educational” pursuits.

The Detroit News reports that Andrea Fischer Newman, a member of the UM Board of Regents, said she found Douglas’s column “extremely troubling and offensive,” and that it condoned “hatred toward an entire segment of individuals in our society based solely on their political views…”

Grant Strobl, head of Young Americans for Freedom at the school, called the Douglas piece “ugly and full of hatred.”

While the article has to be taken seriously, its dependence on clearly dubious “studies” and “research” make it practically ridiculous.

Douglas ought to be laughed out of academia.

In an earlier piece for In These Times, she also gave us a precious insight into her own ideology. She hailed Stuart Hall, the founding editor of New Left Review, as a “towering Marxist public intellectual” who had “influenced multiple generations of professors and their students…” It’s apparent she is one of them.

Indeed, she appears to thank Hall for helping establish “communication studies” as “one of the most popular majors in the United States…” She wrote, “We owe him a monumental debt.”

She notes that Hall was a follower of Antonio Gramsci, but doesn’t point out that Gramsci was an Italian communist whose writings were introduced to the United States in the mid-1950s by Carl Marzani, a publisher and Soviet KGB agent whose publishing house was subsidized by the KGB. (Interestingly, Curtis A. MacDougall’s history of the Progressive Party, Gideon’s Army, was published by Marzani as well.)

Gramsci popularized the idea of destroying Western society through infiltration rather than armed revolution. It helps explain why Weather Underground terrorists such as Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn became college professors after giving up on a communist armed revolution inside the United States.

Robert Chandler, in his book Shadow World, noted that Gramsci’s Marxist theory of cultural revolution “stressed that dominance over the existing order in the West, including religion, was rooted in education, the media, law, and a mass culture of beliefs, values, and traditions.” In order to overturn the existing order and “Marxize the inner man,” Gramsci taught that “one must create a subversive program of ‘counter-hegemony’ against its supporting culture,” in order to “negate the established modes of thought and ways of doing things.”

That appears to be Susan Douglas’s mission in academia and journalism.

Douglas’ Curriculum Vitae identifies her participation in a “Rethinking Marxism” conference in 1992, delivering a talk on “Pop Culture, Kitsch and Social Change in the 1960s: Hegemony, Subjectivity and the Rise of Feminism.”

The editors of the journal, Rethinking Marxism, also sponsor “Marxism and the World Stage” conferences, described as “celebrations of the Marxian tradition.”

Douglas’s “academic credentials” include numerous articles for such publications as The Nation, The Progressive, and In These Times.

Her hate for Republicans is making news, but don’t think students in her classes haven’t been aware of the agenda she’s been pushing. Some of the comments from students who have taken her classes include:

  • She openly states that she hates certain members of the student body based on their political opinions. Avoid this closed minded intolerant person….
  • Boring and disorganized. Talks to students like they are children. I think she rates herself to get good scores.
  • Condones hatred and intolerance towards differing viewpoints.
  • Socialist feminist nut.

This controversy will serve a purpose if it renews a focus on the corruption in journalism education and why left-wing and even pro-Marxist bias in the media is getting worse.

Her book on decoding “enlightened sexism” was the subject of a talk she gave that was video recorded. An elitist who knows better than everyone else, she claims to be an expert on uncovering “subtle” forms of sexism in the media.

Her courses include:

  • Media, Culture, and Society
  • Media Theory and Criticism—introductory and advanced levels
  • Qualitative Methods in Media Studies
  • Gender and the Media
  • History of Broadcasting
  • Origins of Mass Culture: 1870-1930
  • Images of Women in Popular Culture: 1945-present
  • Analysis of Television News
  • Motherhood and the Mass Media
  • The Social History of Radio in America
  • History of Communications Technologies
  • Introduction to Mass Communications

In a University of Michigan profile of Douglas, she was asked, “What inspires you?,” and she replied, “My students inspire me. I love teaching undergraduates: their energy, their optimism, their openness to new ideas.”

But this “love” seems to have undergone a transformation into a closed mind of hate toward opposing views. She has made explicit what we know and understand to be their usually hidden biases.

Thank you Ms. Douglas for telling us openly what we always suspected to be the case. Thank you for alerting us to the Marxist revolutionaries in positions of power in journalism and academia.

Now, please tell us why you deserve to be in a position of trust and authority over students who desire a good education and want to make something of their lives.