Hate crime at Rutgers University

Former Rutgers University student Dharun Ravi was convicted on Friday, March 15, of a political crime, a so-called “hate crime”. Ravi, the defendant, had invaded the privacy of his Rutgers roommate, Tyler Clementi, when he secretly filmed Clementi kissing a man and then placing the film on his Twitter account. Tragically, Tyler Clementi committed suicide three days later. Ravi’s conviction for his actions in this case was proper and was in the tradition of our system of jurisprudence. His additional conviction for his motives however, his so-called hate crime conviction, whether valid or not, smacks of totalitarianism.

The foundation of our American system of justice is based upon the principle that a person is to be judged not according to his motives but according his actions. In cases of trials for crimes, and in the context of due process, such factors as intent and motive are key elements of proof and, as such, these factors should be presented as evidence. In fact, if a prosecutor fails to present such evidence this could lead to a mistrial. Evidence pertaining to motive has always been, and rightfully, included in a criminal trial and this evidence includes the prejudice or bigotry of the defendant. This goes to motive and intent to commit the crime. Thus, in a trial setting, if the prosecutor presents evidence to indicate that the defendant had something against the victim because of the person’s race, religion, or sexual orientation, this evidence justly serves as a legitimate factor toward conviction.

But when a law places such evidence as hate and prejudice, evidence that has traditionally been applied to motive, as a separate and as an additional crime in and of itself, one that would possibly require a separate ruling, a separate conviction, and a separate punishment, such a law establishes a political crime. Political crimes have been typical of totalitarian regimes such as Communist China which executes an average of 50 thousand political prisoners per year. In China, political crimes are arbitrary and range across the board. In essence, the Chinese government makes up the crime and applies it against its opposition. The German Nazis were also known for this interpretation of jurisprudence as well. Nazi Germany established a separate court system, a “people’s court” as a means of trying and convicting those accused of “crimes against the state” and these crimes included so-called genetic crimes.

Local and state governments are absolutely operating within the American tradition when they establish laws against bullying as was rightfully argued in this case. Bullying is an action that is provable by evidence. Having said this, the legal system should be an institution of last resort, particularly in these cases, as the institution, in this case a College, should act en loco parentis and engage in the best good faith effort to establish policies and standards of behavior and to punish violators internally. Only in extreme situations should the government be brought in to adjudicate.

The Rutgers University case was such an extreme situation. No private citizen should ever be subject to the humiliation of having what he does in the bedroom secretly taped and flashed on a screen for public viewing. This egregious crime, and the horrifying magnification of the crime by the tragic consequence of the poor victim traumatized to the point of taking his own life, should not blind us, however, to the principle that political crimes, crimes against motive as opposed to crimes against actions, have no place in a free society.

Are the top 1% richest Americans liberal?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Of course they’re liberal, overwhelmingly liberal, progressive, left-wing, or however they might be labeled these days. The Top 1%, those who were aptly identified by Occupy Wall Street, used to be called the “Eastern Seaboard Liberal Establishment.” President Dwight D. Eisenhower lifted the curtain slightly in his farewell address to the nation when he referred to the liberal establishment as the “military-industrial complex.”

Who are the top 1% richest individuals and corporations in America? A glimpse at the biggest, the richest, and the most powerful actors in a number of areas reveals the wealth and power of the liberal/left establishment and they’re getting richer and more powerful as they concentrate more wealth and power into their own hands. The top multi-national corporations are run by and are largely owned by liberals while the mid-sized and smaller corporations have an increasing representation of conservatives as the scale goes smaller. 

This is also the pattern when it comes to American foundations, academia, the media, cultural institutions, insurance, real-estate, inherited wealth, and certainly non-profits.

The biggest banks and investment firms are liberal and so are big oil, big pharma, and the medical establishment. The biggest player in the American oil business has always been the Rockefeller family going back to John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil. The Rockefellers are the quintessence of American liberalism as they have spearheaded such liberal causes as “progressive” education, eugenics, and internationalism. The Rockefeller institute founded Planned Parenthood which more openly focused on eugenics and population control before World War II and also the research of Alfred Kinsey. The Rockefellers have long sought to take over the Republican Party by driving out the conservatives. Other liberal families with oil interests include Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum and the Gore and Kennedy families.

Even a cursory examination of the boards of directors, the top employees, and the largest share-holders of the biggest American corporations reads like a Who’s Who of the Liberal establishment. The 3 biggest foundations, Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie, are liberal as is the Tides Foundation and most of the other big players. The top academic institutions in America are unquestionably dominated by liberals. The biggest TV and print media outlets are liberal as is the booming internet industry. The Forbes Magazine list of the 100 richest Americans is made up of about 75% liberals.

What are some of the tell-tale signs that the top 1% is left-liberal? The orientation of the biggest corporations is a free trade agenda that allows them to operate in a world without borders and without national loyalty, ideas that they view as outdated. The biggest corporations overwhelmingly support liberal causes, big government regulation and laws to cut out competition, and high taxes that they don’t pay, due to their international position, but serve to cull the investment capital of potential competitors. Franklin D. Roosevelt protected the interests of the biggest American corporations, referred to by the short-hand term “Wall Street” when he included in the establishment of the Federal Trade Commission laws that would prevent the formation of local and regional stock exchanges. This created a virtual investment monopoly for the liberal biggest corporations trading on Wall Street. A more recent example of liberal legislation is the Dodd-Frank reforms which enshrine bailouts for the liberal banks that are “too big to fail” while regulating the smaller and generally more conservative banks.

There certainly are a few members of the top 1% that are conservative and we all know their names since they stand out like a sore thumb. The most famous example is the Koch Brothers who have financed libertarian initiatives that would limit the size of government and allow for more capital formation in the hands of the smaller players where conservatives can be found. Koch industries employs tens of thousands of Americans and David Koch has donated almost a billion dollars of his own money to charities. Because they are the exception to the rule, the Koch’s have been called out by the perhaps well-meaning but utterly clueless Occupy Wall Streeters.

The Communist Public Education System

During the Elian Gonzeles affair, the Washington Times interviewed Luis Fernandez, the spokesmen for the unofficial Cuban consulate in the Washington D.C area. In one of those rare instances of candor that provide us with insight into the totalitarian mind, Fernandez, while referring to little Elian as "a possession of the Cuban government", discussed the fact that the Cuban constitution grants to the State the responsibility of raising children. He pointed out that Cuban law requires parents to insure that their children obtain a "communist personality" and "influences contrary to communist development" are outlawed. When I read this, I was amazed by how much our own system of public education mirrors that of the enslaved island across the Florida Strait.

William Z. Foster, Chairman of the American Communist Party, in his book "Toward Soviet America", published 1932, describes the Communist agenda for American education:
"Among the elementary measures the American Soviet government will adopt to further the cultural revolution are...(a) National Department of Education...the studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism, and the general ethics of the new Socialist society".
John Dewey, revered by our education establishment as the father of "progressive" education, stated in 1899, "Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent".

The goal of Dewey, Foster, and their followers, known as the "frontier thinkers", or "change agents", was to teach young people not to think for themselves. They sought to accomplish this evil agenda by replacing such "bourgeois affectations" as literacy, science, math, American history, language, and other disciplines, with content vacant and mentally dissonant whole language, social studies, sex education, values clarification and guessing. They replaced character development and conceptions of morality with moral relativism. They "molded" our young people into semi-lobotomized cogs of the corporate State. We taxpayers are paying for the enthronement of their goal with the resulting mental, moral, and, increasingly, physical destruction of our children.

In the period leading up to World War II, there emerged amongst our education elite a strange and toxic amalgam of right wing eugenic ideas, exemplified by the Hitlerism of Nazi Socialism, and the authoritarian Marxist concepts that enthralled change agents like Dewey. Max Mason, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, which was heavily invested in education, in 1933, was inspired by "The Geneticist's Manifesto" which was written by Nobel Prize winning eastern European scientist Hermann Muller. The theme of this treatise was planned breeding. Mason felt that the concepts described in this Manifesto could be adopted toward "the control of human behavior". Around the same time, the director of the National Education Association announced that his organization expected "to accomplish by education what dictators in Europe are seeking to do by compulsion and force". Compulsion, through political power rather than through the direct force of arms, became the underpinning of our education system.
New York City Teacher of the Year John Taylor Gatto, in his excellent new book "The Underground History of American Education", identifies three documents, introduced between 1967 and 1974, which had a pivotal impact on teacher training. The first one, "Designing Education" published by the Education Department, re-defined the term "education" to mean "a means to achieve important economic and social goals of a national character". Gatto comments that "State education agencies would henceforth act as on-site federal enforcers, ensuring the compliance of local schools with central directives. Each state education department was assigned the task of becoming an 'agent of change' and advised to 'lose its independent identity as well as its authority' in order to 'form a partnership with the federal government"

The second document described by Gatto is the "Behavioral Science Teacher Education Project" which outlines as its goals "impersonal manipulation" through schooling, in which "few will be able to maintain control over their opinions...each individual receives at birth a multi-purpose identification number", and "chemical experimentation" on minors would be normal procedure. Needless to say, since this document was introduced in the late 1960's, young people have been used as guinea pigs by the "change agents" with Ritalin, Prozac etc. The increase in school violence has accompanied the introduction of these controlled substances.

The "Behavioral Science Teacher Education Project" advocates a future "in which a small elite" control all important matters. Children are taught, through demonstration, that their classmates are so cruel and incapable of self-discipline that they need to be controlled and regulated for the good of society. Schooling is to focus on "pleasure cultivation" and on "other attitudes and skills compatible with a non-work world." At the same time, teachers would be stripped of the means of maintaining discipline in the classroom. This would be replaced by "due process" and "children's rights". Hence, the planned breakdown of discipline.

The third document, University of Chicago Professor Benjamin Blooms classic"Taxonomy of Educational Objectives" is described as, in Blooms own words, "a tool to classify the ways individuals are to act, think, or feel as the result of some unit of instruction". Through behavioral psychology, children would learn proper thoughts, feelings, and actions and have their "improper" attitudes brought from home "remediated". Testing would be implemented at all levels to determine progress. The change agents are treating our children like Pavlov's dog. These documents laid the foundation for our modern education with Mastery Learning, Outcome Based Education, School to Work, and whatever else they're marketing.

Our Republic is predicated on democratic principles such as self rule, self interest, and informed choice. The change agents are, theoretically, free to offer their educational wares to the public on the free market. Let the consumer decide which type of education is most suited to his needs and in the best interests of his precious sons and daughters. Let parents decide whether or not they want their children to learn to think for themselves, or what type of moral standards they want their children exposed to. Let the taxpayer receive a full and honest accounting with regard to the nature of the education system existing in their community and the long term effect of that education on our society. Let the truth be told.

Of course, the change agents don't operate in the realm of free choice nor are they believers in truth or freedom. They realize that a parent would have to be certifiably insane to knowingly subject their beloved child to such rigors. They travel in the rarefied authoritarian world of the philosopher King who will "mould" our youngsters into "human resources" to serve some bizarre conception of a "greater good". Such an educational system, given that it contradicts human nature and common sense, can only be implemented at the point of a gun.
The change agents seek to eradicate the American way of life. They conspire to deprive our children of the tools needed for them to find their own individual destiny. They fool us into paying for this privilege and we've paid dearly. Our children are being used to fulfill a sick totalitarian agenda.

The Nazism of Abu Mazen

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/17/181847.shtml

The Nazism of Abu Mazen

Friday, April 18, 2003

Mahmoud Abbas, aka Abu Mazen, is now the prime minister designate of the Palestinian Authority. The so-called moderate is being touted as the future leader of a new potential Palestinian State that is scheduled to be carved out of Israel and ethnically cleansed of its Jews.

Abu Mazen was one of the primary movers behind the Oslo debacle, but now Israel, after the bloody frenzy against Israeli Jews over these last several years, is once again being brass-knuckled by the international community to try again. This time, they say, it really will work; the "tough choices" really will bring about peace.

Who is this so-called moderate, Abu Mazen? He was the author of a book, which at the present time seems to have slipped through an Orwellian memory hole, called "The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism."

In this book, as reported by Israeli editor Arie Stav in the 1995 issue of the Israeli journal Nativ, Abu Mazen refutes the Nazi Holocaust as "The Zionist fantasy, the fantastic lie that six million Jews were killed." Additionally, Abu Mazen writes that he believes that there were only about 890,000 Jewish victims in Nazi Germany and that these victims were actually the victims of a Zionist-Nazi plot.

How many Arab leaders today embrace these bizarre and sickening Nazi-type conspiracy theories? An Arabic translation of "Mein Kampf" has been widely disseminated in the Arab world since shortly after World War II, and Adolf Hitler’s definition of Zionism is well known and often quoted.

In "Mein Kampf," Hitler said of Zionism: "They [Zionists] do not have any intention to establish a Jewish state in Palestine in order to settle there. They only fight for one place in which they [can base] a central organization for carrying out their global plot, a city of refuge for criminals and a training center for the scoundrels of the future."

Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, is often referred to as the founder of the so-called Palestinian national movement. The Mufti spent World War II in Berlin, where he was the prime minister of a Nazi-Muslim government in exile. Hitler greeted the Mufti as a head of state and promised him that after he won the war in Europe he would conquer the Arab world and solve the Jewish problem in Palestine.

Photos and testimony have the Mufti touring the death camps, and letters exist of the Mufti imploring Nazis and pro-Nazi heads of state to exterminate their Jews.

The PLO maintained long and well-documented ties with Nazi and neo-Nazi organizations. Since the advent of Oslo, the PLO, now the Palestinian Authority, has downplayed its Nazi orientation so as to fool the useful idiots on the American and Israeli Jewish left.

Nevertheless, in August of 1995, when the Israeli and Western-financed and -armed Palestinian Authority police force finished its training, the graduates were sworn in with the Nazi salute.

The commander of Force 17, which serves as Yasir Arafat’s personal praetorian guard and which has been linked to some of the worst atrocities against Israeli Jews in the present Intifada, is Fawsi Salim el Mahdi, better known by his nome de guerre “Abu Hitler.” El Mahdi acquired the nickname after naming his two sons Eichmann and Hitler.

Europe underwent de-Nazification after the war and perhaps the same will be done in Iraq. Nazism, however, still maintains a lethal grip on the minds and souls of many Arabs, particularly the ruling classes. As Israelis know all too well, Nazism was exported to and took root in the Arab world.

The Gramsci Factor

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/758715/posts

The Gramsci Factor 
www.chuckmorse.com ^ | September 21, 2002 | Chuck Morse 

Posted on Fri Sep 27 2002 20:07:10 GMT-0300 (Atlantic Daylight Time) by Tailgunner Joe

Tactics introduced by Italian communist Antonio Gramsci in the 1930's have contributed greatly to the decline of the west. High taxes, government regulations, the toleration of illegal aliens and possible terrorists, the erosion of national defense, gun grabbing, political correctness, the dumbing down and drugging of children and the deliberate corruption of their morals, the anti human element pervading in the environmental movement, the norming of abortion, euthanasia, divorce, homosexuality, and other issues, are manifestations of the Gramsci factor. Gramci called for a gradual transfer of legislative power from elected bodies to appointed bureaucracies where un-natural and authoritarian international socialism could be quietly implemented by force. The natural outgrowth of this has been a sense of loss of control expressed by such phenomena as voter apathy. Americans are surrendering their G-d given rights without knowing it. We are encouraged to think of ourselves as members of proscribed groups with pre-determined values rather than as individuals. America is gradually becoming a subsidiary of a one-world government, which goes by various euphemisms such as "the international community." The Gramsci factor is at play in all of this.

Antonio Gramsci, co-founder of the Italian Communist Party in 1921, after spending time in Stalinist Russia, realized that a revolutionary Marxist/Stalinist approach to world socialism would fail in western societies. He realized that the western democracies appreciated the benefits of individual rights, patriotism, and faith in the creator and that these ideas were deeply engrained and would not be easily surrendered. Instead of violent Marxist revolution, Gramsci would advocate a "long march through the institutions before socialism and relativism would be victorious." His believed that "capitalist bourgeois society" could be seduced into accepting communism through the gradual seduction of the western mind. Wildly popular amongst leftists but not widely known in the broader culture, Gramsci would author over 33 books while in an Italian prison where he died in 1937.

Gramscian ideas differ from those of a 19th century British Fabian socialism that called for a creeping conquest of the free world through the gradual changing of the letter and meaning of the law. Fabians established the devastatingly successful ACLU for that purpose. Gramsci took communism a step further by advocating a literal change of human consciousness itself. This would be accomplished through the infiltration and gradual control of dominant western cultural, educational and media institutions.

Gramscian communists, such as Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm, and later Herbert Marcuse, established the Frankfort School at Columbia University in the 1930's with the goal of producing "a new stratum of intellectuals" that would be charged with dominating western culture. The Frankfort School invented "critical theory" which is based on the premise that there is no such thing as objective reality. Everything is "perception" according to critical theory, and perception is controlled by ruling elites who decide what is real. Once the false premise is accepted that an individual's perception is formed by the environment rather than by an intrinsic ability to identify truth, the Gramcian communist, consumed by an insufferable sense of his own superiority, feels entitled to obtain and wield power over the masses for the sake of creating new and better realities and perceptions. The Granscian actually believes that he is morally obligated, based on an overarching sense of superiority, to control others and enforce change.

While Marxism, calls for the fomenting of violent conflict between classes, races etc, and Fabian Socialism seeks control over the system of justice and the literal language of the law, Gramscian communism seeks control over culture, established religion, media, education, and other areas where intellectual discourse takes place. Psychiatry, with its pretensions to knowledge of the innermost being, is a major bailiwick for Gramscian communists. It should be noted that the regressive theories of socialism, when enthroned, have already led to the liquidation of over 100 million human beings and a Holocaust against the Jews of Europe.

How can we fight this ever-encroaching behemoth as it colonizes our minds and casts dark clouds over our future? The difficulty lies in the fact that Gramscian communists are not bound to the same objective standards of truth as the rest of us. Given that communism is nothing more than a quest by power-hungry elitists toward the attainment of power for themselves, communists will do virtually anything, whether overt or covert, to achieve their goals. Perhaps the answer is that genuinely progressive lovers of freedom need to recognize that their primary weapon is their addiction to truth, or, as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated, "the laws of nature and of nature's God." Vociferously standing up for truth could go a long way toward saving this nation from a slide into totalitarianism.

We need to state that we are answerable to a creator of the universe, not to "enlightened" elites who seek to refashion reality in their own image while attempting to overthrow the Creator. Marx was not as much an atheist as he was anti-G-d. We need to state that our freedom is predicated on the recognition of individual sovereignty and that the individual, in order to enjoy the fruits of freedom, is capable of discerning objective morality and fashioning his life within the limitations of nature.

We must insist that our children be taught in such a manner that they will be able to develop the cognitive abilities that will enable them to function as sovereign individuals rather than what they get now which is political propaganda meant to create confusion, dissonance and docility. We must insist that our culture protect the innocence of our children. We must return a sense of honor and privilege in American citizenship and insist on standards of behavior for guests within our borders. We must re-assert the sovereignty of our federation of states and dis-entangle ourselves from involvements that sacrifice our freedoms and its accompanying prosperity on the alter of world socialism.

Joe McCarthy Vindicated, Again

Joe McCarthy Vindicated, Again

Wednesday, June 25, 2003

Ann Coulter is a talented writer as well as an attractive and popular woman, which is why she’s in a position to take on an issue that many have courageously championed for decades to little avail.

In her new book, “Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism,” Coulter states: "The myth of 'McCarthyism' is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. ... Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie."

The truth about Joe McCarthy and the story of his successful exposure of the communist conspiracy that infected our government during the FDR administration is once again being trumpeted, but this time by a cultural icon who has already sold millions of books and who can’t be ignored or dismissed. Hallelujah!

Regarding the ongoing and unrelenting big-lie attack on Joe McCarthy from the left, a man who was simply doing the job he was elected to do, namely to guard our Constitution and our way of life against a conspiracy to undermine it, Coulter comments:

"Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals. ... McCarthy was not tilting at windmills. Soviet spies in the government were not a figment of right-wing imaginations. He was tilting at an authentic Communist conspiracy that had been laughed off by the Democratic Party."

It should be noted that it is certainly a protected right in this country for an individual to be a Communist. It is also a right for an individual to be a Nazi, or a Klansmen. Contrary to leftist agitprop, Joe McCarthy recognized this right, he expressed that recognition on many occasions, and he was quite careful to play by the rules in his investigation of government subversion.

Joe McCarthy, contrary to leftist lies, was involved in investigating the phenomenon of secret Communists operating within the federal government, nothing more and nothing less.

During his brief tenure in the U.S.Senate, Joe McCarthy confronted and uncovered the bizarre phenomenon of certain government officials, in some cases very highly placed and highly regarded government officials, as engaging in a concealment of their Communist involvement.

An analogous situation to the one that Joe McCarthy confronted would be if an al-Qaeda operative were working in the State Department or another sensitive agency of government today and keeping his affiliation secret.

Joe McCarthy demonstrated the fact that Communists had no more of a right to work in our government than would Nazis or Klansmen. The American people, conversely, have a right to know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of the country.

The liberal response to Joe McCarthy’s revelations, then and now, was to submit him and his reputation to a public auto-da-fe, one that continues to stand as an example of what the left will do to someone who dares to defy its agenda.

Coulter states: “While consistently rooting against America, liberals have used a fictional event forged of their own hysteria – 'McCarthyism' – to prevent Americans from ever asking the simple question: Do liberals love their country?”

Congratulations to Ann –may she have much success with this endeavor for the sake of all of us.

At a frightful sacrifice, even of his own well-being and life, Joe McCarthy was nevertheless successful in fulfilling the public obligation he shouldered. His work was not in vain. In spite of a campaign of vilification, hate and lies, Joe McCarthy successfully alerted the American public at large to the danger Communism posed.

Joe McCarthy’s career parallels that of Winston Churchill in that Churchill likewise tried to warn the British people about the impending danger of Nazism in the 1930s. Churchill was vilified before World War II but, like Joe McCarthy, Churchill understood his times and the nature of evil.

Human history can often hinge on the conscience and action of a single brave individual. We should remember with gratitude that the left failed in its attempt to silence Joe McCarthy as most Americans woke up in time to the Communists' treachery.

The left-wing war against women

Before World War II and the Nazi Holocaust, Eugenics was cutting edge and fashionable with American Progressives. The Eugenics movement, opposed by conservatives, Christians, and the Catholic Church, pushed for laws, which were passed in many states, which allowed the government to forcibly sterilize women who were deemed to be unfit. These laws were upheld by the Supreme Court in Buck v Bell, a decision written by progressive icon Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Margaret Sanger, with support from the Progressive Rockefeller Foundation, founded Planned Parenthood to encourage birth control and abortion for populations that she described as “dysgenic races” and for women that she described as “useless eaters.” Pre-War support for birth control, sterilization, and abortion was openly based on the premise that certain races should be reduced. Sanger promoted the “Negro Project” in 1939, a project that located birth control clinics in African-American neighborhoods.

Sanger admired the Nazis, her progressive counterparts in Germany. She invited Dr. Ernst Rudin, the Nazi head of the German Society for Racial Hygiene, to write for her magazine. Rudin and a delegation of Nazis were prominent participants in the Third Eugenic Conference in 1932. Held at the Museum of Natural History in New York, the elite conference included a who’s who of American progressive elites.

Birth Control and Abortion received a public relations facelift after World War II. Henceforth, and running in tandem with the agenda of  Rockefeller funded sexologist Dr. Alfred Kinsey, birth control and abortion would be promoted as a women’s “right to choose.”

Yet the population control agenda, first articulated by British Professor Thomas Malthus in the early 19^th Century, continued to make inroads amongst American liberals. Hugh Moore, a wealthy philanthropist and funder of Margaret Sanger’s International Planned Parenthood Federation, published “The Population Bomb” in the 1950’s. He sought to influence the US government to promote a strong program of birth control in the third world. President Eisenhower rejected the idea as did Presidential candidate Senator John F. Kennedy who was criticized by his more liberal Democratic opponents for being influenced by his Catholic faith on the issue. Margaret Sanger vowed to leave the country if Kennedy were elected.

President Lyndon Johnson changed course and embraced the international population control agenda. Congress would henceforth allocate taxpayer funds to promote brutal programs of forced birth control, sterilization, and forced abortion in the third world. The neo-eugenic program would start with the use of Medicaid money by Johnson’s Secretary of the Interior Stuart Udall to sterilize Native American women. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare spearheaded a sterilization program in Puerto Rico.

The United States Agency for International Development, USAID, established by Kennedy to promote positive political and economic development in the third world, was used by Johnson and subsequent administrations to promote sterilization and forced abortion in the third world. Dr. Reimert Ravenholt was appointed as director of USAID’s population office with billions of taxpayer dollars earmarked to pressure third world nations to implement draconian eugenic population control programs.

According to “Population Control: Illusory Benefits” by Steven Mosher, Ravenholt “took his work of contracepting, sterilizing, and aborting the women of the world with an aggressiveness that caused his younger colleagues to shrink back in disgust. Ravenholt distributed untold millions in taxpayer funds to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the Population Council, and other private groups who implemented forced sterilization and abortion campaigns. He used taxpayer money to buy massive quantities of defective and dangerous birth control drugs and devices from drug companies, having been rejected by the FDA, to be disseminated in the third world.

The agenda continued into the Nixon Administration with the issuance of the "Kissinger Report" in 1973, a report which linked foreign aid to third world countries to their reductions of their populations. More recently, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and other population control groups have used substantial State Department grants to promote forced sterilization and abortion in Communist China. Excellent documentation on all of the above can be found in the just published book “Merchants of Despair” by Robert Zubrin.

The progressive idea today regarding women is that the ultimate virtue for women, and for men, is to be able to have sex anytime without consequences or emotional attachment. Sigmund Freud referred to this as “polymorphous perversity.” Freud held up as the ultimate virtue the right to have sex with anyone, anywhere, at any time and under any circumstances. He viewed his opponents as “repressed” and therefore as mentally ill. Certainly nothing excites the emotions of progressives more than the idea that women should have the right to abortion on demand and birth control.

To progressives, women are objects, cannon fodder, in their collectivist agenda. Ironically, conservatives view women the same way they view men. Conservatives hold as a virtue for both women and for men the right to individual rights, the right to the life sustaining values that accompany the existence of the sovereign family, limited government that promotes political and economic stability and success, and an empowering moral code that buttresses all of the above.

Can a Leopard change it's spots? - written shortly after 9/11/01

Additional Titles

CAN A LEOPARD CHANGE ITS SPOTS?

by Chuck Morse

    In the wake of the devastating military invasion of New York City and Washington D.C., virtually all voices on the left have expressed solidarity with our government and nation in this crisis. Some have even gone as far as to wrap themselves in old glory, an idea that would have filled them with hate and scorn before they heard the news. Patriotism at a time like this is appreciated from any quarter, and perhaps there have been some genuine conversions,particularly amongst the young whose leftism is almost entirely a response to social pressure and coercion, but, as George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."    We must not forget the centerpiece of the left-wing faith which is a dialectical outlook on life and politics. This means that there is no such thing, for the leftist, as objective truth or morality, only "progress" toward the goals of socialism as espoused by approved "theoreticians" at a given time. Anything goes for the left, and in fact, any action, including mass murder and total slavery can be considered virtuous if conducted in the name of leftist "progress" which is to say if conducted by themselves, the self described vanguard of history. This is why, according to the "Black Book of Communism," the communist, with the acquiescence and a large degree of support from a vast international network of fellow travelers and camp followers, were able to liquidate over 100 million people in the twentieth century.
    In June, 1941, the Communist left in this country suddenly, in fact virtually overnight, became pro American and even pro Capitalism. This was in response to Hitler's invasion of the beloved Stalinist Soviet Union an attack known as operation Barbarrosa. Previous to Hitler's double cross of the Soviets, the Communist left was anti American and pro Hitler. While Hitler and Stalin divided up Eastern Europe, the Communists, along with their extensive orbitof influence, advocated that President Franklin D. Roosevelt stay out of World War II and stop war preparations. The leftist propaganda machine, during this period, worked overtime with screeds accusing Roosevelt of being a Fascist warmonger. Communist controlled unions went on strike to slow down war preparations as they did at the Allis-Chalmers plant in Minnesota.
    Once the two socialist behemoths, National Socialist Germany and Soviet Socialist Russia, were at war, and once left-wing Russia was threatened by their former ally, the Nazi's, the international left made a 180-degree turn and became pro war and pro West as a way to help draw America in on the side of the Communists. After Hitler's defeat in 1945, and the Communists emerged victorious, the left made another 180- degree turn and resumed its anti-American policy. This was in response to the famous March 1945 "Duclos Letter," an article by French Communist official Jacques Duclos, published in the communist press and widely distributed, that signaled that the war against America and the West was to be resumed.
    While the American left is presently supporting our government in its efforts to respond to the present situation, old habits die hard. An example of left-wing thinking comes from Kevin Gray, an activist and contributing editor to Black News in Columbia, South Carolina. Grey states that "People who feel hopeless fly into buildings. And now we're going to get mad and kill them."
    I don't recall any other situation where people who felt "hopeless" responded to this feeling by flying into a building. While its impossible to fathom what the terrorists were feeling when they committed this act, their alleged hopelessness certainly couldn't have been the result of poverty, they harken from the oil rich Middle East. I can't imagine what could've created such hatred in their souls for the American people and government to precipitate this. I can't imagine why our government wouldn't "get mad" and seek to kill the people who are guilty of killing us by the thousands for evil reasons.
    Gray explains the event by informing us "U.S. policies have caused enormous levels of death and destruction around the world." He presents as his examples, "Nicaragua, Chile, Iraq, Cuba, Palestine, Timor, and Cambodia." I didn't realize that we were responsible for the "death and destruction" in theCommunist Nicaragua of Ortega, the Communist Chile of Allende, the Communist Cuba of Castro, the Bath Socialist Iraq of Saddam Hussein, one of the richest leftist leaders in power today, or the Communist Cambodia of Pol Pot, where the dictator liquidated about a third of his own population as he marched around with a copy of the Communist Manifesto in his hip pocket. Blaming the US for these communist charnel houses is a pretty bizarre conspiracy theory to swallow for most of us, but not for many on the left. If anything, we should ask G-D's forgiveness for not doing more to rescue these peoples from the brutal jackboot of left-wing terror.
    Gray fears that a declaration of war will "rather than reduce the threat of terror strengthen the existing tendency toward a racist and classist police state." The stock and trade of the left has always been to fan the flames of racism in this country as a means to further the development of the police state they rail against. They seek a police state that they hope to control, as they do in all of the examples Gray gives of states that engage in "death and destruction" against their own people.
    Gray's views reflect, to varying degrees, the America hating views of much of the left. For whatever reason, leftists are on the right side for now. There is no doubt some political reason for this. Any belief that most leftists, at least witting leftists, have embraced America, with our capitalist system of freedom, individual rights, and private ownership, is quite naive. A leopard cannot change its spots.

Did communists infiltrate the Catholic Church?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/722955/posts?page=292

Did Communists Infiltrate the Catholic Church? 
http://www.chuckmorse.com/communism_catholic_church.html ^ | Chuck Morse 

Posted on Fri Jul 26 2002 18:35:57 GMT-0300 (Atlantic Daylight Time) by narses

As a traditional Jew, I'm deeply concerned over the plight of the Roman Catholic Church, which I consider to be the largest and most influential repository of conservative Judeo-Christian values in America today. I believe that those of us who care about the furtherance of a moral society have a stake in the future of the church as a moral force. The American church is under siege today, not only from the usual external forces but also from the weight of its own internal contradictions. The scandal of corrupt homosexual priests violating the innocence of minors in their care is, to put it mildly, a contradiction in Christian and Catholic practice and faith. When did this corruption inject itself into the system and why was the situation allowed to deteriorate to such a degree?

Much has been written regarding Communist methods of infiltration. The standard method was to "bore from within" which involved Communists disguising themselves as loyalists to an organization they sought to undermine. Once gaining entry, they would gradually and subtly change the values and principles of the targeted organization. The process of "change" can take a generation. Communists have exhibited unlimited patience and supreme confidence in the ultimate attainment of their goals. Examples in America include substantial inroads by Communists into organized labor, academia, the legal profession, race relations, cultural institutions, and the government itself.

When planning to infiltrate, the Communists probe for an institutional weakness to exploit and, in the case of the Catholic Church, perhaps they perceived the weakness to reside in the all-male celibate priesthood. Did Communists send their followers, particularly homosexuals, sexual deviants, and enablers, into seminaries to become priests in order to foster a homosexual culture within the church? Homosexuals, practicing their predilections in an overwhelmingly conservative Catholic community, while given protection by well placed minded superiors, could certainly contribute to the undermining of faith in Catholicism and could unquestionably shake the credibility and moral standing of the church itself down to its very foundations. Undermining Catholic authority has been a clear and often stated goal of the Communist left. Speculation regarding how the Communists attempted to implement their program is reasonable and necessary in order to better understand the present situation.

Two former Communists, Bella Dodd and Manning Johnson, spoke on Communist infiltration of the Catholic Church. Dodd, an important Communist party lawyer, teacher and activist, converted to Catholicism in April 1952 under the tutelage of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen. Stating that the Communist infiltration was so extensive that in the future "you will not recognize the Catholic Church," Dodd also asserted that:

"In the 1930's, we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.""Right now they are in the highest places, and they are working to bring about change in order that the Catholic Church will no longer be effective against Communism."

Manning Johnson, a former Communist Party official and author of "Color, Communism and Common Sense" testified in 1953 to the House un-American Activities Committee regarding the infiltration of the Catholic Church:

"Once the tactic of infiltration of religious organizations was set by the Kremlin ... the Communists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much faster through infiltration of the (Catholic) Church by Communists operating within the Church itself. The Communist leadership in the United States realized that the infiltration tactic in this country would have to adapt itself to American conditions (Europe also had its cells) and the religious make-up peculiar to this country. In the earliest stages it was determined that with only small forces available to them, it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents in the seminaries. The practical conclusion drawn by the Red leaders was that these institutions would make it possible for a small Communist minority to influence the ideology of future clergymen in the paths conducive to Communist purposes This policy of infiltrating seminaries was successful beyond even our communist expectations."

As a radio talk show host and avid listener to talk radio in Boston, I've listened intently to comments by Catholics as the crisis has unfolded. Much has been said regarding the left dominance of the seminaries and a prevalence of the ideas of "liberation theology" which is a biblically contradictory Trojan horse within the Catholic gates. Establishment organs, such as the Boston Globe, continue to wring their hands over the homosexual activities of priests while supporting a homosexual agenda everywhere else. Hopefully, the Catholic flock will wake up and sweep the corruption out of their church in the same way that their founder, Jesus of Nazareth, swept the moneychangers out of the Temple.

The Left, Fidel and Moral Equivalence

The Left, Fidel and Moral Equivalence

Chuck Morse
Thursday, April 24, 2003

Cuban dissidents are once again being arrested, tried, sentenced and thrown in prison for criticizing Fidel’s socialist paradise. In addition, on April 11, Fidel’s firing squads riddled three young Afro-Cubans with bullets for trying to escape to freedom in a rickety boat.

This has, of course, been standard practice in Cuba since 1959, when American leftists such as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs William Weiland, New York Times Latin American correspondent Herbert Matthews and other elitist “liberals” helped to create and install Fidel.

Apparently the same cadre of hard-left rock-ribbed American cult followers are still serving as shock troops for Fidel. An April 15 article by fellow traveler Morgan State University radical professor Cliff DuRand entitled “Cuba Cracks Down on Dissidents” attempts to distract attention from the present Cuban troubles by drawing a moral equivalence between the actions of Fidel and those occurring in the free world.

This classic leftist tactic only works if the moral equation behind a stated action is removed, something that is not difficult for leftists, who are not constrained by conventional norms of morality.

DuRand explains Fidel’s latest actions as justified because the Cuban dissidents “conspired with the head of the U.S. Interest Section in Havana to subvert the Cuban state.” Putting aside the veracity of this charge, DuRand’s source is Fidel’s own foreign minister, Felipe Perez Roque, not exactly a disinterested party.

It’s ironic when leftists complain about subversion and conspiracy against the state. Back when the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration was honeycombed with communist subversives who were conspiring with the Kremlin to subvert this American republic, the DuRands of the day took quite a different view.

Of course, those subversives were “progressives” while today’s Cuban subversives are, well, just plain old subversives.

Roque is quoted in the article as claiming that the U.S. Interests Section in Havana had been “supplying them [the dissidents] with equipment and funds as part of the $8 million allocated this year to support the development of civil society in Cuba."

Is there a moral equivalence between America supporting Cubans in their attempt to develop a civil society, assuming this charge is true, and past Soviet communist support for American traitors conspiring to replace civil society with communism?

Using this rationale, one would have to condemn American support for Count Claus von Stauffenburg’s conspiracy to subvert the Nazi state when he attempted to kill Hitler.

In his article, DuRand complains about American interference in the affairs of other countries, especially Cuba. While there are admittedly many bad examples of American interference in other countries, nevertheless, when it comes to fighting communism, American interference is admirable for the same reason that American interference in the affairs of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was admirable.

DuRand and his ilk hate the fact that America champions freedom by helping small and often defenseless nations fend off brutal and imperialistic steel-tipped jackbooted communist conspiracies.

I’m proud when America assists in regime changes if the result is the removal of oppressors such as Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Gorbachev or Allende. I hope Fidel is next, for the sake of the Cuban people. America is at its best when it throws its considerable moral force into the service of freedom.

DuRand complains that America has “for over 40 years and through 10 administrations” attempted a regime change in Cuba. Actually, if this is true, we’ve done a pretty lousy job up until now.

DuRand indulges in classic leftist agitprop by isolating this most recent example of Cuban repression, as if it occurred in a vacuum, and then proceeding to turn the tables with a frankly bizarre accusation that the U.S. is actually responsible for the brutality because of an alleged increase in “U.S. imperialism that is tending toward fascism.”

It’s always rich when authoritarians and internationalist leftists point an accusatory finger at others with an accusation like this. True believers, it’s understood, will avert their eyes, especially when the accused is America, the great Satan of the left.

DuRand is upset that the U.S. might be trying to “promote political division within Cuba.” Never mind that political division is the stock and trade of the left in its agenda of subverting the free world. He calls Cuba, a police state that hasn’t had a free election in over 40 years, “a participatory political culture” without a shred of evidence.

In order to create freedom in Cuba, DuRand does not advocate for the removal of his friend Fidel and his brutal gang of thugs. Instead he predictably calls for “struggle to curb that enemy, the current reactionary cabal in Washington.”

In other words, DuRand wants “regime change here at home,” not in Havana.

Media Matters: WND Solves 'Mystery' of Why People Think Obama Is Muslim

your New Media watchdog
ConWebWatch: home | archive/search | about | primer | shop

Monday, August 23, 2010

WND Solves 'Mystery' of Why People Think Obama Is Muslim

Topic: WorldNetDaily
An Aug. 20 WorldNetDaily article carries the headline; "Mystery solved! Why Americans think president is Muslim." And what's the solution that WND comes up with, via right-wing writer and radio host Chuck Morse? Obama secretly is Muslim.
No, really:

"It's hard to reasonably explain Obama's cold relationship with Israel, his inaction in the face of Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb, his giving a green light to the building of a mosque near where Islamic fundamentalists hijacked passenger planes on September 11, 2001, and made them into missiles to destroy the World Trade Center in Manhattan," says Morse.

One possible explanation, says Morse, is the Islamic principle of Taqiyya – or the sanctioning of hiding one's Muslim faith.

It's ultimately fear of the president's multicultural background and suspicion about his childhood travels that drives public distrust over the president's religion, reported the Associated Press.

"Obama is the Christian son of a Kenyan Muslim father and a Kansas mother," writes Hillel Italie. "Born in Hawaii, he lived from ages 6 to 10 in predominantly Muslim Indonesia with his mother and Indonesian stepfather. His full name, Barack Hussein Obama, sounds Muslim to many."

The name "Hussein" doesn't just sound Muslim, says Morse. It is "reserved exclusively for Muslims." In addition, Islamic law upholds that children born to a Muslim father are automatically Muslim, says Morse. The president's stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was Muslim. Obama's school records indicate that in Indonesia he enrolled as a Muslim in Catholic and Muslim schools, and in his autobiography, he acknowledged studying the Quran in Indonesia.
[...]
Morse notes that Obama confessed to converting to Christianity around the dawn of his political involvement, "under the tutelage of the racist anti-American and anti-Semitic pastor Jeremiah Wright," he said.

But leaving Islam, Morse says, is fraught with complications and deadly consequences.

"By converting out of Islam, Obama either became an apostate, a murtadd, in Arabic, or he began engaging in an Islamic-sanctioned deception and thus remained Muslim," says Morse. "If Obama truly left Islam, and actively embraced Christianity, he could be subject to severe penalties under Islamic law including the death sentence. Islamic Shariah law calls for the execution of any Muslim who becomes a murtadd."
[...]
t's conceivable, says Morse, that the president never truly left Islam at all, but professes faith in Christ as a cover for his true beliefs – an allowable offense for Muslims in certain circumstances.

The "Islamic-sanctioned deception," says Morse, remains the only explanation to escaping such punishment.

"The other possibility is that President Obama is engaging in a Taqiyya, which is a lie that is spoken in the greater interest of Islam," says Morse. "There are several quotes in the Quran and the Hadith, the Islamic holy books, that set the conditions under which it is permissible for the Muslim to lie regarding his identity and his intentions when dealing with non-Muslims and the non-Muslim world. Lying is allowed, even encouraged, by the Muslim according to Shariah law, if the lie in some way furthers the agenda of Islam.

"If Obama is indeed a secret-believing Muslim, as opposed to an apostate, the effects on public policy and on American society would be profound," adds Morse. "Whether Muslim or Christian, Barack Obama is the first 'Muslim president' in the same way that Bill Clinton was the first 'black president.'"

WND has tried to push the secret-Muslim thing at least once before, in a column by Pieder Beeli. And like Beeli, Morse gets the idea of taqiyya completely wrong. As we've previously noted, Hussein Ibish, senior fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, has said that the idea promoted by people like Beeli that taqiyya "constitutes a carte blanche for all Muslims to lie to all non-Muslims" is false; rather, it permits Muslims to lie about their faith in order to save themselves from imminent harm or death. "If there is a major religion that does not contain a doctrine that might permit someone to recant at the stake or before the axe, I am not aware of it," Ibish adds.
Of course, the fact that right-wingers like Morse and WND love to perpetuate a lie couldn't possibly have anything to do with why people think this about Obama.

Israel should annex the disputed territories

THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA

An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume IV, Issue # 51, May 12, 2002
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor

Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity

Home Page   Main Menu   Recent Articles   Site Map   Website Index   Issues & Controversies
  Cyberland University   Political Science, Philosophy, & History: Lectures   U.S. Constitution
  American Constitutional Law   American Constitutional System   American Political System
  Conservatism, Liberalism, & Radicalism   How America Goes to War
  World War IV: Islamist Terror War Against the U.S.A. & the West

---

ISRAEL SHOULD ANNEX THE DISPUTED TERRITORIES
By Chuck Morse
U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), recently appearing on an MSNBC talk show, was half right when he stated that Israel should annex East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza and that the Palestinian Authority should leave. Armey said, "There are many Arab nations that have many hundreds of thousands of acres of land and soil and property and opportunity to create a Palestinian state. I happen to believe that Palestinians should leave."
To quell an incoming storm of indignation over his suggestion that an entire population be expelled, Armey, rightfully, modified his position and suggested that "peaceful Palestinian civilians should not be forcibly expelled," that only those involved in subversive activity should be expelled. Much of the indignation he would've faced would've no doubt emanated from quarters supporting the racist and apartheid idea of expelling 200,000 Jews from the disputed territories, leaving the area Judenrein.
Either way, it's high time, in light of the mass murder campaign deliberately launched against the Jews of Israel these past eighteen months under the auspices of the Palestinian Authority, that consideration is given to the contention that partitioning an area about the size of Massachusetts into two hostile mini-states is a recipe for continuous war and violence. The demands of the Palestinian Arabs and their oil-rich Arab and Islamic allies hasn't changed one iota since the 1967 six-day war. They still demand that Israel withdraw to the untenable Armistice lines of 1949-1967, abandon Jerusalem, and give the descendants of Arabs driven out in 1948, numbering in the neighborhood of three million, the right to return to Israel.
Dr. Hussein Ibish, spokesman for the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, has accurately stated that a Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza would be a "Bantustan." Israel itself, if confined to the pre-1967 bonders, would also, in fact, be a Banstustan. Pre-1967 Israel, existing within what Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban callrd "Auschwitz lines," actually would look more like Congressman Marty Meehan's Massachusetts congressional district than a nation-state. A small corridor would connect Tel Aviv to the outskirts of Jerusalem, a swath of land would ride up the coast connecting the Galilee region, and another swath would connect Tel Aviv to the Negev Desert, which would make up about half of the total land. The bottom line is that any division of this tiny area will result in two Bantustans. After 50 years of bloody strife between the two Palestinian populations, one Jewish and one Arab, and the obvious religious, ethnic, language, political and cultural differences, it is obvious that two such states or Bantustans will lock into a death struggle.
Israel acted in good faith when it tried the two-state solution in 2000 and the experiment failed miserably. To risk such a venture again would be the equivalent of committing national suicide. No sovereign state should ever be placed in such a position. The last such partition, that of Czechoslovakia in 1938, didn't turn out too well. Common sense dictates that a partition is impossible and utopian.
Israel should immediately annex the disputed territories and allow for the development, over the longterm, of a semi-autonomous Palestinian Arab administration on the West Bank and in Gaza. Israel should maintain security control and provide for the safety of Israeli citizens in the region. Arabs who are willing to live in peace should be afforded the maximum benefits of political and cultural autonomy. Investment and economic development should be encouraged.

Subversive activity, such as the smuggling of weapons, building of bomb factories, planning of mass murder campaigns, collaboration with enemies of Israel, or development of clandestine militias, all of which took place under Yasser Arafat, should be handled swiftly by the Israeli justice system. If a person is convicted of crimes connected with such subversion, then Israel would be acting within its right, and in accord with international law and custom, to exile such a convict, if it chose this approach. Israel would not be expelling a person for being an Arab, but would be expelling a convicted criminal. Such a policy should be applied to Jew and Arab alike.