SOCIALISM
THE COMING COUP
By Craig Oknin, July 5, 2024
The January 6 Capitol breach has been
called an attempted coup; it was not a coup, but a coup by the extreme left is
possible in the future. Before I make my case, a few points should be made about
January 6. David Harsany pointed out in the New York Post that the J6 protestors
had no plan; a study at Harvard showed that most Jan 6 protestors did not
believe they were overruling democracy, but preserving it:
The documents show that Trump and his allies convinced an unquantifiable number
of Americans that representative democracy in the United States was not only in
decline, but in imminent, existential danger… This belief translated into a
widespread fear of democratic and societal breakdown, which, in turn, motivated
hundreds of Americans to travel to DC from far corners of the country in what
they were convinced was the nation’s most desperate hour.
The first question to ask if speculating on an hypothetical leftist coup is
this: Are there a substantial number of people in the United States who would
like to see an anti-American revolution?
It’s hard to quantify, but there’s certainly a sizable population, made evident
by the noise they make.
During the Antifa riots, apart from the violence, there were chants: “No border,
no wall, no USA at all.”
During the recent pro-Hamas demonstrations on campuses and elsewhere,
anti-American views were overt: For instance, students at the University of
Michigan participating in the protests were given pamphlets titled “10 anarchist
theses on Palestine solidarity in the United States,” which included a page that
stated, “Freedom for Palestine means Death to America.” The slogan “Death to
America” was chanted in nearby Dearborn, Michigan, during a rally on the last
Friday of Ramadan.
A former Muslim, Sana Ebrahimi warned that many Muslims coming into the West do
not share our values, and “they do not play around.”
The red-green alliance of leftists and Islamists makes some kind of sense:
[T]he two movements are building a Common Front against the United States and
its allies. … Both radical Leftists and Islamists have utilized the master frame
of anti-globalization/anti-capitalism and the master frame of
anti-colonialism/anti-imperialism to elicit support from the widest possible
range of people.
(See also here.)
But surely there are not enough armed opponents of the U.S. within the U.S. to
mount a coup?
There may be. Gordon Chang has been warning of the makings of a Chinese army in
the U.S. (in 2023, more than 30,000 military-aged individuals from China have
entered) and says this:
These were Chinese migrants, who had come into the U.S., they were here for less
than three weeks, and what were they doing? They were taking target practice
with semi-automatic rifles. Now if you’re a migrant coming into the U.S. with
just a backpack, you’re probably thinking about, ‘I need a place to live, I need
to eat,’ maybe get a job. You don’t think about sharpening your skills to kill
Americans.
National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd also expressed concern and
pointed out that “We know that the Chinese have huge gangs here in the United
States, and they control certain parts of our country.”
China is just one hostile country that has taken advantage of the open border.
We have Cubans and Venezuelans coming in as well. Not to mention ISIS
sympathizers.
Home-grown extremists have been a part of U.S. history, including the bombing of
Wall Street in 1920. The blast killed 40 people immediately, and seriously
injured another 143. In the 1960s, there were radicals who engaged in bombing
campaigns across the U.S. and according to undercover agent Larry Grathwohl,
they had plans to eliminate as many as 25 million Americans if they came to
power.
One could speculate how a coup would work. Could, for example, revolutionaries
destroy infrastructure, such as our electric system, or sabotage enough military
defenses to help an invading army? That’s certainly a question worth pondering.
A final question is: Why did our government open the borders? In the first hours
of Biden’s presidency, he acted to halt construction of Trump’s border wall.
Later he issued an executive order ending the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico”
program.
The most moderate explanation that I’ve heard was that he wanted more Democrat
voters. In support of this explanation, in a 2024 interview, Kari Lake told
Maria Bartiromo that “in every state around the country, you’re seeing Democrats
fight tooth and nail any piece of legislation which will prevent illegals from
voting.”
If this is true, then the dangers to national security that come with the flood
of illegals might be minimized in the minds of the people who have opened our
borders. There are, of course, more radical possible explanations.
Whatever the motives of our leaders, a power-grab by people who do not believe
in democracy is increasingly becoming a possibility.
Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: https://www.americanthinker.com
THEY INTEND TO DESTROY AMERICA
By Jeff M. Lewis, September 23, 2021
If you’re
thinking that Biden’s policies are destroying America, you’re right. And the
worst part is that this is exactly what Democrats want.
Richard Andrew Cloward and Francis Fox Piven were both Columbia University
professors and long-time members of the Democrat Socialist Party. They were the
authors of the Cloward-Piven strategy (paraphrased from Cloward–Piven strategy -
Wikipedia):
Overload the American public welfare system and create a crisis that will bankrupt the nation, leaving no choice but to adopt a socialist/communist system of government.
In addition:
The ultimate objective of this strategy is to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income.
There is ample information available via internet searches to
validate the Cloward-Piven strategy as I have characterized it above. The
essential takeaway is that the goal is to collapse the government and financial
systems of the United States and then rebuild the United States into the
ever-sought but never-achieved socialist utopia.
Perhaps the best thing about Barack Obama being elected President and serving
two terms, along with Democrats’ deranged reaction to Donald Trump’s election is
the radicals are no longer in hiding. They are now saying out loud, in public
and in broad daylight, things that nobody in Bill Clinton’s administration would
ever have said or admitted. Now, we can clearly identify the enemy in plain
sight, who is not just inside the gate but entrenched throughout our vital
national institutions.
These radicals are not slowing down, they are “pedal to the metal” and
accelerating. Time is critical. We must resist them at every opportunity,
locally and nationally, and let them know we will not shirk our duty to stand
for Freedom.
Here is a short list of what they are doing to wreck the country (keep looking,
and you will find there are more).
Big-Government Socialized Healthcare
Nearly every network evening news and local news broadcast begins with a
“COVID-19 Update” and another sales pitch to get the vaccine or to scare and
shame the unvaccinated. Government health agencies and bureaucracies focus only
on vaccines of waning effectiveness, and that is killing people. Still, they
insist we must get vaccinated or we’ll get lockdowns, masks, and every other
mandated measure they can think of.
The installed administration is now exerting top-down control of preventative
medicines and is aggressively seizing monoclonal antibody treatments from states
that use them to distribute “equitably” to states that don’t.
It’s all meant to make us do as we are told, and it proves the long-held
assertions among conservatives that socialized medicine equals rationing of
medicine and care, and lets the government decide who lives or dies.
Resist.
Politicizing the Military
The United States Armed Forces and those who currently serve (or have served in
the past) have been a perennial source of pride for Americans. The military has
been one of America’s most well-respected institutions. In less than seven
months, the installed regime has revealed just how politicized the military
leadership has become. It is an understatement to say that the retired military
community views with grave concern the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan,
the reports of the “back channel’ communications General Milley had with his
Chinese counterpart, and the purge of any officer in leadership who expresses a
sincere concern for the “social justice” initiatives currently being taught.
Mr. Douglas Murray, a British political consultant commented on Tucker Carlson’s
show recently that once you begin to politicize an agency that’s meant to
represent the whole country, that’s a terribly self-destructive move.
Bingo! That’s exactly what Democrats intend: destroy the country by making its
citizens unwilling to serve and unwilling to defend it.
Resist. The entire retired Veteran community needs to be heard on all of this as
well.
Open Borders
Since the installed regime’s illogical, reflexive, and disastrous (some say
illegal) repeal of every measure the Trump administration enacted to secure the
border, the situation has continually degraded before our eyes (at least when
the news media honestly reports what is happening).
The evidence of the humanitarian crisis is overwhelming: the number of illegal
aliens found dead on South Texas brush country ranches has increased; fatalities
on the border states’ roads and highways have also risen from illicit human
traffickers’ attempts to evade border protection or law enforcement officers and
the human toll exacted on those who cross the border, endure the elements, and
face over-crowded processing facilities is impossible to calculate.
None of it is compassionate, and none of it is for the illegal aliens’ welfare
because unknown numbers have become indentured servants to the criminal
enterprises that brought them to the United States. They will likely never know
freedom. The Democrat party, its apparatus, and the installed administration all
want to change America’s demographics to have more “voters” who are dependent on
government largesse and will vote Democrat, cementing its permanent political
power. It is a sickening subjugation of the rightful, legal citizens of the
United States.
Resist.
Politicizing and “packing the Court”
What leftists have never been able to do is legislate a radical transformation
of the United States. Their strategy has been to infiltrate the legal/judicial
system and to seat as many anti-American activist jurists in the judicial branch
of our government.
These activist judges, once in place, legislate from the bench to support
America’s radical transformation, enabling the government to intercede where the
Constitution draws specific limits, stripping citizens of their constitutional
rights, and granting rights unknown in centuries of Anglo-American legal
precedent. These activist judges will be sure any legal challenge to the
constitutionality of their agenda will fail.
Their attempts to “pack the court” are an attempt to legislatively re-structure
the court system in a manner that enables them to install new judges or replace
active judges with those who support their leftist transformation of America.
Resist.
Voting Rights Legislation
The inestimable, inimitable, and transformative radio talk show host Rush
Limbaugh said of the Democrat party (and I’m paraphrasing from memory):
Democrats do not want to have to win your vote. They do not want to have to
compete in the arena of ideas nor do they want to have to win elections. Keep a
sharp eye, because they want to eliminate elections as they are currently held
in the United States, and they want to remove any chance they will not win
elections. They only want the political power necessary to be able to exert as
much control of you as they see fit.
Rush would tell his listeners, “Don’t doubt me.” Do not doubt that Rush was
right about the Democrats’ radicalization and their aim to secure for themselves
a permanent majority and permanent power in our government.
Their “Voter Rights” bill currently making its way through Congress has nothing
to do with voter rights; it’s about legalizing every method of cheating they
used in the 2020 election. The current bill is an attempt to thwart the
Constitution and the fifty states’ constitutionally derived powers to oversee
their own elections.
Nothing the Democrat party or its leftist, social democrat politicians want to
do is good for America. They run to the same old playbook, and none of it has
ever worked, anywhere, or any time it has been tried.
We are at a turning point. Don’t let them win. Resist!
Jeff M. Lewis is a Christian, a husband and father, a Veteran, and a
self-employed small business owner who resides in South Texas.
Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: https://www.americanthinker.com
OLD
COKE, NEW COKE, WOKE COKE, BROKE COKE
By William Sullivan, May 9, 2021
By the time the Cola Wars
really heated up in the 1980s, Coca-Cola had perennially enjoyed the upper hand
over Pepsi in a rivalry that dated to the dawn of the twentieth century. In
1975, however, Coke began to feel threatened by Pepsi, due to a marketing ploy
-- “the Pepsi Challenge.” It was a blind taste test to show that “more people
preferred Pepsi over Coke.”
Interestingly, this wasn’t just a gimmick. Internal research at Coca-Cola
confirmed that when the brand association was extracted from the equation,
“consumers preferred Pepsi,” with its “sweeter, more syrupy flavor.”
In one of the most famous business decisions in modern history, Coca-Cola
reacted to what they believed to be consumer sentiment in 1985. People were “in
love with the notion of Coca-Cola, but they weren’t necessarily drinking
Coca-Cola” to the extent they had been before. So, it changed the signature
formula of the drink to taste more like Pepsi, with the new concoction becoming
known as “New Coke.”
It was a move that has been described as both a “colossal business blunder” and
an “unintended stroke of marketing genius.” Coke fans were immediately outraged,
and Pepsi was delighted to be “The Choice of a New Generation,” a slogan that
persisted into the 1990s. Coke was the past, and Pepsi was the future, my
generation was told.
And yet, it simply didn’t work out that way.
The public backlash against Coke was fierce. Former employee and archivist Phil
Mooney says that he couldn’t give “New Coke” away, with friends rejecting even
samples, saying “give me the original Coke back!” What senior leadership didn’t
understand at the time, he says, was the “deep psychological attachment people
had to Coca-Cola. We heard stories about how Coke was with them on their first
date, or during World War II.”
Ed Hays, now the Chief Technical Officer of Coca-Cola, recalls that “New Coke
also showed that people craved -- and still crave -- a degree of certainty,
familiarity and comfort in a world that changes so quickly and so dramatically.”
Within three months after the launch of “New Coke,” the original formula, known
as “Coca-Cola Classic,” was reintroduced, and it took the world by storm. People
wanted to “taste the beverage again,” and not “just feel good about” the
Coca-Cola brand, writes Becky Little at History.
In 1985, Coca-Cola executives opted to alter the company’s product to satisfy
what they believed to be the progressive tastes of Americans. In the end, it was
Americans’ loyalty to the company’s corporate brand that saved them from its
executives’ decision to make sweeping changes to its product for the sake of
perceived “progress.”
There’s still a clear leader in the space of sugary soft drinks, and it remains
Coca-Cola. But as Daniel Greenfield observes at FrontPage Magazine, Coke
currently owns “a majority share of a declining market.” To address this crisis,
Coca-Cola’s current executives have opted to alter the corporate brand in order
to satisfy what they believe to be the progressive political desires of
Americans, and it doesn’t appear that there is even a remote possibility that
Americans’ loyalty to the product alone could ever save Coke from this stupid
decision.
North America may be the biggest soft drink market in the world, but consumption
of the sugary stuff has been on a steady decline in recent decades, and none are
drinking less of it than the demographic that Coke is desperately trying to
reach with its recent political posturing.
As anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to American culture should
easily recognize, it’s not effete, health-conscious, coastal leftists that have
been bolstering Coke’s market capitalization these past decades. But somehow, is
it possible that internal corporate research has suggested to a few poor
decision-makers at Coca-Cola that its embarrassing prostrations toward effete
coastal leftists are the path to more people drinking Coke?
I have difficulty believing that. More likely, as Daniel Greenfield observes,
Coke is destroying the pro-America brand association that it had been building
for over a century because “it’s afraid” of the political forces aligning
against it.
And who can blame them? Democrats like Michael Bloomberg in New York have been
arguing for government-imposed limitations on sales of large-size sodas for over
a decade now. Blue states like California tax soft drinks so highly that one
can’t help but buy fewer of them, regardless of the taste. And it really doesn’t
matter which cola company gets a contract with AMC Theaters or Cinemark next
year, because the same people who think your soft drink should be smaller and
taxed more heavily by the government are also the people who think that you
shouldn’t be allowed to sit next to others in the movie theater if there’s an
immeasurably small fraction-of-a-percent chance that someone may get sick by
your doing so.
And yet, Coca-Cola abandoned its brand, signifying its woke virtues in order to
forge an alliance with that group of people?
In February, Coca-Cola announced a quota for attorneys it would hire, saying
that 15-percent of billable hours of service would be provided by “black
attorneys,” which is larger than their demographic representation in America.
Then, famously, employees at Coca-Cola were encouraged, on company time and the
company dime, to “be less white,” which ostensibly means to be less “defensive,”
“arrogant,” and “ignorant.” Most recently, the company injected itself into
American politics in a manner that would have been unthinkable just a decade
ago. Coke openly aligned itself with the Democratic Party, spreading propaganda
on its behalf in order to signal its opposition to Georgia’s legislation meant
to protect election integrity in future elections.
This isn’t the 80s. This time, the degree to which Coke has offended its
consumers runs much deeper than our taste buds. Back then, American consumers
forgave Coke for its mistakes, focusing on the brand and the fond memories. This
time, the schism between Coke and its once-loyal consumers seems much more
permanent. One reader’s comments at The Daily Wire stand out:
I have collected Coca Cola memorabilia for many, many years. Since I was a kid.
I found them to be very Americana, and looking at my collection always gave me a
sense of home. I packed everything all up last month. It was not a great
feeling.
He’s not alone. According to a Rasmussen poll, 37-percent of Americans are less
likely to buy Coca-Cola products due to the company’s recent political stance.
This is counterbalanced, some might suggest, by 25-percent who say they’re more
likely to buy Coca-Cola products due to that stance.
However, consider what this means. A smaller number of Americans, who probably
don’t really like drinking Coca-Cola at all, happen to love the new Woke Coke’s
politics -- though they still likely hate all their corporate profits, and wish
that politicians would limit or eliminate sugary drinks as a consumer choice,
for the sake of public health. A larger number of Americans probably love
Coca-Cola’s American history and the brand, have been loyal customers for years
and would prefer that consumers, not government, should decide Americans’
beverage preferences -- but will henceforth avoid buying Coca-Cola products, or
even displaying its memorabilia, wherever possible.
Coca-Cola can fire the people responsible for pitching the stupid ideas behind
its recent wokeness, as it has, but it’s hard to imagine an outcome where Coke
finds anything close to the soft landing that its good fortune, and red-blooded
Americans’ goodwill, provided it back the 1980s.
Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: https://www.americanthinker.com
WE FIGHT NOW OR THE SOCIALISTS
WIN
By William L. Gensert, March 15, 2019
The Democratic
Party is no longer a political party; it has become a religion. Its acolytes
practice politics with every bit of the religious fervor of Islamic militants
throwing a gay man off the roof of a ten-story building because Sharia tells
them it’s what he deserves. Make no mistake, every day, our new socialists fight
for the right to do the same to us.
After driving two hours to vote against Sandy O, I was told my ballot would be challenged because my signature didn’t match from when I registered as a Conservative in 1976. I offered to show ID, which only engendered anger. ID is not allowed -- too reminiscent of using Voter ID to weed out illegal voters. Of course, the real reason for the challenge was the “C” next to my name. The poll lady was not about to allow a conservative to vote. If they were willing to do that in an election they were guaranteed to win, what will they do next year?
Democrats know Donald Trump will win in 2020 and are planning to
cheat to deny him victory. These new socialists are importing a new electorate
through open borders and have proposed legislation to allow illegals the vote.
They stole seats in the midterms using ballot harvesting and miraculously
appearing boxes of “uncounted” Democrat ballots and will do the same in 2020.
The midterms were a trial run for 2020. The left is organized and prepared.
To have any chance, we must behave the way the left behaves, and that means we should take a page from the Democratic playbook.
In 2008, there were members of the New Black Panthers stationed outside voting locations. The right needs to do the same, and have people in place to document everything. Challenge them at the polls; challenge them outside the polls; challenge them every time we see them cheat; challenge every single vote if need be. Sue them in court over every irregularity, otherwise, they’re going to deny enough ballots, harvest enough votes, or find enough in trunks of cars to win. We will need to fight for a fair 2020 election, or they will steal it.
The media was always biased, but at least they used to pretend that they weren’t. After Obama’s election, they dispensed with all pretense and worshipped the man as a god. Now, they worship the Democrats’ socialist ideology. Every article either praises the left or pillories anyone who disagrees with them.
The battle in the media is lost. We will never get fair and balanced coverage. Yet, if we have learned anything from Donald Trump, controlling the media doesn’t guarantee controlling the message. Part of the president’s success has been in dictating the narrative. By using Twitter, perhaps at times injudiciously, but at other times brilliantly, Trump has bypassed traditional media and gone directly to the people -- it got him elected and it can be used to fight the socialist takeover of this nation. Facebook, Twitter, comments on articles, and public activism are all weapons at our disposal.
We have allowed the Democrats using Antifa, Black Lives Matters,
and SJWs dominion over the public square. We need similar tactics; there are far
more of us than them, and in a battle against an army of pajama boys, we have
the edge.
And we must be assertive not only vocally but physically. A group of men
preventing Antifa/BLM/SJWs from pummeling dissenters will be on CNN 24/7 -- they
will provide the platform because they will not be able to resist portraying the
right as the aggressors. So of course, we need to travel in groups and record
everything. Think what the left would have done to Nicholas Sandman had there
not been video exposing their lies.
Most importantly, we must never attack first; we are not them. Nietzsche said, “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.” Never strike first, but certainly strike last; we don’t start, we finish.
But even if we can prevent them from stealing the election, it won’t be over. This is a battle for the soul of the nation, and they are not only trying to win elections, they seek to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” into the next socialist utopia. They are pursuing us at every opportunity because for them to win they must get rid of us.
One need only look at their policies to see what is coming. Do we want to live in a world of unlimited abortion, before, during, and after birth? Should our children live in a nation without cars, planes, meat, and affordable electricity? Do we want our grandchildren to live in a world where a president has so corrupted executive agencies under his command they try to first steal an election and then depose his successor in a coup attempt based on lies bought and paid for by the likes of Hillary Clinton? Are we willing to let Democrats give illegals the same rights and benefits as citizens? Will we allow them to force those not directly responsible to pay reparations to those who didn’t directly suffer? Can we live in a country that has taken away our 2nd Amendment and 1stAmendment rights?
Donald Trump fights, but he’s one man. He can’t save us alone. If
we believe the dream that is America is worth saving, we are going to have to
fight, for if we don’t, America is lost.
Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker:
https://www.americanthinker.com
HUMAN ACHIEVEMENTS
FROM THE TOTALITARIAN LEFT
By James Mullin, March 29, 2016
These are interesting
times. The United States stands ready to espouse a collectivism that its very
founders were repelled by and that its citizens fought and died to defeat.
Western Europe seems compelled to surrender itself to a religio-culture that its
distant ancestors epically fought to a standstill over 700 years ago and then
rolled back over centuries. Cultural and national mass suicide is now the cause
célèbre in the West, toasted by academics and the media alike.
Consider the old saying "By their fruits shall you know them." This holds for
civilizations and societies as well as individuals. Ponder what epic,
game-changing accomplishments have been served up to humanity by Islam since,
say, the 1500s. An "empire" that stretched from south Asia to north Africa! Yet
no diseases cured. No architectural breakthroughs. No pivotal findings in
astronomy, geology, or even art or music. And the last century saw an epochal
vastness of wealth come into Islamic hands via the price of oil.
And what of the Soviet empire (from Siberia to East Germany) that spanned almost
a century? Or the Chinese communist empire of almost a third of the Earth's
population for over 70 years? Or of communism or collectivism in general?
Breakthroughs in telecommunications? In energy? Medicine? Transportation? All,
no. In literature, the greatest Soviet writer of the century, Alexander
Solzhenitsyn, used the mass slavery of his culture as his central theme. How is
that for a cultural talisman?
Now contrast this with the West, be it the United States or Britain or France,
Germany, Italy, etc. Ironically, the current U.S. president is perhaps one of
the West's great haters, and yet the U.S. and Europe have produced, over a
similar span of time, the telephone, electricity, the internet, vaccination for
over a dozen ravenous diseases, aspirin, recombinant DNA, the microchip, the
transistor, the skyscraper, the automobile, the lunar landing, robotic surgery,
fiber optics, atomic physics, the Hubble telescope, hybrid crops, jet travel,
satellite communications, artificial joints, organ transplant surgery, and on
and on.
With the tide-like advance of Islamic jihad and totalitarianism in general –
Marx's or Mohammed's – over the last century, I find myself fearful not for my
country or my religion, but for my species. To hand the Earth over to the
subhumans who espouse all forms of hegemony is to plunge Homo sapiens into a
dark age from which it may never arise. At a minimum you can say goodbye to any
of the advances we hope are just now outside our grasp: cancer cured; plentiful,
clean energy; Alzheimer's cured; malaria cured; interplanetary travel. They
would be myths, not breakthroughs.
Look at the track record of these systems and societies and ask yourself: what
advances can you really expect to come to fruition? If it is not a better
implement to kill, I doubt that it is in these enemies of humanity's skill set
to achieve.
Free men create. Free men dream. Enslaved men simply try to survive. The
enslavers of men simply suck the lifeblood of the human spirit and give nothing
back. Before it is too late, it is time for all men and women to honestly look
at the fruits of what they espouse, and truthfully ask themselves: what good do
they offer humanity? What has collectivism in its various malignant forms ever
offered us?
Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/human_achievements_from_the_totalitarian_left.html#ixzz44JD6xtag
THE
MURDER OF HISTORY
By Bruce Walker, January 4, 2016
Orwell grasped the vital need for
real history and he saw how those who lust for power will murder history as
their first victim. Winston Smith, the protagonist in 1984, works in the
Ministry of Truth and systematically destroys history so that no clues of its
death can even be found. The virtual elimination of any parts of authentic
history that might conflict with the prevailing and politically correct history
warps our thinking, usually without us even being aware of our ignorance.
As one example, Turner Classic Movies on January 4, 2016 has a night of films
about the Spanish Civil War. Virtually all the films are propaganda for the
Popular Front; they portray the Nationalist side as illegitimate, brutal, and
corrupt. Try to find a film that presents the Spanish Civil War in any other
way.
History books, especially textbooks, are monolithic in describing that civil
war. Any facts, any scraps of history that might make the case for the
Nationalist side or might condemn the Popular Front have been relegated to the
Memory Hole in the Ministry of Truth. Almost no one, if asked today, could even
propose any arguments in support of Franco in that war, because most of us go
our entire adult lives without ever having heard anything but the propaganda of
one side in that war.
Yet the true history of that civil war, as reason might suggest in any civil
war, presents a complex and morally ambiguous event. The Nationalists, for
example, are routinely accused of overthrowing the legitimate "Republican"
government of Spain, but the first free election in Spain with universal
suffrage in November 1933 was a decisive defeat for the Popular Front.
That electoral defeat led to the February 1936 elections, the last elections
before the civil war. The Nationalist side won the votes of 4.9 million
Spaniards in the Cortes, while only 4.3 million cast votes for the Popular
Front. Extreme gerrymandering gave the Popular Front a plurality, not a
majority, of the actual seats in the Cortes. The Popular Front used its
plurality to re-certify the election results (often before the election results
had even been announced) to give the Popular Front eighty more seats, and a
majority in the Cortes, that it had not won in the election.
As another example, the April 1937 attack on Guernica, made famous by Picasso's
painting, is an icon of Nationalist malice, but there may well have not have
been a massacre at all. Dorothy Thompson, perhaps the most important journalist
in the world at the time and an honest opponent of the Nationalists, first
reported Guernica as a massacre, but by June 2, 1937, she was cautioning in the
New York Herald Tribune that much had been invented or exaggerated and that "[e]ven
the question of the bombing or Guernica is not established to anything
approaching general satisfaction."
Moreover, Spanish towns in Nationalist hands that were destroyed by the Popular
Front field artillery or naval guns, and atrocities committed against women and
children by the Popular Front, were accepted by almost everyone covering the
Spanish Civil War, with some estimates of innocent Spaniards killed by the
Popular Front as high as 500,000, or about six percent of the population of
Spain.
The imaginary history of the Spanish Civil War routinely describes the
Nationalists as "Fascist," though almost no Spaniards called themselves
"Fascists" at all, which writers noted at the time. When the Second World War
began, Franco allowed the French to inspect France's border with Spain, where
there were no Spanish troops, so that France could concentrate on stopping
Hitler. After France fell, Franco stayed out of the conflict when joining Hitler
would have cost the British Gibraltar and the war. During the war, Franco
intervened to save at least 40,000 European Jews from the Holocaust, according
to three different books on the subject by Jewish scholars.
Franco's authoritarian, rather than totalitarian, rule accounted for the
painless transition of Spain into a healthy democracy after his death. Spain was
not free then, like Italy, but it was much freer than Poland. Franco, the
Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War, and his reign after the war were
composites of good and bad.
All history, though, has been purged of any details that conflict with
politically correct opinions. This means that the cadres of the left who seem so
unhinged from reality can dwell in their universe of utter fantasy, because this
contrived pseudo-history guides their hearts and minds.
Murdered history matters.
Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/the_murder_of_history.html#ixzz3wIWXxsqA
AN AMERICAN POLITBURO
By Howard Houchen, August 8, 2011
An American Politburo
has materialized before our eyes. Yes, our Congress is the result of a two-party
system (those Rs and Ds) and, on the surface, doesn't fit very well with the
one-party USSR system, but, let's look at those little pesky things called
facts.
Administrative actions are already replacing legislative acts as the primary
governance mechanism. Just examine the number of regulations emanating from the
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland
Security, Department of Health and Human Services, etc, etc. Unelected officials
(unaccountable to the citizenry) all around this land are producing laws we must
abide by, or face some form of punishment, without ever coming under scrutiny by
those we elect to represent our interests (and to protect and defend the
constitution of these United States of America). By the way, governance is not
government (as Americans know government). Governance is, very simply, rule.
Many large- and medium-sized cities in America have formed Councils on
Sustainability, Councils on Urban Development, Councils on Transportation,
Councils on Economic Development, and Council, after Council, after Council.
Hmmm...most of these councils are appointed, not elected, here in America.
Just exactly what is a council? The Russian term for council is soviet. In the
Council Union (the Soviet Union), rules were laid down by local soviets,
regional soviets, and the national soviet. Notice there is no mention of a state
council. Councils (Soviets) were responsible for regions. Regions did not have
political boundaries so, for all intents and purposes, you had regional
governance, outside the political structure, unelected and unaccountable.
Today we see many acts, via legislation and administrative rule, pushing for
regionalism in America (for a more in-depth discussion of Regional Governance
see: https://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/tag/regionalism). Soviets in America are
real -- unelected councils -- and they are coming to a region near you.
The executive branch of our government has taken to surrounding itself with
"czar" policy advisors (unelected, unaccountable appointees) and lobby interests
who represent notions and desires other than those of the general citizenry. We
are being held hostage to the "revolving door" Washington power-brokers. These
folks conjure up memories of another piece of Cold-War-era vernacular:
Nomenklatura. In good ole Council Russia the nomenklatura were the perk-getters
of the Communist Party. American nomenklatura come from the vast apparatus that
feeds off gaining influence over the decisions made by the unelected. Lobbyists,
academic experts, and the bureaucrats who never have to worry about health
insurance, retirement, or unemployment. Not to neglect the courtier
corporations. They know the system and thus are able to negotiate government
contracts for more of our tax dollars (that are worth less with each revolution
of the earth around the sun). "Louis Freeh (former Director of the FBI), Admiral
Loy (former head of the Transportation Security Agency), George Tenet (former
Director of the CIA), Frank Moss (former program manager for the State
Department's E-Passport program), and many others who previously held key
positions in the federal government all joined Viisage/L-1 as members of the
Board of Directors or as paid employees of Viisage/L-1" (see
constitutionalalliance.org). Viisage/L1 is a Biometrics Industry giant.
On 01 August 2011, our federal legislators created the Joint Select Committee on
Deficit Reduction. Congress (central-committee -- for those still following the
analogy) created what has been dubbed the "Super-Congress" because, by its
rationale, the urgency of America's deficit problem cannot await action by it as
a whole body. Ladies and gentlemen, American government has created a Politburo!
The 8th Party Congress in March 1919 instructed the Central Committee to elect a
new Politburo of five from its ranks; its formal role would be to decide on
questions too urgent to await Central Committee deliberation. The Politburo soon
assumed a major position in party and state administration, and it eventually
came to overshadow the role of the Central Committee. Until mid-1990 it
consisted of about 12-15 members. -Britannica
The intent and purpose of our founding principles have been overruled. Yes, each
House of Congress can develop its own operating rules...but...these rules do not
end with this Congress and they limit input from most of the elected
representatives of the citizenry. Our politburo has virtually the same limits as
the much-used commerce clause...none. Anything and everything can conceivably be
construed as being conducive to deficit reduction policy and the sure to follow
legislation to pursue that policy.
William Z. Foster, National Chairman of the Communist Party USA, published
Toward Soviet America in 1932 to provide his thoughts on a blueprint for
transforming these United States of America into a Socialist system. In 1958 W.
Cleon Skousen published The Naked Communist to outline 45 goals for Communists
in order to transform America. Michael J. Petro Jr., U.S. Navy veteran and
writer, published Welcome to Soviet America, in 2010, to examine to what extent
the outline and goals of Foster, Karl Marx, and W. Cleon Skousen have been
implemented.
Do cvidaniya, Comrades!
Page reprinted with permission from the American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/08/an_american_politburo.html
THE SLAVE MENTALITY
By Kevin Jackson, June 15, 2010
When slavery is implemented
by force, it is certainly a despicable institution. But is it any less
despicable when the slaves are there by choice? 
NO
WONDER THOSE FINNS ARE DEPRESSED
U
of M WOMEN'S STUDIES PROGRAM
THE
"THIRD WAY" TAKES GAS
NAVAJO
NOOSE TIGHTENS
ARE
DEMOCRATS SOCIALISTS?
