History Facts: Nazi Racism Ideas borrowed from Democratic Party, Planned Parenthood Founder

History Facts:

Nazi Racism Ideas borrowed from Democratic Party, Planned Parenthood Founder

Dinesh D’Souza on How the Nazis Borrowed Ideas from American Democrats

Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left and Democratic Party

Rush Limbaugh

RUSH: On Tuesday afternoon, I interviewed the author and moviemaker, Dinesh D’Souza. He has a new book coming out called The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left. Provocative, obviously: “Exposing the Nazi roots of the American left.” So I chatted with him for the upcoming issue of The Limbaugh Letter. What he said… He gave three examples of how his book is true, the allegation here that the Nazis were able to take cues from the American left.

But the first claim that D’Souza makes — and by the way, to back this up, we need to point out that militant Islam has also deep ties to Hitler and Nazism.

Hitler had an appreciation and an understanding for Islam, and there are numerous bits of evidence that recount meetings between the Grand Mufti and mullahs and Hitler during World War II. These are things not said in polite society. It’s not alleged. What D’Souza is doing — and he’s in the process of making a movie about this as well. He said it will be ready next summer, into next September, as a prelude to the election. His first contention is there are basically three examples of the Nazis, the German Nazis adopting leftist ideas from the American Democrat Party.

Fed Up with Liberal Lies

I’ll tell you why he decided to do this. He’s like everybody else in the right-wing: Fed up with the allegation that racism and all this has its home in the Republican Party. It’s the exact opposite. Racism, segregation, all of this, these were all Democrats back in the 1960s that were trying to violate civil rights and keep blacks out of universities.

Democrat Governors vs. Martin Luther King

All those governors and Bull Connor, the fire chief, turning the firehoses on African-American protesters and Martin Luther King? They’re all Democrats. D’Souza is, like many people in the right, frustrated with this history revisionism.

1) How Hitler stole from the Jacksonian Democrats of the 19th century

So he decided to write the book and do a movie about how it’s even worse than that, and his first example here is how Hitler stole from the Jacksonian Democrats of the 19th century.

D’SOUZA: Hitler remembered that in the 19th century the Jacksonian Democrats — despite the existence of all these treaties with the American Indians — essentially decided to violate the treaties, throw the Indians off their land, drive them further west. So displace them, resettle that land — and if any of the Indians remained, either kill them or attempt to enslave them. Hitler goes: “This is a fantastic idea!

“I don’t need to go to India like the British. I’ll just conquer in Europe; I’ll throw the Poles off their land, the Slavs, the Eastern Europeans, the Russians. We’ll resettle that land with German families — and if any of the natives stay back, we’ll enslave them.” So this notion — the historians call it Lebensraum, which means “living space.” But it’s basically German expansion in Europe. Hitler got the idea to do that from the Jacksonian Democrats of the 19th century.

RUSH: As I talked to him about it, I said, “Wait, is this just your interpretation? Are you looking at events that happened in America in the 19th century and then comparing events that happened in Europe in the 1940s? Are you drawing a connection?”

Hitler liked Jackson’s Treatment of the Native Americans

“No, no, the Nazis acknowledged this,” he said. The historical record is clear.” The Nazis acknowledged where they, quote/unquote, learned this stuff. His point here was that when he saw how the Jacksonian Democrats dealt with Indians, Native Americans, throwing them on the reservation, throwing them off — basically getting them out of mainstream circulation; saying, “Hey, this is a good idea.”

Now, this is going to offend I can’t tell you how many people. It’s going to light up I can’t tell you how many people — if his book isn’t ignored and if his movie isn’t. But I guarantee you, these are just things you don’t say.

2) Hitler Liked Southern Democrat Style Segregation

 D’Souza is saying these things after having been imprisoned by the Obama administration for this bogus campaign finance charge. The second example of the Nazis adopting leftist Democrat ideas was that Hitler stole the whole idea of segregation from Southern Democrats.

D’SOUZA: The Nuremberg Laws were the laws that turned Jews into second-class citizens. The senior officials of the Nazi Party get together to draft these laws.

 There was a transcript made of their meeting, ’cause they felt it was a momentous occasion: They were founding the world’s first racist state.

D’SOUZA: And then one of the Nazis in the justice department, who happened to have studied in America, basically told the Nazis: “Not so fast. You can’t start the world’s first racist state because the Democrats in the American South have already done it.

3) Nazi Forced-Sterilization and Euthanasia Laws Modeled on Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood Founder

D’SOUZA: The Nazis, in the 1930s, based both their forced-sterilization laws as well as their euthanasia laws on the models that had been created by Margaret Sanger. As Margaret Sanger said, “More children from the fit and less from the unfit,” and that’s how she viewed birth control. And not as a matter of giving every woman a choice, but as a matter of convincing the sort of, the successful and the fit to have more kids and the unsuccessful — the sick, the “imbeciles” and what she considered to be the disposable people — essentially to prevent them from “breeding” altogether.

The other idea that a California eugenicist named Paul Popenoe had proposed. He said, “We have…” He said, “We have all these useless people who are already born, and so it’s not enough to have sterilization. We have to have euthanasia. We have to kill these people off. The first people that they killed were not the Jews. They were the sick, the disabled, the group that was called “imbeciles.” And later, the Nazi euthanasia program was expanded into Hitler’s Final Solution.

RUSH: But it’s not going to sit well with people on the American left who, of course, are portraying themselves as the exact opposite of all of this. Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood are perhaps best.

Correcting Liberal Lies on History 

1) True History: Republicans passed Civil Rights Act of 1964, NOT Democrats

That is the Democrat Party — the original racists, the original segregationistssomehow have rewritten history and have ended up seeing themselves portrayed as saviors and rescuers. And the Republican Party, which did not let the Democrats get away with segregation… LBJ’s Civil Rights Act, ’64, would not have passed were it not for Republican votes. Major history revision.

2) True History: Planned Parenthood was Never about Choice . . . Especially for the Unborn

Margaret Sanger/Planned Parenthood was not about “choice” and it was not about allowing women to have control over their bodies.

Margaret Sanger was the original eugenicist in this country.

She was from Australia. Many Americans joined her in this effort to create a master race. Margaret Sanger believed in getting rid of the sick, preventing them from “breeding,” as it’s said here.

History has revised the original intent and objectives of Margaret Sanger as well, so as to prevent the Democrat Party from being harmed by the actual truth of any of these assertions.

Dinesh D’Souza on How the Nazis Borrowed Ideas from American Democrats

The Key Facts About Slavery That the Left Conveniently Ignores

Walter E. Williams

 

History Facts: Thomas Jefferson Facts vs. Liberal Lies about Black Civil Rights Advocates

History Facts, Book Review:

Thomas Jefferson Facts vs. Liberal Lies

Part 1

The Jefferson Lies

David Barton

Why does the Left continue to misquote Jefferson, accuse him of being anti-God, and attribute evil deeds to him? Because they know that if they are able to discredit and dismiss Jefferson and our other Founders, then we are that much closer to surrendering our birthright and our natural freedoms. These myths have flourished in our e3ducational institutions in recent years and have become accepted as truth. It’s a poison in our nation’s system that can only be flushed out by light and truth. ~Glenn Beck, Foreword

 

LIE:

Thomas Jefferson Was a Racist who opposed Equality for Black Americans 

In previous generations, leading civil rights advocates, both black and white, regularly invoked Jefferson as an inspiration for their own efforts, point to his lengthy record of legislative proposals and writings on the subject of emancipation and civil rights. ~David Barton, p. 119

History Facts:

1820— Missouri Compromise

Retained a ban on slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska territory (which included parts of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota).

1854—Kansas-Nebraska Act

Reversed those 1820 restrictions, allowing slavery into even more federal territory.

Lincoln invoked Jefferson to condemn that act:

Mr. Jefferson . . . conceived the idea of taking that occasion to prevent slavery ever going into the northwestern territory. . .Thus, with the author of the Declaration of Independence, the policy of prohibiting slavery in new territory originated. Now Congress declares this [antislavery law constructed by Jefferson] ought never to have been.

Black civil rights advocates such as Fredrick Douglass also regularly invoked Jefferson to assist their efforts. Concerning Jefferson, Douglass declared:

“God has no attribute that could take sides with the oppressor in such a contest. I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” Such is the warning voice of Thomas Jefferson, and every day’s experience since its utterance until now confirms its wisdom and commends its truth.

At a speech in Virginia following the Civil War, Douglass declared:

Frederick Douglass (1818-1895), former slave and abolitionist broke whites’ stereotypes about African Americans in the decades prior to the U.S. Civil War. His literary and oratorical excellence, and his dignified bearing, converted many to support the abolition of slavery in the United States. 1855 portrait. (Newscom TagID: evhistorypix007462.jpg) [Photo via Newscom]

“I have been charged with lifelong hostility to one of the cherished institutions of Virginia [i.e., slavery]. I am not ashamed of that lifelong opposition. . . . It was, Virginia, your own Thomas Jefferson that taught me that all men are created equal. . . .”Jefferson was not ashamed to call the black man his brother and to address him as a gentleman.”

Other Black Civil Rights Advocates Quote Thomas Jefferson

On numerous other occasions Douglass similarly used Jefferson as an authority in his crusade to end slavery and achieve full equality and black civil rights. Additional black civil rights advocates who likewise invoked Jefferson in a positive manner included Henry Highland Garner, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Colin Powell, and others. ~Barton, 147-148

Was Jefferson impeccable on race and civil rights? Certainly not. He recognized and admitted that he had some prejudices, but he also openly acknowledged that he wanted to be proven wrong concerning those views. Yet despite his self-acknowledged weaknesses, Jefferson faithfully and consistently advocated for emancipation and civil rights throughout his long life, even when it would have been easier and better for him if he had remained silent or inactive.

Had Jefferson been free from the laws of his own state—that is, had he lived in a state such as Massachusetts, New Hampshire, or Connecticut—he likely would be hailed today as a bold civil rights leader, for his efforts and writings would certainly compare favorably with those of great civil rights advocates in the Northern states.

In fact, if Jefferson had proposed his various pieces of legislation in those states, they would certainly have passed, and he would have been deemed a national civil rights hero. But his geography and circumstances doomed him to a different fate. Modern writers now refuse to recognize what previous generations openly acknowledged: Jefferson was a bold, staunch, and consistent advocate and defender of emancipation.  ~Barton, 149

 

Culture Wars: Liberal Lies, Multiculturalism vs. Western Civilization, American Exceptionalism, Patriotism, God and Country

Culture Wars:

Liberal Lies, Multiculturalism vs. Western Civilization, American Exceptionalism, Patriotism, God and Country

“Multiculturalism”, a poison long taught in American schools, is just a thinly veiled attack on Judeo-Christian culture. Our culture IS better than other cultures. Why? Because Judeo-Christian values, unlike feminism,  result in better treatment of women and children, and more liberty and justice for all. ~C.D.

“I declare today for the world to hear that the West will never, ever be broken. Our values will prevail. Our people will thrive. And our civilization will triumph. So, together, let us all fight like the Poles – for family, for freedom, for country, and for God. ~President Donald Trump

The West is superior to the rest of the world in every significant way, we should aggressively back our allies over our enemies, and the guiding principle of our foreign policy should always be America’s interests. No apologies. No equivocation. No doubt. ~Kurt Schlichter

The Left’s Hatred of Western Civilization and American Values

Rush Limbaugh

For those of you that are not quite sure how to define Western civilization, you have to think of people like Winston Churchill, you have to think of the founders of this country. Western civilization is simply that which led to the United States of America. It’s instrumental in the founding, the values, the overall view of humanity and the world. And it has been one of the greatest acknowledgments of the human condition in the history of the human condition, and that being the United States’ Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the entire setup of the United States of America.

There is a genuine hatred for this country and its great traditions and institutions. And it appears at first glance to me like it happened overnight. It hasn’t happened overnight; that’s the point.

RUSH: This all comes under, folks, all comes under the umbrella of what is happening to our culture, how it is being systematically destroyed. It’s been under attack for my entire lifetime and prior to that. But it has now gotten to the point where it’s way beyond even what — I thought where we are in the culture of our destruction would have to take us losing a war and the victors doing this to us. This is happening without us entering a war or losing it unless you want to call it the culture war that we are losing.

Sarah Wildman at Vox — I don’t know who is she but she’s a young Millennial writer at Vox — she said the speech often resorted to rhetorical conceits typically used by the European and American alt-right.

She called Trump’s speech an alt-right manifesto. Do you know what upset her in Trump’s speech? When Trump said “For family, for freedom, for country, and for God.” That drove them nuts. That literally sent them over the edge. “For family, for freedom, for country, and for God.” These are the people who think our education system needs to be fixed. These are the people who think that Barack Obama was the answer to all of our problems.

Amanda Marcotte:

“Trump argued that Western (read: white) nations are ‘the fastest and the greatest community’ and the ‘world has never known anything like our community of nations.’ He crowed about how Westerners (read: white people) ‘write symphonies,’ ‘pursue innovation’ and ‘always seek to explore and discover brand-new frontiers,’ as if these were unique qualities to white-dominated nations, instead of universal truths of the human race across all cultures.”

Now, once again this woman, Amanda Marcotte, in a sense can’t be blamed because she’s a product of the same education system that has poisoned her mind.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/07/10/the-lefts-hatred-of-western-civilization-and-american-values/

Liberals Can’t Deal With A President Who Takes America’s Side

Kurt Schlichter

The West is superior to the rest of the world in every significant way, we should aggressively back our allies over our enemies, and the guiding principle of our foreign policy should always be America’s interests. No apologies. No equivocation. No doubt. ~Kurt Schlichter

What are your questions?

Well, if you’re a normal American, you won’t have any questions – these truths are self-evident. But if you’re a progressive, you’re gonna have a little sissy snit fit like so many libs did in the wake of the President’s triumphant Warsaw speech. There’s one thing that always sets them off – uttering the truth/heresy that not only is Western civilization the best and most advanced culture in the history of humanity, but the United States of America is its greatest manifestation.

I served with the Poles overseas. To get those hardcore boys cheering, you gotta bring your A game. They cheered Trump. And naturally the libs lost their collective mind.

Glorious.

So, while Trump was reciting manifest truths like the fact that Western civilization is the height of human achievement and worth fighting and dying for, the liberals were their own usual enemy-hugging selves — lying and distracting. How dare America’s President stick up for America!

This [Linda] Sansour . . . symbolizes much of why liberalism is a total failure, rejected by all who are decent and normal. Leftists, especially liberal feminists, drool over her hatred of normal women who don’t buy into her evil ideology. She is the perfect heroine for a progressive movement that is based solely on self-loathing and a desire to destroy the very culture that allowed its practitioners to be such frivolous clowns in the first place.

Liberals always get supersensitive when conservatives point out their treachery and lack of patriotism. They don’t get mad because the charges are false; they get furious because the charges are true and that they’re being exposed.

That’s why they hated Donald Trump’s stirring defense of Western civilization and of the United States. They hate America, and what it stands for. Just ask them. They’ll often drop their weasel words and hedging to tell you so explicitly, assuming they think no one normal is listening. Their hero Barack Obama said as much in so many words between his fits of babbling apologies to scummy foreigners. He wanted to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America into something else, most likely some commie dystopia that would make Venezuela shudder and declare war on its own people, which means normal patriots like us. Normals instinctively understand that no one wants to “fundamentally transform” something he loves.

Perhaps that’s Trump’s greatest sin in the eyes of the left. He actually loves the United States, and acts like it.

Truth in Journalism: Liberal Lies, Intimidation Game, War on Free Speech

Truth in Journalism:

Liberal Lies, Intimidation Game, War on Free Speech

The Left’s War on Free Speech, Part 2

Kimberley Strassel
Author, The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech

In the weeks following the Citizens United ruling, the Left settled on a new strategy. If it could no longer use speech laws against its opponents, it would do the next best thing—it would threaten, harass, and intimidate its opponents out of participation.

Intimidation Game: Strategies for Abuse of Power

We’ve seen this strategy unfold, in a coordinated fashion and using a variety of tactics, since 2010.

***

1)  Intimidation by Bureaucracies

One tactic is the unleashing of federal and state bureaucracies on political opponents. The best example of this is the IRS targeting of conservative non-profits. To this day, Obama acolytes and Senate Democrats characterize that targeting as a mistake by a few minor IRS employees in Cincinnati who didn’t understand the law. That is a lie.

Congress held several investigations of this targeting, and the truth is clear. In the months following the Citizens United ruling, President Obama delivered speech after speech on behalf of Democratic midterm candidates, repeating the same grave warning at each stop—thanks to Citizens United, he would say, shadowy and scary organizations are flooding into our elections. He suggested these organizations might be operating illegally and might be funded by foreign players. He noted that somebody should do something about it.

These speeches acted as a dog whistle to an IRS bureaucracy that was already primed to act. Former IRS official Lois Lerner was well aware of Democratic demands that the agency go after conservative Tea Party and non-profit groups.

Senate Democrats and left-wing interest groups had been sending letters to the agency for months, demanding it go after the very groups it ultimately went after. And Ms. Lerner had her own biases—we know this from her recoverable emails—that put her politically and substantively in the anti-free speech camp. The result is that the IRS deliberately put some 400 conservative organizations, representing tens of thousands of Americans, on political ice for the 2010 and 2012 elections.

It is hard not to believe that this was designed to help Democrats in those elections. We know that senior members of the Treasury Department were aware of the targeting abuse in early 2012, and took steps to try to slow it. Yet those officials did not inform Congress this was happening, and chose not to divulge the abuse until well after that year’s election.

2) Intimidation by Prosecutors

Another intimidation tactic is for prosecutors to abuse their awesome powers in order to hound and frighten political opponents.

The most terrifying example of this was the John Doe probe in Wisconsin. Democratic prosecutors in Milwaukee launched a bogus criminal campaign finance investigation into some 30 conservative groups that supported the public-sector union reforms championed by Governor Scott Walker. Wisconsin’s John Doe law gave these prosecutors the right to conduct this investigation in secret and to subject their individual targets to gag orders. Prosecutors secretly looked through these individuals’ financial records, bank accounts, and emails.

Intimidation of Innocent Young Boy

Prosecutors also conducted pre-dawn raids on some of their targets’ homes. In one horrifying instance, the target of such a raid was on an out-of-town trip with his wife, and their teenage son was home alone. Law enforcement came into the house and sequestered the boy, refusing to allow him to call a lawyer or even his grandparents, who lived down the road. They hauled items out of the house, and as they left they told the boy that he too was subject to the gag order—that if he told anyone what had happened to him, he could go to jail.

We only learned of this because one brave target of the probe, Eric O’Keefe, told The Wall Street Journal what was going on. We broke that story, and it became national headline news. But it ultimately took a lawsuit and the Wisconsin Supreme Court to shut down the probe. In its ruling, the Court made clear its view that the probe’s purpose had been intimidation. The prosecutors had been sending the message: if you dare to speak, we will turn your lives into a living hell and potentially put you in prison.

Support Climate Change Hoax Or Else!

More recently we have seen this tactic in the joint action of 17 state attorneys general, who launched a probe into Exxon and some 100 different groups that have worked with Exxon over the years. The implicit prosecutorial threat: get on board with our climate change agenda or we might bring racketeering charges against you.

3) Intimidation, Blackmail by Activists

A third intimidation tactic is for activist groups to use blackmail against corporations and non-profits in order to silence them.

One subject of such attacks was the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that works to promote free-market policies at the state level. As a non-profit, it is largely funded by corporate donations. Because it is so successful, it has long been despised by left-wing activist groups.

These groups focused their efforts on ALEC in 2012, in the wake of the tragic shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida. ALEC had played a tangential role in crafting the popular stand-your-ground laws that the Left attacked after the shooting. On that basis, left-wing activists branded ALEC a racist organization and threatened to run ad campaigns against its corporate donors, branding them as racists too—unless they stopped funding ALEC. In a coordinated action, Democratic U.S. Senator Dick Durbin sent letters to a thousand organizations across the country, demanding to know if they supported ALEC and suggesting they’d get hauled in front of Congress if they did. ALEC lost nearly half of its donors in the space of a few months.

We’ve also seen this tactic employed against private individuals. One such person was Idaho businessman Frank VanderSloot, who Barack Obama’s reelection campaign singled out in 2012, following a VanderSloot donation to Mitt Romney. The campaign publicly branded him a disreputable person, painting a target on his back. Not long after that, VanderSloot was audited by the IRS and visited by other federal agencies.

California Proposition 8

Out in California, left-wing activists targeted donors to the state’s Prop 8 ballot initiative, which supported traditional marriage. They combed through campaign finance records, and put the names and addresses of Prop 8’s donors on a searchable map. Citizens on this list had their cars keyed, their windows broken, their small businesses flash-mobbed, and their voicemails and emails flooded with threats and insults. Some of them even lost their jobs—most notably Brendan Eich, the founder and CEO of Mozilla. In later depositions, many of these targets told lawyers that they wouldn’t donate to future ballot initiatives.

 So the attacks were successful in silencing them.

Note the use of disclosure in these attacks. We have come to associate transparency and disclosure with good government.

But unfortunately, our system of disclosure has been turned on its head. Disclosure was supposed to enable citizens to keep track of politicians; but if you followed Hillary Clinton’s server scandal, you know that politicians have now become expert at hiding their business. Instead, disclosure is increasingly becoming a tool by which government and political thugs identify people and organizations who oppose them.

Sadly, our federal judiciary has refused to honor important precedents that protect anonymity in politics—most notably the famous 1958 case, NAACP v. Alabama. In that case, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled against the Alabama attorney general, who had demanded a list of the state’s NAACP members. The civil rights group knew this was tantamount to making targets of its members in a state that was riven at the time with race-related violence. The Court held that some level of anonymity is sometimes required to protect the rights of free speech and free assembly. The Court expanded on this precedent until the Watergate scandal, when it too got caught up in the disclosure fad. Political privacy rights have been eroding ever since.

What Is to Be Done? Awareness Is Key

What is to be done? For starters, we need to be aware that this is happening, and that it is not random. The intimidation game is very real.

It is the work of left-wing groups and politicians, it is coordinated, and it is well-honed. Many of the targets of intimidation who I interviewed for my recent book weren’t aware of what was happening to them, and that allowed the intimidation to go on for too long.

Awareness is key.

Strip Powers from Unaccountable Agencies

We need to think hard about ways to limit the powers of the administrative state, to stop rogue agents at the IRS and other agencies from trampling on free speech rights. We can make great progress simply by cutting the size of federal and state bureaucracies. But beyond that, we need to conduct systematic reviews of agency powers and strip from unaccountable bureaucracies any discretion over the political activities of Americans. The IRS should be doing what it was created to do—making sure taxpayers fill out their forms correctly. Period.

We need to push corporations to grow backbones and to defend more aggressively their free speech interests—rather than leaving that defense to others.

Put the Onus of Disclosure on Government Rather Than Citizens

We need to overhaul our disclosure laws, and once again put the onus of disclosure on government rather than citizens. At the moment, every American who donates $200 or more to a federal politician goes into a database. Without meaning to sound cynical, no politician in Washington is capable of being bought off for a mere $200.

We need to raise that donation threshold. And we need to think hard about whether there is good reason to force disclosure of any donations to ballot initiatives or to the production and broadcast of issue ads—ads designed to educate the public rather than to promote or oppose candidates.

Expose Bullies

Most important, we need to call out intimidation in any form and manner we see it—and do so instantly. Bullies don’t like to be exposed. They’d rather practice their ugliness in the dark. And one lesson that emerged from all my interviews on this topic is that speaking out works. Those who rolled over merely set themselves up for future attacks. Those who called out the intimidators maintained their rights and won the day.

More Voices, More Vigorous Debate

Finally, conservatives need to tamp down any impulse to practice such intimidation themselves. Our country is best when it is engaging in vigorous debate. The Framers of the Constitution envisioned a multiplicity of interests that would argue their way to a common good. We succeed with more voices, not fewer, and we should have enough confidence in our arguments to hear out our opponents.

 

War on Free Speech, Part 1

 

Truth Matters: Liberal Lies vs. Citizens United, Freedom of Speech

Truth Matters:

Liberal Lies vs. Citizens United, Freedom of Speech

The Left’s War on Freedom of  Speech

Part 1

Kimberley Strassel
Author, The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech

In the weeks following the Citizens United ruling, the Left settled on a new strategy. If it could no longer use speech laws against its opponents, it would do the next best thing—it would threaten, harass, and intimidate its opponents out of participation.

I like to introduce the topic of free speech with an anecdote about my children. I have three kids, ages twelve, nine, and five. They are your average, normal kids—which means they live to annoy the heck out of each other.

Last fall, sitting around the dinner table, the twelve-year-old was doing a particularly good job at this with his youngest sister. She finally grew so frustrated that she said, “Oliver, you need to stop talking—forever.” This inspired a volley of protests about free speech rights, and ended with them yelling “shut up” at each other. Desperate to stop the fighting and restore order, I asked each of them in turn to tell me what they thought “free speech” meant.

The twelve-year-old went first. A serious and academic child, he gave a textbook definition that included “Congress shall make no law,” an evocation of James Madison, a tutorial on the Bill of Rights, and warnings about “certain exceptions for public safety and libel.” I was happy to know the private-school fees were yielding something.

The nine-year-old went next. A rebel convinced that everyone ignores her, she said that she had no idea what “public safety” or “libel” were, but that “it doesn’t matter, because free speech means there should never be any restrictions on anything that anybody says, anytime or anywhere.” She added that we could all start by listening more to what she says.

Then it was the five-year-old’s turn. You could tell she’d been thinking hard about her answer. She fixed both her brother and sister with a ferocious stare and said: “Free speech is that you can say what you want—as long as I like it.”

It was at this moment that I had one of those sudden insights as a parent. I realized that my oldest was a constitutional conservative, my middle child a libertarian, and my youngest a socialist with totalitarian tendencies.

Citizens United

With that introduction, my main point today is that we’ve experienced over the past eight years a profound shift in our political culture, a shift that has resulted in a significant portion of our body politic holding a five-year-old’s view of free speech.

What makes this shift notable is that unlike most changes in politics, you can trace it back to one day: January 21, 2010, the day the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United ruling and restored free speech rights to millions of Americans.

For nearly 100 years up to that point, both sides of the political aisle had used campaign finance laws—I call them speech laws—to muzzle their political opponents. The Right used them to push unions out of elections. The Left used them to push corporations out of elections. These speech laws kept building and building until we got the mack daddy of them all—McCain-Feingold. It was at this point the Supreme Court said, “Enough.”

A five-judge majority ruled that Congress had gone way too far in violating the Constitution’s free speech protections.

The Citizens United ruling was viewed as a blow for freedom by most on the Right, which had in recent years gotten some free speech religion, but as an unmitigated disaster by the Left. Over the decades, the Left had found it harder and harder to win policy arguments, and had come to rely more and more on these laws to muzzle political opponents. And here was the Supreme Court knocking back those laws, reopening the floodgates for non-profits and corporations to speak freely again in the public arena.

In the Left’s view, the ruling couldn’t have come at a worse time. Remember the political environment in 2010. Democrats were experiencing an enormous backlash against the policies and agenda of the Obama administration. There were revolts over auto bailouts, stimulus spending, and Obamacare. The Tea Party movement was in full swing and vowing to use the midterm elections to effect dramatic change. Democrats feared an electoral tidal wave would sweep them out of Congress.

Unable to Win in the Arena of Ideas, the Left Decides on Strategy of Smear Campaign, Character Assassination

In the weeks following the Citizens United ruling, the Left settled on a new strategy. If it could no longer use speech laws against its opponents,  it would do the next best thing—it would threaten, harass, and intimidate its opponents out of participation. It would send a message: conservatives choosing to exercise their constitutional rights will pay a political and personal price.

History Facts vs. Liberal Lies and Smear Campaign against President Trump

History Facts vs. Liberal Lies and Smear Campaign against President Trump

After decades of indoctrination in the schools, liberals know no truth at all about history, and prefer to believe lies.  Let us be diligent in studying and learning true history and its patterns, for Satan goes about deceiving whole nations. ~C.D.

UPDATE: Look what has been caused by irresponsible reporting of lies and rumors!

This hoax is getting people shot! ~Rush Limbaugh

Understanding Trump Derangement Syndrome

The following article is a bit long, but please study it carefully. It provides insightful understanding of reasons why the Left would ally itself with such dark and satanic influences. ~C.D.

Bizarre Alliance. The honest truth is: The alliance between the left and Islam can best be explained biy the overarching reality that they share a common enemy, Christianity. Thus does the left warmly sidle up to Islam, which, truth be known, were it in charge would destroy the left, throwing members of the left’s main constituent groups off buildings or hanging or stoning or otherwise executing or enslaving them. ~David Kupelian, May Whistleblower, 6.

David Kupelian on reasons the left is going insane with rage, delusion, violence

President Trump compared to Hitler in Smear Campaign

Islamists were tight with Hitler during the World War 2 era, as they shared the desire of racial supremacy over the Jews. ~C.D.

Related Post:

History Facts: ISIS and Nazi Germany

Liberal Lies

First, let’s agree on what is indisputably true: The left frequently compares Trump to Hitler, and I’m not talking about just Facebook rants and anti-Trump protest signs. The Washington Post, as I documented last October in a pre-election article titled “5 Washington Post writers liken Trump to Hitler,” spent 2016 explicitly and continually comparing Donald J. Trump to one of history’s most evil and universally reviled genocidal monsters.

In reality – Hitler murdered 11 million innocent people, while Trump, a billionaire New York real estate developer who wrote one of the best-selling business books of all time and got himself elected president, has never killed anyone.

Media Bias engages in Specific Kind of Demonization

Class warfare is to socialism as race warfare was to Nazism. Today, the leftist Democrat Party has managed to adopt both. ~Rush Limbaugh

It’s no coincidence the word “mad” is used to mean both angry and insane, for being angry enough can make you insane.

The worst, most depraved acts of evil you can think of – war, mass-terrorism, genocide – are preceded by the total demonization of the adversary, just as we’re seeing in the left’s hysterically evil characterizations of President Trump.

So “this demonization,” he said, “included two specific components:

“First, the victims had to be perceived as a clear and present threat, so that the killers were convinced they were acting in self-defense.

Second, the victims were dehumanized, so that the killers convinced themselves that they were not destroying real human beings.”

So, what does this say about the Washington Post – and others in the “mainstream media” who consider themselves America’s arbiters of truth – continually comparing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump with Hitler? Does such “journalism” legitimize threats and violent attacks on Trump and his supporters?

I arrived at this chilling conclusion: “If someone, God forbid – convinced he is a modern-day von Stauffenberg, heroically attempting to rid the world of this generation’s Hitler – were to shoot Donald Trump, would the Washington Post [and other hateful media] deserve any of the blame? I say yes.”

At war with reality

Beyond the left’s post-election meltdown and its ongoing campaign to overturn voters’ decision by demonizing Trump in hopes of crippling, impeaching and prosecuting him, there is yet a second reason the left hates the right – a reason even more vexing and profound.

It’s because these positions represent reality, truth, common sense.

Next question: Why do you suppose left-wing mayhem erupts on college campuses when conservative speakers like Ann Coulter are scheduled to lecture?

What is so offensive about Coulter’s (and other conservatives’) advocacy of sane immigration policies that riots, criminality and totalitarian attacks on free speech should inevitably result?

If you look carefully, you’ll discern that in almost all cases, it’s somebody speaking sensibly and truthfully that inspires the holy rage of the left. No such outrage accompanies college appearances by dangerous lunatic anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan or communist (and Obama pal) Bill Ayers.

No, it’s almost always a conservative and/or Christian speaking common-sense truth that reliably elicits the now-familiar hysterical, shrieking, violent response of the left.

Prick of Conscience provokes Anger

Let’s put this strange phenomenon under a microscope with one final example, to bring what is really at play into sharper focus:

For decades, pro-life “sidewalk counselors” have stood outside abortion clinics, speaking in a respectful, persuasive manner to women entering these killing facilities intent on ending the little life within their womb. Many women have been penetrated by these words and changed course; if not, pro-lifers wouldn’t engage in this kind of intervention day in and day out, year after year, decade after decade.

But occasionally, the woman entering the clinic becomes enraged at the sidewalk counselor’s plea that she spare the life of her unborn child. The woman may later swear that the sidewalk counselor was abusive, threatening, intimidating, screaming – perhaps even violent.

It’s not true, of course. But the psychic shock the woman experienced from having been confronted, however lovingly, with the truth she had been running away from felt to her like an act of great cruelty. After all, she felt awful after encountering the sidewalk counselor, so therefore the sidewalk counselor must have done something awful. Right?

Wrong. All that happened is that the conscience she had worked so hard to deny, suppress and evade popped out and spoke to her from within another person. (If you think about it, this is a key reason for Christian persecution.)

http://www.wnd.com/2017/06/understanding-trump-derangement-syndrome/

 

Related Post:

History Facts: ISIS and Nazi Germany

 

 

Critical Thinking Skills: History Facts vs. Liberal Lies, Smear Campaign

Critical Thinking Skills:

History Facts vs. Liberal Lies, Smear Campaign

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. ~Matthew 7:15,20

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. ~John 8:32

The smear was highly developed by communists in the Cold War era, and is a common practice in our society today, by politicians and by persons posing as journalists. The smear is done by people attacking those who disagree with them, frequently persons who hold to biblical values. Bible believers do not engage in this practice, because moral standards of Bible believers prohibit bearing false witness (lying).

Today smear tactics are prevalent among people who call themselves journalists, but who in reality “report” unsubstantiated rumors and blatant lies about people they disagree with.

 

Excerpt from Birthright, Part 1

Ruben grumbled as he strode over to the huge dictionary in the back of the room. Flipping the pages, he finally came to the word and read the meaning out loud: “A legendary Greek robber named Procrustes, who was noted for stretching the bodies or cutting off the legs of his victims so they would fit the length of his bed.”

“Just as Procrustes would stretch or cut off the legs of his prisoners to make them fit his bed, tyrants must stretch or cut out the TRUTH to fit the confines of their ideology—controlling freedom of speech, or people’s lives, or worse.

Alger Rotcraft explains the art of the “smear campaign.”

                “First of all, it was a mistake to try to bring them down on an issue. Stay away from the issues; don’t give them anything to debate you about. The smear is only successful if you focus on character assassination.”

 

Critical Thinking Skills

Liberal Lies vs. History Facts

                Find examples of the smear in our society today. Start by looking at anyone who speaks truth and defends the original intent of the Founders of the American Constitution. Make a list with two columns. On one side, place the statements of the person being attacked; on the other side, write what is being said about that person. Research the backgrounds of the attackers and the attacked, to examine their “fruits,” or works. Add the corresponding works in each column. Discern which are facts, and which are opinions.

Examples of Smear Campaign:

Thomas Jefferson History Facts vs. Smear Campaign

The American public was nearly deprived of the opportunity to read this book.

In 2012 popular historian David Barton set out to correct what he saw as the distorted image of a once-beloved Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, in what became a New York Times best-selling book, The Jefferson Lies.

Despite the wildly popular success of the original hardcover edition, or perhaps because of it, a campaign to discredit Barton s scholarship was launched by bloggers and a handful of non-historian academics.

What happened next was shocking virtually unprecedented in modern American publishing history. Under siege from critics, the publisher spiked the book and recalled it from the retail shelves from coast to coast. The Jefferson Lies is thus a history book that made history becoming possibly the first book of its kind to be victimized by the scourge of political correctness.

But more than three years later, it s back as an updated paperback edition in which Barton sets the record straight and takes on the critics who savaged his work.

And that’s just part of the story. Why did this book spark so much controversy?

It could only happen in an America that has forgotten its past. Its roots, its purpose, its identity all have become shrouded behind a veil of political correctness bent on twisting the nation’s founding, and its Founders, beyond recognition.

The time has come to remember again.

This new paperback edition of The Jefferson Lies re-documents Barton’s research and conclusions as sound and his premises true. It tackles seven myths about Thomas Jefferson head-on, and answers pressing questions about this incredible statesman including:

Did Thomas Jefferson really have a child by his young slave girl, Sally Hemings?
Did he write his own Bible, excluding the parts of Christianity with which he disagreed?
Was he a racist who opposed civil rights and equality for black Americans?
Did he, in his pursuit of separation of church and state, advocate the secularizing of public life?

Through Jefferson’s own words and the eyewitness testimony of contemporaries, Barton repaints a portrait of the man from Monticello as a visionary, an innovator, a man who revered Jesus, a classical Renaissance man, and a man whose pioneering stand for liberty and God-given inalienable rights fostered a better world for this nation and its posterity. For America, the time to remember these truths is now.

Rush Limbaugh sets the record straight on two more examples of liberal lies: the smearing of Roger Ailes, and re-writing American history.

The Roger Ailes I Knew

Liberals Re-write History on Declaration of Independence

Rush Limbaugh

Danielle Allen suggesting the second copy [of the Declaration of Independence] blows to hell the whole premise of federalism and establishes an all-powerful command-and-control one unitary central governing authority. And the states, to hell with ’em, all because in this copy the signers did not group themselves by state nor are the states from which they hail mentioned.

She says, “This parchment manuscript eliminates in one stroke how the Federalists and the anti-Federalists debated the question of whether the new republic was founded on the authority of a single united, sovereign people or on the authority of 13 separate state governments.” You ever heard of the Constitution, Danielle? For crying out loud, it’s a copy. Look what they’re trying to do here. Where has this thing been, anyway? In some whaler’s cabinet over on the coasts near the white cliffs of Dover in the U.K.? Well, what are we talking about here?

Look, you have a bunch of leftists searching everywhere they can for evidence that socialism and one giant, big government everywhere is the answer. And they would love it if they could find evidence or convince you that they have found evidence that even the Founders of the United States knew of the greatness and the potential of a single all-powerful government.

And one of the ways they’re going about it is prohibiting any speech they think undermines their cause,

Rewritten history of the American Revolution and World War 2

50 years of indoctrination in the schools yields bitter fruit

It is very subtle, but very insidious, intended to put a globalist spin on history for young people who come long after the events, and after decades of globalist indoctrination in the schools.

The Americans and the French are referred to as “the Allies”. This term was used in World War 2.Then this same presentation said that Cornwallis surrendered to the French and the Americans, instead of England’s General Cornwallis surrendering to America’s George Washington.

Some revisionists have also used Allies interchangeably with united nations, implying that the United Nations won World War

Culture Wars: Liberal Lies about Mass Murderers and Communism for Kids, and What You Can Do About It

Culture Wars:  

Liberal Lies about Mass Murderers and ‘Communism for Kids’, and What You Can Do About It

‘Communism for Kids’ Turns Deadly Ideology Into a Fairy Tale

Average review rating of 123 reviews on Amazon: 2 stars

For behold, they do study at this time that they may destroy the liberty of thy people. ~Alma 8:17

Jarrett Stepman

Heritage Foundation Daily Signal

In order to make the deadliest ideology of the 20th century palatable to young Americans, “Communism for Kids” is coming to a bookstore near you.

This newly released book from MIT Press “proposes a different kind of communism, one that is true to its ideals and free from authoritarianism.”

The death toll from communist regimes in the 20th century is well-documented. One study found that more people were killed under communism than homicide and genocide combined, and only 9 million more people were killed in World War I and World War II combined than under governments of this ideology.

Another study showed how the mass killings of civilians by their own governments took an immediate nosedive after the collapse of the Soviet Union and international communism.

According to the Amazon synopsis, the book weaves a fairy tale of “jealous princesses, fancy swords, displaced peasants, mean bosses, and tired workers.”

It is bewildering why MIT Press would publish a book that cutesies up the political creed that gave the world Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, and many more of the world’s most prolific mass murderers. None of these brutal dictators are mentioned in the book, according to The Washington Free Beacon.

Communism seemingly gets a pass to be re-imagined as a sweet fable while it’s inconceivable that a book called “Fascism for Kids” would ever be printed by a reputable publisher. (Fascism is very similar to communism, with a slightly different label. ~C.D.)

Marion Smith of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation wrote, according to The Washington Free Beacon:

While I can imagine a book so titled that would make a valuable contribution to a reader’s understanding of the truth about communism, the book MIT Press published is not it. ‘Communism for Kids’ whitewashes and infantilizes ideas that, when put into action, have cost more than 100 million lives.

This odd attempt to get kids into communism is unlikely to spawn a new generation of true believers on its own, but it does highlight the growing problem for younger Americans who are generally clueless about even recent history.

As The Daily Signal previously reported, a study from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that millennials, in particular, are stunningly ignorant about what occurred under the Soviet Union and other communist regimes just a generation ago.

Liberal Lies—

One-third of millennials surveyed actually believe that more people were killed under former President George W. Bush than under Soviet dictator Stalin.

If one truly wants to teach young Americans what communism is really about, it would be better to hand them a copy of the classic “Animal Farm,” by George Orwell.

The book is an allegory—using farm animals as stand-ins—about the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia a century ago. The revolutionary promise of “all animals are equal” is used to overthrow farmers, but quickly turns into a new, even more oppressive tyranny under animal overlords

A reign of forced labor, intimidation, and terror puts the animals under the thumb of their new masters—their ideals used to prop up an all-powerful regime. The refashioned creed becomes “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” In the end, human, or rather “animal,” nature proved to be more powerful than any ideology.

As the Roman poet Horace once said: “You can drive out nature with a pitchfork, but she will ever hurry back.”

This lesson from Orwell would be a much better way to teach young people about destructive ideology than a fanciful account of how “true” communism—minus the mean authoritarian stuff and mass murder—would be truly grand.

Under communism, tyranny is a feature, not a bug.

Excerpt from Birthright, Critical Thinking: Defining Communism, Socialism, and Fascism

Chapter 53—At the Memorial

                Darcy Lipscomb makes the following comment to her father: “Don’t you know that Nazism is the German word for National Socialism? Nazism, socialism, communism, fascism—they’re all the same. You know, the old tyranny thing—controlling people’s lives and stifling freedom of speech …”

Comment: In today’s society, many people think that Nazism (or fascism) is the opposite of socialism. This is incorrect. Don’t allow yourself to be confused. Darcy is right. These four “isms” are simply variations of the same thing.

Communism and socialism—all property and businesses are owned and controlled by a large bureaucratic government; the government controls the nation’s economy. Karl Marx, founder of communism, encouraged war between the rich and poor, or “class warfare”.

                Fascism (formerly Nazism)—although big businesses may be owned by individuals, they are controlled by the government, which is led by a strong dictator. In addition to class warfare, fascism includes racial strife. Fascist tyrants enforce their demands with groups of bullies, which under Nazism were called the Gestapo.

  All these “isms” engage in thought control, stifling freedom of speech, press, and religion, and persecuting dissenters, to the point of imprisonment or death. In Birthright, these tyrannical systems are called the Order of Kohor. As you study current events, history, and foreign affairs, just keep it simple by remembering that all these systems enforce their ideology with the sword, or violence.

Why the truth is not taught in Public Schools

More about Birthright

Buy Birthright here   and teach your kids critical thinking in an engaging way

 

 

History Facts: Liberal Lies re-write American Heritage; French Election a repeat of Election 2016?

History Facts:

Liberal Lies re-write American Heritage;

Liberals Re-write History on Declaration of Independence

 

Danielle Allen says that this copy where the signers are not grouped by state and are just applied randomly to the document illuminates the politics of the 1780s in a flash. Yes, you see, the list of signatories is not grouped by states. That supports the notion that the Declaration’s authority rested on one united people, not a collection of states.

Let me translate. The Harvard researcher is suggesting the second copy blows to hell the whole premise of federalism and establishes an all-powerful command-and-control one unitary central governing authority. And the states, to hell with ’em, all because in this copy the signers did not group themselves by state nor are the states from which they hail mentioned.

She says, “This parchment manuscript eliminates in one stroke how the Federalists and the anti-Federalists debated the question of whether the new republic was founded on the authority of a single united, sovereign people or on the authority of 13 separate state governments.” You ever heard of the Constitution, Danielle? For crying out loud, it’s a copy. Look what they’re trying to do here. Where has this thing been, anyway? In some whaler’s cabinet over on the coasts near the white cliffs of Dover in the U.K.? Well, what are we talking about here?

Look, you have a bunch of leftists searching everywhere they can for evidence that socialism and one giant, big government everywhere is the answer. And they would love it if they could find evidence or convince you that they have found evidence that even the Founders of the United States knew of the greatness and the potential of a single all-powerful government.

And one of the ways they’re going about it is prohibiting any speech they think undermines their cause, which happens to be speech that would happen here on this show or on Fox News or in conservative magazines. We have the New York Times actually publishing an op-ed yesterday which explained this, justified this, made the case for the explicit censorship of political speech.

RUSH: This story about the Declaration today, it’s exactly why we wrote the five series Rush Revere Time-Travel Adventures with Exceptional Americans. They are history books for young people to counter this cockamamie BS students are inundated with every day, literal lies about the founding of the country.

 

Stop the drive to re-write history and erase Western Civilization

French Election a repeat of Election 2016?

French Election Mirrors U.S. 2016 Vote

The big difference is that Marine Le Pen is not Donald Trump. And the guy that came in number one in the runoff, Macron or whatever his name is, do you know that his wife is 25 years older than he is? He was a student at age 15 and some teacher of his, they got married. She’s 25 years older. She’s 64, he’s 39, or something like that. He’d be the youngest president, prime minister, premier, whatever they call ’em, dictator of France. I’m just joking about dictator. If he wins, he’s gonna be the youngest ever.

But the establishment in France lost. It’s kind of two anti-establishment candidates running there, Marine Le Pen and this guy. This guy edged her out by two points, 23% of the vote, she got 21. The experts are all saying it’s over then, he wins the runoff on May 7. Not so sure about this. And, by the way, Obama called this guy, Macron and weighed in and helped him. And Macron turned the phone call into a campaign ad. I thought the Democrats were opposed to foreign intervention in elections?

RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, on the French election, I’m gonna get to it in due course. I’ve spent a lot of time — I don’t know why — over the weekend I wanted to find out about this. In most cases, you know, you learn enough to be able to be conversant in it, but I wanted to find out what was really going on, because I wanted to get beyond the American media coverage of this and find out what the real truths on the ground are in France about this election. ‘Cause I just don’t trust media.

Everything is written through the prism of how it can hurt Trump, how it can help Obama, how it can help the Democrat agenda. For example, what I’m talking about is this. Macron, the young wunderkind that’s supposed to be the next winner, leader of France, is described as a moderate centrist independent. That’s how he is constantly referred to in the American media.

A bird flies in front of the Eiffel Tower ,which remained closed on the first of three days of national mourning, in Paris, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. Thousands of French troops deployed around Paris on Sunday and tourist sites stood shuttered in one of the most visited cities on Earth while investigators questioned the relatives of a suspected suicide bomber involved in the country’s deadliest violence since World War II.(AP Photo/Daniel Ochoa de Olza)

Marine Le Pen, who would be for our purposes here the Donald Trump comparison, is always referred to as the extremist right-winger. Every Drive-By article about the French election describes Emmanuel Macron as an independent centrist and Marine Le Pen as an extreme right-winger.

Now, let me tell you, the only reason — and I want you to file this away for later in the program when I circle back to the French election, ’cause there are things here I want to get to first, but I just want to get a little foundation built here. The only reason that Emmanuel Macron is pretending to be a centrist is because his real party is the Socialist Party, which is the American equivalent of the Democrat Party there.

But it is so unpopular, the Socialist Party in France is so unpopular that Francois Hollande, the current president and socialist, didn’t dare run for reelection. Fifty percent of the electorate is opposed to the European Union. You will never learn that when you watch coverage of the election from Saturday in France, or Sunday. You will think because this guy won that France is gonna reject Brexit and wants to go all-in on a unified Europe, and it’s not the case.

 

Stop the drive to re-write history and erase Western Civilization