Christopher Columbus Facts vs. Liberal Lies Corruption of Education

Christopher Columbus Facts vs. Liberal Lies Corruption of Education

The Truth About Columbus

Jarrett Stepman

The Daily Signal

Columbus is justly admired as a brilliant navigator, a fearless man of action, a visionary who opened the eyes of an older world to an entirely new one. Above all, he personifies a view of the world that many see as quintessentially American: not merely optimistic, but scornful of the very notion of despair.

When we have lost these things, when we no longer have the capacity to celebrate men like Columbus, as imperfect as they sometimes were, we will have lost what has made us great, and distinct. ~Ronald Reagan

Is this the last time we can celebrate Columbus Day?

A wave of cities have decided to remove the holiday from the calendar and replace it with “Indigenous Peoples’ Day.”

Christopher Columbus, the Italian explorer credited with discovering America, and his legacy are under attack figuratively and, increasingly, literally.

Several Columbus monuments have been attacked and vandalized around the country. The towering Columbus statue at Columbus Circle in New York City now needs 24-hour guards after Mayor Bill de Blasio put it on the list of a commission to review “offensive” memorials.

And according to Far Left Watch, a watchdog organization, Antifa and other left-wing groups plan to deface and attack Columbus statues across the country on Columbus Day.

It is unfortunate to see what was once a uniting figure—who represented American courage, optimism, and even immigrants—is suddenly in the crosshairs for destruction. We owe it to Columbus and ourselves to be more respectful of the man who made the existence of our country possible.

Once Revered, Now Maligned

Anti-American re-written history Book

A few historians and activists began to attack Columbus’ legacy in the late 20th century. They concocted a new narrative of Columbus as a rapacious pillager and a genocidal maniac.

Far-left historian Howard Zinn, in particular, had a huge impact on changing the minds of a generation of Americans about the Columbus legacy. Zinn not only maligned Columbus, but attacked the larger migration from the Old World to the new that he ushered in.

It wasn’t just Columbus who was a monster, according to Zinn, it was the driving ethos of the civilization that ultimately developed in the wake of his discovery: the United States.

“Behind the English invasion of North America,” Zinn wrote, “behind their massacre of Indians, their deception, their brutality, was that special powerful drive born in civilizations based on private profit.”

The truth is that Columbus set out for the New World thinking he would spread Christianity to regions where it didn’t exist. While Columbus, and certainly his Spanish benefactors, had an interest in the goods and gold he could return from what they thought would be Asia, the explorer’s primary motivation was religious.

“This conviction that God destined him to be an instrument for spreading the faith was far more potent than the desire to win glory, wealth, and worldly honors,” wrote historian Samuel Eliot Morison over a half-century ago.

In fact, as contemporary historian Carol Delaney noted, even the money Columbus sought was primarily dedicated to religious purposes. Delaney said in an interview with the Catholic fraternal organization the Knights of Columbus:

Everybody knows that Columbus was trying to find gold, but they don’t know what the gold was for: to fund a crusade to take Jerusalem back from the Muslims before the end of the world. A lot of people at the time thought that the apocalypse was coming because of all the signs: the plague, famine, earthquakes, and so forth. And it was believed that before the end, Jerusalem had to be back in Christian hands so that Christ could return in judgment.

Columbus critics don’t just stop at accusing him of greed. One of the biggest allegations against him is that he waged a genocidal war and engaged in acts of cruelty against indigenous people in the Americas.

But historians like Delaney have debunked these claims.

Rather than cruel, Columbus was mostly benign in his interaction with native populations. While deprivations did occur, Columbus was quick to punish those under his command who committed unjust acts against local populations.

“Columbus strictly told the crew not to do things like maraud, or rape, and instead to treat the native people with respect,” Delaney said. “There are many examples in his writings where he gave instructions to this effect. Most of the time when injustices occurred, Columbus wasn’t even there. There were terrible diseases that got communicated to the natives, but he can’t be blamed for that.”

Columbus certainly wasn’t a man without flaws or attitudes that would be unacceptable today.

But even as a man of an earlier age in which violence and cruelty were often the norm between different cultures and people, Columbus did not engage in the savage acts that have been pinned on him.

How Americans Once Viewed Columbus

For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, most Americans were taught about Columbus’ discovery of the New World in school.

“In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue … ” went a popular poem about the Italian explorer who flew under the Spanish flag. At one time, Americans marveled at what seemed like an unbelievably courageous voyage across unknown waters with the limited tools and maps of the 15th century.

It is difficult in the 21st century to imagine what Columbus faced as he crossed the Atlantic in search of what he thought was a route to Asia. The hardship and danger was immense. If things went awry, there would be nothing to save his little flotilla besides hope, prayer, and a little courage.

Most people, even in the 1490s, knew that the Earth was round. However, Columbus made a nevertheless history-altering discovery.

The world was a much bigger place than most had imagined, and though Columbus never personally realized the scope of his discovery, he opened up a new world that would one day become a forefront of human civilization.

This is the man and the history that earlier generations of Americans came to respect and admire.

Unfortunately, Zinn and others’ caricature of Columbus and American civilization has stuck and in an era in which radicals and activists search the country for problematic statues to destroy, Columbus is a prime target.

Ku Klux Klan Pushed Anti-Columbus Rhetoric

Much of the modern rhetoric about Columbus mirrors attacks lobbed at him in the 19th century by anti-Catholic and anti-Italian groups like the Ku Klux Klan.

In fact, Columbus Day became a nationally celebrated holiday following a mass lynching of Italians in New Orleans—the largest incident of lynching in American history.

In 1892—the 400th anniversary of the Columbus voyage—President Benjamin Harrison called for a national celebration of Columbus and his achievements. Americans patriotically celebrated Columbus and erected numerous statues in his honor as the country embraced him.

Though American appreciation of Columbus deepened, some groups weren’t pleased.

As the pro-Columbus website The Truth About Columbus points out, the Ku Klux Klan worked to stop Columbus Day celebrations, smash statues, and reverse his growing influence on American culture.

According to The Truth About Columbus, in the 1920s, the Klan “attempted to remove Columbus Day as a state holiday in Oregon,” burned a cross “to disturb a Columbus Day celebration in Pennsylvania,” and successfully “opposed the erection of a statue of Columbus in Richmond, Virginia, only to see the decision to reject the statue reversed.”

Attempts to quash Columbus failed, but they have re-emerged in our own time through the actions of far-left groups who want to see his legacy buried and diminished forever.

This would be a tragic loss for our generation and those of the future.

The bravery and boldness that Columbus displayed in his trek to America have been inherent in the American cultural DNA from the beginning.

We may never have the class, the taste, the sophistication of the Old World upper crust. But what we do have is a reverence for simple virtues of strength, boldness, and a willingness to push the envelope to secure for ourselves a better future than those who’ve come before.

We are a civilization that admires those who push the limits of the frontier, who don’t merely accept what is and want something more. The spirit that drove us west and in modernity, to the moon, is what we celebrate in men like Columbus.

President Ronald Reagan said it best in a Columbus Day tribute:

Columbus is justly admired as a brilliant navigator, a fearless man of action, a visionary who opened the eyes of an older world to an entirely new one. Above all, he personifies a view of the world that many see as quintessentially American: not merely optimistic, but scornful of the very notion of despair.

When we have lost these things, when we no longer have the capacity to celebrate men like Columbus, as imperfect as they sometimes were, we will have lost what has made us great, and distinct.

 

http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/06/the-truth-about-columbus/

Advertisements

Culture Wars: History Facts vs. Liberal Lies to Rewrite History

Culture Wars:

History Facts vs. Liberal Lies to Rewrite History

The Left Is Trying to Rewrite American History. We Must Stop Them.

Walter E. Williams

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” ~George Orwell

Lenin, communist tyrant

In the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, censorship, rewriting of history, and eliminating undesirable people became part of Soviets’ effort to ensure that the correct ideological and political spin was put on their history.

Deviation from official propaganda was punished by confinement in labor camps and execution.

Today there are efforts to rewrite history in the U.S., albeit the punishment is not so draconian as that in the Soviet Union.

 

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu had a Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee monument removed last month. Former Memphis Mayor A.C. Wharton wanted the statue of Confederate Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, as well as the graves of Forrest and his wife, removed from the city park.

In Richmond, Virginia, there have been calls for the removal of the Monument Avenue statues of Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Gens. Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and J.E.B. Stuart.

It’s not only Confederate statues that have come under attack. Just by having the name of a Confederate, such as J.E.B. Stuart High School in Falls Church, Virginia, brings up calls for a name change.

These history rewriters have enjoyed nearly total success in getting the Confederate flag removed from state capitol grounds and other public places.

Slavery is an undeniable fact of our history. The costly war fought to end it is also a part of the nation’s history. Neither will go away through cultural cleansing.

Removing statues of Confederates and renaming buildings are just a small part of the true agenda of America’s leftists.

Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and there’s a monument that bears his name—the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. George Washington also owned slaves, and there’s a monument to him, as well—the Washington Monument in Washington.

Will the people who call for removal of statues in New Orleans and Richmond also call for the removal of the Washington, D.C., monuments honoring slaveholders Jefferson and Washington?

Will the people demanding a change in the name of J.E.B. Stuart High School also demand that the name of the nation’s capital be changed?

These leftists might demand that the name of my place of work—George Mason University—be changed. Even though Mason was the author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which became a part of our Constitution’s Bill of Rights, he owned slaves.

Not too far from my university is James Madison University. Will its name be changed? Even though Madison is hailed as the “Father of the Constitution,” he did own slaves.

Rewriting American history is going to be challenging. Just imagine the task of purifying the nation’s currency.

Slave owner Washington’s picture graces the $1 bill. Slave owner Jefferson’s picture is on the $2 bill. Slave-owning Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s picture is on our $50 bill. Benjamin Franklin’s picture is on the $100 bill.

The challenges of rewriting American history are endless, going beyond relatively trivial challenges such as finding new pictures for our currency. At least half of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were slave owners.

Also consider that roughly half of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were slave owners. Do those facts invalidate the U.S. Constitution, and would the history rewriters want us to convene a new convention to purge and purify our Constitution?

The job of tyrants and busybodies is never done. When they accomplish one goal, they move their agenda to something else.

If we Americans give them an inch, they’ll take a yard. So I say, don’t give them an inch in the first place.

The hate-America types use every tool at their disposal to achieve their agenda of discrediting and demeaning our history. Our history of slavery is simply a convenient tool to further their cause.

Daily Signal: Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

The Left Is Trying to Rewrite American History. We Must Stop Them.

Truth in Journalism: Media Bias, the Demise of Journalistic Integrity, and Protecting Freedom of Speech

Truth in Journalism:

Media Bias, the Demise of Journalistic Integrity, and Protecting Freedom of Speech

Journalistic Integrity, Journalistic Standards, and How to Protect Truth in Journalism

Hillsdale Imprimis Part 2:

Michael Goodwin

The New York Post

Part 2: Sinking of the Flagship of American Journalism

As we know now, most of the media totally missed Trump’s appeal to millions upon millions of Americans. The prejudice against him blinded those news organizations to what was happening in the country. Even more incredibly, I believe the bias and hostility directed at Trump backfired. The feeling that the election was, in part, a referendum on the media, gave some voters an extra incentive to vote for Trump. A vote for him was a vote against the media and against Washington. Not incidentally, Trump used that sentiment to his advantage, often revving up his crowds with attacks on reporters. He still does.

If I haven’t made it clear, let me do so now. The behavior of much of the media, but especially The New York Times, was a disgrace. I don’t believe it ever will recover the public trust it squandered.

The Times’ previous reputation for having the highest standards was legitimate. Those standards were developed over decades to force reporters and editors to be fair and to gain public trust. The commitment to fairness made The New York Times the flagship of American journalism. But standards are like laws in the sense that they are designed to guide your behavior in good times and in bad. Consistent adherence to them was the source of the Times’ credibility. And eliminating them has made the paper less than ordinary. Its only standards now are double standards.

New York Times Once Had Integrity

Alas, it was a different newspaper then. Abe Rosenthal was the editor in those days, and long before we’d ever heard the phrase “zero tolerance,” that’s what Abe practiced toward conflicts of interest and reporters’ opinions. He set the rules and everybody knew it.

Here is a true story about how Abe Rosenthal resolved a conflict of interest. A young woman was hired by the Times from one of the Philadelphia newspapers. But soon after she arrived in New York, a story broke in Philly that she had had a romantic affair with a political figure she had covered, and that she had accepted a fur coat and other expensive gifts from him. When he saw the story, Abe called the woman into his office and asked her if it were true. When she said yes, he told her to clean out her desk—that she was finished at the Times and would never work there again. As word spread through the newsroom, some reporters took the woman’s side and rushed in to tell Abe that firing her was too harsh. He listened for about 30 seconds, raised his hand for silence, and said (this is slightly bowdlerized): “I don’t care if you have a romantic affair with an elephant on your personal time, but then you can’t cover the circus for the paper.” Case closed. The conflict of interest policy was clear, absolute, and unforgettable.

As for reporters’ opinions, Abe had a similar approach. He didn’t want them in the news pages. And if you put them in, he took them out. They belonged in the opinion pages only, which were managed separately. Abe said he knew reporters tended to lean left and would find ways to sneak their views into the stories. So he saw his job as steering the paper slightly to the right. “That way,” he said, “the paper would end up in the middle.” He was well known for this attitude, which he summed up as “keeping the paper straight.” He even said he wanted his epitaph to read, “He kept the paper straight.” Like most people, I thought this was a joke. But after I related all this in a column last year, his widow contacted me and said it wasn’t a joke—that, in fact, Abe’s tombstone reads, “He kept the paper straight.” She sent me a picture to prove it. I published that picture of his tombstone alongside a column where I excoriated the Times for its election coverage. Sadly, the Times’ high standards were buried with Abe Rosenthal.

Can Media Be fixed?

Which brings us to the crucial questions. Can the American media be fixed? And is there anything that we as individuals can do to make a difference? The short answer to the first question is, “No, it can’t be fixed.” The 2016 election was the media’s Humpty Dumpty moment. It fell off the wall, shattered into a million pieces, and can’t be put back together again. In case there is any doubt, 2017 is confirming that the standards are still dead. The orgy of visceral Trump-bashing continues unabated.

The mismatch between the mainstream media and the public’s sensibilities means there is a vast untapped market for news and views that are not now represented. To realize that potential, we only need three ingredients, and we already have them: first, free speech; second, capitalism and free markets; and the third ingredient is you, the consumers of news.

Free Speech is Under Assault

Free speech is under assault, most obviously on many college campuses, but also in the news media, which presents a conformist view to its audience and gets a politically segregated audience in return. Look at the letters section in The New York Times—virtually every reader who writes in agrees with the opinions of the paper. This isn’t a miracle; it’s a bubble. Liberals used to love to say, “I don’t agree with your opinion, but I would fight to the death for your right to express it.” You don’t hear that anymore from the Left. Now they want to shut you up if you don’t agree. And they are having some success.

Truth a Powerful Weapon

But there is a countervailing force. Look at what happened this winter when the Left organized boycotts of department stores that carried Ivanka Trump’s clothing and jewelry. Nordstrom folded like a cheap suit, but Trump’s supporters rallied on social media and Ivanka’s company had its best month ever. This is the model I have in mind for the media. It is similar to how FOX News got started. Rupert Murdoch thought there was an untapped market for a more fair and balanced news channel, and he recruited Roger Ailes to start it more than 20 years ago. Ailes found a niche market alright—half the country!

Incredible advances in technology are also on the side of free speech. The explosion of choices makes it almost impossible to silence all dissent and gain a monopoly, though certainly Facebook and Google are trying.

Nations Without Capitalism Have Little Dissent

As for the necessity of preserving capitalism, look around the world. Nations without economic liberty usually have little or no dissent. That’s not a coincidence. In this, I’m reminded of an enduring image from the Occupy Wall Street movement. That movement was a pestilence, egged on by President Obama and others who view other people’s wealth as a crime against the common good. This attitude was on vivid display as the protesters held up their iPhones to demand the end of capitalism. As I wrote at the time, did they believe Steve Jobs made each and every Apple product one at a time in his garage? Did they not have a clue about how capital markets make life better for more people than any other system known to man? They had no clue. And neither do many government officials, who think they can kill the golden goose and still get golden eggs.

Support Media You Like and Trust

Which brings me to the third necessary ingredient in determining where we go from here. It’s you. I urge you to support the media you like. As the great writer and thinker Midge Decter once put it, “You have to join the side you’re on.” It’s no secret that newspapers and magazines are losing readers and money and shedding staff. Some of them are good newspapers. Some of them are good magazines. There are also many wonderful, thoughtful, small publications and websites that exist on a shoestring. Don’t let them die. Subscribe or contribute to those you enjoy. Give subscriptions to friends. Put your money where your heart and mind are. An expanded media landscape that better reflects the diversity of public preferences would, in time, help create a more level political and cultural arena.

Truth about DACA: Illegal Alien Crime Victims, and 14 DACA Facts the Mainstream Media Won’t Tell You

Truth about DACA:

UPDATE:

Illegal Alien Crime Victims

Mom of Teen Murdered by “DREAMer” Protected by DACA Speaks Out: What of the Devastation of Our Family that Will Never be Repaired?

Media Lies

14 DACA Facts the Mainstream Media Won’t Tell You

DACA Meaning: Applying Emotional Blackmail to YOU

I have an idea, a little test. And I’m serious. I know a lot of you in this audience are young people, you are Millennials, some of you are college students.

Why don’t each of you take in a bunch of new roommates and provide them everything they want and need. You do it under the idea of fairness, under the idea that you may have more, you may have less, but you should do it. If free money, universal income, guaranteed welfare, unending health care, if this is the answer, you do it. Do a little test lab. Provide it for your roommates and see how it works and get back to us. Tell us how it works out. ~Rush Limbaugh

 

14 Things the Mainstream Media Won’t Tell You About DACA

John Nolte

All we are seeing from our establishment media is the usual-usual propaganda: flat-out lies,  half truths, the ignoring of vital pieces of information and points of view, and most of all, emotional blackmail.

Whenever a Republican wants to move forward — you know, pass some legislation or even enforce the law as already written, they always, always, ALWAYS have to run through a mainstream media propaganda gauntlet dedicated to the status quo, loyal only to the Democrat cause and by extension opposed to anything resembling progress.

Then there is illegal immigration, which, like abortion, the Mainstream Media treats as its own personal sacrament.  Flooding America, primarily Red States, with illegal Democrats who also serve the interests of a Big Business Complex desperate to keep wages low and unions non-existent, there is nothing our corrupt media will not do to keep that illegal flood flooding.

Emotional Blackmail

These revolutionists are using a technique that is as old as the human race—a fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave them. ~David O. McKay

And so, as President Trump prepares to keep one of his biggest promises and end President Barry’s un-constitutional Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) amnesty program, all we are seeing from our establishment media is the usual-usual propaganda: flat-out lies,  half truths, the ignoring of vital pieces of information and points of view, and most of all, emotional blackmail.

If your only understanding of this complicated issue comes from the Mainstream Media, hopefully the list below will offer some clarity and context. The first point, I think, is the most important.

1. This Is Only the Fault of the Parents

My wife was born in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, and came to America as a small child. But she was brought here by her parents legally and remained here legally until she obtained her citizenship, something she prizes above most everything else. This is how immigration is supposed to work. If you ask my wife about DACA, she blames the parents of these children who, unlike her own parents,  broke the law and put their children in this situation.

If your parents don’t pay the rent, is it the landlord’s fault when you are evicted, or is it the fault of your parents?

If your parents sneak you into Disneyland without paying, is it Disney’s fault when you are booted out, or is it the fault of your parents?

If your parents sneak you into a country illegally, is it the country’s fault when you get deported, or is it the fault of your parents?

Blaming America or Trump or anyone other than the parents for any of this, is a ruse, a con, a rhetorical trick.

2. DACA Recipients Are Illegal Aliens

This simple fact has been so downplayed and memory-holed, it just needed to be spoken out loud.

3. DACA Is a Massive Amnesty Program

Although the DREAMers are in the country illegally, DACA allows some 800,000 to stay in the country legally without any kind of penalty. Qualified DREAMers are not only given a two-year deferment from deportation, they are eligible for a work permit, which means they can legally take a job in America.

4. DACA Recipients Are Not the Children

DACA is eligible only to those aged 15-32.

A very large percentage of DACA recipients are adults, not children or even minors.

5. DACA Recipients Take Jobs Americans WILL Do

The idea that illegal aliens take jobs Americans won’t do is, of course, a lie. Plenty of Americans, most especially young Americans, would love the opportunity to work on a construction site or some other manual labor job. Moreover, if the wages were better, plenty of American would be willing to work in the fields. An untold number of young Americans who live in farm communities already do. But when you flood the country with illegal and/or foreign workers this — by design — suppresses wages to a point where only those willing to be exploited are willing to do this work for almost no money.

Nevertheless, even this lie does not apply to DREAMers, many of whom have a high school diploma or a GED, and a work permit. These are not field workers, these are hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens competing for the same jobs against the 4 million young Americans who enter the workforce every year.

6. Some DACA Recipients are Criminals

Over 5 years, between 2013 and 2017, a total of 2,139 DACA recipients lost their amnesty benefits “due to criminality or gang affiliated concerns.”

The DACA screening process is in reality a joke, a rubber stamp.

 

7. DACA Is Not a Law, It Is the Violation of Law

President Obama’s DACA program is not a law or even a policy. Rather, it is a brazen violation of the immigration law as written and passed by the American people’s representatives in congress.

People in the country illegally are supposed to be deported and repatriated into their own country. That is the law here in America. That is the law in every country in the world, including Mexico.

8. Most DACA Recipients are Not Overachievers

It seems as though every time we see a DACA recipient in the media, he or she is the next Albert Einstein, someone on the verge of curing cancer and poverty.

The reality is actually quite different:

While there are some true-life scholars in the DACA program, these are not a representative sample:

For example, one-third of the people in the study sample who are older than age 25 hold four-year college bachelors’ degrees or better. In contrast, an August 2013 report by the pro-amnesty Migration Policy Institute showed that only 7.5 percent of the 800,000 DACA-qualified illegals who were 18 or older had four-year college degrees or better. An August 2017 study by the MPI showed only 5 percent of 832,000 DACA illegals who were older than 18 had four-year college qualifications.

Also, the 7.5 percent graduation rate reported by the new study is roughly one-quarter the 33 percent of native-born Americans with four-year degrees.

9. DACA Is Wildly Unfair to Americans, Most Especially Young Americans Just Starting Out

You followed the rules. Your parents obeyed the law. You are one of the 4 million Americans ready to enter the workforce every year, eager to begin your own life, to pursue the American dream, but you have to compete against hundreds of thousands of line-jumpers for the same entry-level job.

Moreover, this flood of labor depresses your wages.

10. DACA Was Already Litigated and Debated in 2016

The American people have already had the DACA debate. Hillary Clinton promised to expand DACA. Trump promised to end DACA.

Trump won.

11. DACA Encourages More Illegal Immigrants

Although DACA does not officially grant amnesty to the children of illegal immigrants who have arrived after 2007, the message is still clear: America does not have the will to enforce its own immigration laws. Of course that message works as a magnet for illegals.  If you recall

Obama declared his DACA amnesty in 2012. Central Americans saw the announcement, read the details — and roughly 400,000 people headed north during the next four years.

Moreover, making that trek is dangerous, especially from South America. People die of exposure and are exploited, sometimes sexually, by the Coyotes they hire to lead them here.

Illegal immigration is a lose-lose for everyone but Democrats who desire the votes and business owners who do not want to pay a legal resident a fair market wage.

12. In Most States, DACA Recipients are Eligible for Welfare Benefits

AZCentral:

Once DACA applicants are approved and receive a temporary employment authorization card, they can apply for a Social Security Number. Under this number, they can report wages and pay taxes.

DACA beneficiaries cannot receive federal benefits such as welfare and food stamps. Some states allow for state-funded benefits, but Arizona specifically prohibits it.

13. Unless It Is Stopped, DACA Will Never Stop Growing

Every year, more and more illegal aliens become eligible for DACA’s illegal and unconstitutional amnesty program.

Obama’s deputies low-balled his election-campaign giveaway by initially predicting it would only reach about 560,000 younger illegals who were supposedly brought into the United States by their parents before they turned 16.

But the amnesty has already provided almost 900,000 work-permits and Social Security cards to illegals who say they are aged 36 or less. More than 92 percent of the applicants got their DACA approvals, with a rejection rate of only 7 percent. The amnesty is expected to rise above 1.9 million people as additional younger illegals become adults and try to enroll in Obama’s giveaway.

14. DACA Ignores Some Criminal Behavior

Center for Immigration Studies:

DACA applies to individuals up to age 31 (as of June 2012, so 35 now) — hardly children; consequently, many Dreamers have long-since terminated their studies and most have committed multiple felonies in order to get jobs — Social Security fraud, forgery, perjury on I-9 forms, falsification of green cards and drivers’ licenses, identity theft, etc. Dreamers continue to commit these job-related crimes right up to the day their DACA status is approved and they obtain work permits and their own genuine Social Security numbers.

In addition, many illegal aliens qualifying for DACA status have previously been arrested and convicted of multiple misdemeanors and some have previously been or continue to be associated with violent gangs, as evidenced by a report in the Seattle Times that states that over 1,500 Dreamers have had their DACA status revoked since 2012 due to their involvement with criminal gangs.

On the true merits, the DACA debate is a loser for the Left and their media — which is why the 14 facts above must remain largely unspoken.

14 Things the MSM Won’t Tell You About DACA

Families honor those murdered by illegal aliens

More DACA Facts

…2,139 DACA Recipients Convicted or Accused of Crimes…

by John Binder

…Mother of Son Killed by ‘Dreamer’ Speaks Out on End for DACA

by Michelle Moons

Father of Murdered Florida Mother Reveals Suspected Killer Was DACA Recipient

 

History Facts vs. Liberal Lies: Leftist Antifa Hate Groups did NOT win World War 2

History Facts vs. Liberal Lies

Truth about Charlottesville

MORE History Facts

Leftist Antifa Hate Groups did NOT win World War 2

The following liberal lies which Mr. Delingpole calls out really bother me.  My parents and their generation lived and fought during World War 2. They saw history for themselves, and the World War 2 Facts are: World War 2 Allies were NOT Leftist Antifa Hate Groups; Fascism and Communism are on the same side—Left. For more than 50 years, leftists have been rewriting  history and teaching liberal lies in the schools. Now politicians and delusional people are spreading these lies all over Twitter, tearing down the greatest nation on earth.  It turns my stomach.  ~C.D.

Being opposed to Antifa is no more a sign of being pro-Nazi than being opposed to Stalin automatically meant you were pro-Nazi. Anyone who doesn’t get this basic and obvious point seriously needs his head examined. ~James Delingpole

In order to defend America, which I believe is incumbent upon all of us, in order to defend America, you have to begin knowing our history. ~Rush Limbaugh

 

Delingpole: No, D-Day Wasn’t Won by Masked Leftist Thugs

by James Delingpole

Here’s a tweet to turn your stomach:

D-Day Omaha Beach

Liberal Lie #1: World War 2 Allies  who fought and defeated Germany  were Alt-Left “Thugs” fighting against the Alt-right

“Alt-left thugs” who battled Nazis

“Alt-left, violently coming at the alt-right, circa 1944.”

Liberal Lie #2:  Courageous Vets were Alt-Left “Thugs” fighting Nazis, (who they imply are alt-right)

And here – dry heave, now, I fear – is a particularly smug and noisome offering from the deputy editor of what used to be a men’s style magazine, Esquire.

“Alt-left thugs” who battled Nazis

Did you see what they all just did there? Let me explain.

Albanian history after the Great Patriotic War scarcely got a look in either because, hey, what history are you ever going to be capable of making when your economy is frozen in aspic by your Stalinist regime and your only engagement with the Western world is shooting up passing British naval ships?

Fascists and Communists are all Leftists

Why do I mention all this? Because the game Communist Enver Hoxha played in Albania and the game Stalin played in the Soviet Union during and after the Second War War was exactly the same game the regressive left is playing now.

It’s a game whereby, according to their warped rules — which they invented — you can imprison or immiserate or tyrannize or even murder as many people as you like with impunity, because however awful you are, it’s OK because you’re not Hitler.

The people on their side of the political argument — first Occupy, then #blacklivesmatter, now Antifa: all of them in fact just different incarnations of the same, hard-left Black Bloc insurgency — have done some very ugly, violent, dangerous things and are certainly no friends of Western liberal democracy. But whenever they’re in any danger of being shown up for the nasty, freedom-hating, totalitarian thugs they are, they just use the same distraction technique that Hoxha and Stalin and other evil leftists have used for decades: “Everyone who disagrees with us is Hitler.”

This line has become such a commonplace of modern leftist propaganda it has become a meme:

Jonah Goldberg discusses this in some detail in his book Liberal Fascism. It wasn’t because of their dissimilarities that the Nazis and the Communists so hated one another, but rather — see the bitter split between the People’s Front of Judaea and the Judaean People’s Front — because they had so very much in common. (The red in the Nazi swastika flag was a reflection of the party’s Socialistic leanings).

Communist Stalin branded everyone he disagreed with as a Fascist

The reason that today we think of Hitler’s National Socialists and other fascistic movements as belonging to the right rather than the left is, Goldberg demonstrates, because Stalin branded them that way. Any rival movement of which Stalin disapproved — and that included everyone from Roosevelt’s Democrats to Trotsky — he branded “fascist.”

Useful Idiots of a Vicious National Socialist Mass-Murderer

So every time a left wing person today spits out the term “fascist” and imagines that they are taking the moral high ground — what he or she is actually doing, unconsciously — is acting like just another useful idiot of a vicious, bloodthirsty, ruthless dictator who was responsible for killing millions more innocent people than even Hitler did.

Donald Trump told the truth about Charlottesville

Donald Trump has understood this perfectly well in his measured and reasonable responses to Charlottesville.

Ignorant Politicians using Fatal Dishonesty

A politician of lesser conviction would have done what the likes of John McCain and Mitt Romney are doing in the U.S. and which politicians including Prime Minister Theresa May and Communities Secretary Sajid Javid are doing in Britain.

Sajid Javid

@sajidjavid

Neo-Nazis: bad
Anti-Nazis: good
I learned that as a child.
It was pretty obvious.

Mitt Romney

@MittRomney

No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes.

Virtue signaling through the medium of fatal dishonesty, in other words.

It’s depressing enough when the regressive left plays this game. But when self-professed conservatives follow suit, we should really start to worry.

To Socialists and Fascists, the End justifies the Means

After all, the idea that organized groups of masked thugs with baseball bats and pepper spray should be given a free pass to do as much damage as they like, be it vandalizing statues or attacking people, just because they claim to be fighting against Nazis or against fascism ought to be offensive to the intelligence of anyone with even half a brain.

Yet the entirety of the MSM, vast swathes of our political class, and a significant chunk of the public appears to have fallen for it.

How Vulnerable our Civilization is to the Lies of the Dangerous Left

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection.com for another great cartoon

This isn’t just a sign of how gullible and/or ill-informed many people are, thanks to a combination of poor education, endless brainwashing, and relentless media bias. It’s also an indication of how fragile our civilization is and how vulnerable to the lies of the extremely well-organized and dangerous left.

Being opposed to Antifa is no more a sign of being pro-Nazi than being opposed to Stalin automatically meant you were pro-Nazi.

Anyone who doesn’t get this basic and obvious point seriously needs his head examined.

Delingpole: No, D-Day Wasn’t Won by Masked Leftist Thugs

If You Really Know True History, You Deeply Appreciate America

You have to know American history. You have to know the purpose. You have to know America’s place in history. You have to know why 56 men risked their lives and their fortunes and their sacred honor to declare independence from the tyranny of the day. You have to know why they did that. You have to know what they faced. You have to have a deep appreciation for your individual personal liberty.

You have to have a deep appreciation for the history of the world — which is that until the United States came along, [freedom] didn’t exist as a charter of government. ~Rush Limbaugh

MORE History Facts

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.