Sunday, August 26, 2018

It's Time To Tear Down The Statues Of These Three Monstrous Liberal Heroes

The Left was ecstatic this week when "protestors" (read: criminal vandals) toppled a Confederate statue on the campus of University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. This, of course, is just the latest monument of its sort to be removed, legally or illegally, in the name of combating white supremacy. There seems to have been a precedent established over the past few years: if you don't like a statue, pull it down. The law will step to the side and allow felony destruction of property to occur.

There are a few problems with this precedent, starting with its uneven application. It has been open season on "offensive" monuments, only so long as they are monuments to 19th century white guys from the American south. The rather selective nature of this historical purging has led many people — myself included — to suspect that there is a specifically left-wing ideological motivation behind this outcry against statues. If it is not ideological, if our modern sensibilities simply will not tolerate statues that commemorate "problematic" figures of any sort, then why hasn't the outrage extended beyond Confederate soldiers?

Many people in the south feel that this is an attack on their heritage and history. If it is not that, if it is really just a movement against evils like racism and slavery, then all statues associated with evil should come down. This is not "whataboutism." This is simply a matter of consistently applying a principle. The statue-toppling mobs, if their motives were honest, would assemble to yank down, stomp, and spit upon the following non-Confederate monuments. Though of course I would only want this to be done legally:

1) The monument to child sex predator Harvey Milk in San Francisco.

There are actually several monuments to Harvey Milk in the city, as well as streets and schools and even Naval ships named after him. I don't suggest that we demolish the schools, streets, or ships — just rename them. As for the statues, they should be pulled down for the evils they represent.

Harvey Milk is hailed as a hero for only one reason: he was gay and he was elected to public office. He accomplished nothing else. His only notable achievement was his own political elevation, which was cut short when he was murdered by a fellow Democrat. But his minor electoral accomplishment is vastly outweighed by the fact that Milk was a pederast and a statutory rapist who preyed upon drug addicted boys.

Even Milk's admirers do not deny that he had a "penchant for young waifs with drug abuse problems." What they do not like to admit is that the "young waifs" were minors who came to Milk looking for a father figure and instead were groomed, abused, and discarded. At least two of his victims committed suicide shortly after Milk was finished with them. He was a profoundly evil and degenerate man, who, so far as anyone knows, contributed nothing of value to society, and left a trail of misery, abuse, and suicide in his wake. Stonewall Jackson may have fought for the south, but at least he wasn't a child rapist.

2) The statue of mass murderer and tyrant Vladimir Lenin in Seattle.

Lenin was a Marxist revolutionary who founded the Soviet tyrannical state that would proceed to murder, imprison, enslave, and starve tens of millions of people over the course of the 20th century. For a while, there was some effort on the Left to separate Lenin from Stalin, foisting all of the sins of butchery and murder on the latter so that the former could be seen as a pure and virtuous fighter for Marxist ideals. It is true that he was a fighter for Marxist ideals, but not a pure and virtuous one. In fact, he was a killer and a villain just like Stalin.

As noted in The Washington Post a few years ago, here is a typical memo from Lenin, sent to his Bolshevik comrades, ordering the mass execution of farmers and the appropriation of their land:

"1. Hang (hang without fail so the people see) no fewer than one hundred known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers. 2. Publish their names. 3. Take from them all the grain. 4. Designate hostages — as per yesterday's telegram. Do it in such a way that for hundreds of versts around, people will see, tremble, know, shout: they are strangling and will strangle to death the bloodsucker kulaks."

A statue to this man stands in the middle of an American neighborhood.

3) The bust of eugenist Margaret Sanger in the National Portrait Institute.

The founder of Planned Parenthood, who once proudly spoke to a group of KKK members to promote her ideas, was a proponent of the morally abominable eugenics movement. Like other eugenicists, she believed in ridding society of undesirable classes through forced sterilization and other similar methods. Sanger's apologists will point out that she denied claims of racism. That's true. Here's what she said in denial:

"The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

I'm not sure that her statement about educating 'rebellious Negros' does much to debunk the racism charge, but I do know that she explicitly desired to eradicate "undesirables," and the organization she founded would go on to eradicate well over seven million of them and counting.

Ironically, the bust of Margaret Sanger has been defended on the grounds that her racist views "mirrored her times" and the effort to remove it is really part of an ideologically motivated campaign. The backlash against the various monuments to Harvey Milk is also blocked on the basis that it is a thinly veiled anti-gay crusade. These are exactly the arguments defenders of Confederate statues make: that the troubling aspects of Confederate figures must be seen in their historical context, and the effort to wipe them from history is more political than it is ethical.

It seems that integrity and consistency demands we tear down all problematic statues or none of them. To focus just on one sort, and ignore the monuments to evil historical characters celebrated by some people on the Left, is to admit that the attack on Confederate statues is indeed nothing more than a political stunt.


Media, Bigotry, Religious Freedom, and Mike Pence
Bigotry in any form is immoral. But it’s perfectly acceptable for the media elite when the target of the bigotry is a practicing Christian. In fact, it’s fashionable in “progressive” circles to trounce those who follow Christ.

So, it’s no surprise that Vice President Mike Pence and his faith are increasingly under attack by what Rush Limbaugh aptly calls “the drive-by media.”

Mr. Pence is honest, courageous, and conservative. He is also one of the greatest and most effective statesman of our time. And at a youthful 59 years old, he still has a brilliant political future ahead of him. So, of course, the media want to politically assassinate him with their vile words.

For instance, a recent New York Times column praises a book scheduled for release later this month that belittles the vice president’s Christian faith and tries to scare readers into believing that he seeks to turn America into a theocracy, that he is determined to assert his faith on the entire nation.

If the authors of the New York Times piece or the bigoted book The Shadow President had bothered to actually research Mr. Pence’s faith, they would understand that a basic tenant of Christianity is that becoming a Christian is strictly voluntary; deciding to invite Christ into one’s heart is an act of free will.

Although history is filled with so-called Christians who have sought to force others to adhere to their religion, the Bible clearly teaches that God sees and judges the heart, and that only true confessions of faith in him are accepted. Our vice president not only understands the necessity of this religious freedom, he is a champion of it.

In fact, Mr. Pence is a freedom fighter. His record in Congress reveals him to be a fearless warrior for religious freedom and free speech on behalf of all Americans. Mr. Pence sponsored the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2011, the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009, and The Free Flow of Information Act, as well as supported other religious freedom initiatives.

In my former role as a vice president of The Heritage Foundation, I had the privilege of inviting and hosting then-Rep. Pence to Heritage to give a speech about his legislation designed to protect the free speech of broadcasters. He was bold and inspiring as he fought for the rights of people of every persuasion to speak their minds, and he remains inspiring in his commitment to this timeless American value today.

Such a commitment to freedom threatens those who seek to turn America into a government-controlled “state” where worship is allowed, but the practice of faith is not.

As the far Left becomes increasingly vitriolic toward timeless American values like “In God we trust,” marriage defined as a union between one man and one woman, and the belief that we are a sovereign nation, it also is increasing its attacks on Mr. Pence.

The problem for the media is that it’s just not possible to find anything to legitimately expose about Mr. Pence. So they have chosen to go the decidedly un-American route and attempt to discredit our vice president simply because he is a committed Christian.

One word of caution to the elitists who seek to bludgeon Christians with bigotry: The American public is sick and tired of your hatred.

Take, for example, when Joy Behar of ABC’s “The View” thought she’d get a few cheap laughs for making fun of our vice president’s belief in the power of prayer. After ridiculing him on the show, her audience revolted. ABC received so many complaints about Ms. Behar’s bigotry that she was forced to issue an apology.

While the media elite still scratch their heads as to why evangelicals support President Trump so overwhelmingly, I find myself amazed how these so-called “journalists” don’t get it.

It’s actually pretty basic: We’re tired of being ridiculed and stepped on. We’re sick of being targeted by liberal lawyers for wanting to live out our faith. We’re done with our pastors being silenced at the pulpit, of our beliefs belittled in front of our children in public schools. We’re no longer willing to put up with activists judges who deny us our constitutional rights. President Trump understands this. Although perhaps not embracing our brand of faith as his own, he is a fierce protector of our rights — more than any president before him.

And, thanks to Mr. Trump, Mr. Pence now stands shoulder to shoulder with him as our vice president, fighting to restore the free speech rights and freedom of religion for all Americans, just as he has championed these priceless principles throughout his adult life.

Mr. Trump proves every day that decent Americans don’t have to put up with the lies and hate spewed by so many in the mass media under the guise of “news.”

So to those “journalists” who seek to persecute decent public servants like Mike Pence, you can expect your ratings to continue to be dismal, and your political influence to continue to fade.

Can I hear an “Amen?”


Social Media Trickery

John Stossel
YouTube just added an “information panel” to all my videos about climate change.

We at Stossel TV do weekly videos on many controversial topics, but apparently YouTube thinks climate change is special.

The information panel seems benign — just a link to a Wikipedia page about global warming — and YouTube puts it on all climate change videos.

But Wikipedia’s page was captured by activists. It’s biased in favor of desperate alarmism. You’d have to read carefully to know that the billions we’re spending now to fight climate change will make little difference.

The YouTube information panel doesn’t mention the Climategate scandal in which scientists were accused of skewing data, ignores climate models that over-predicted warming, etc.

It basically says the science of climate change is settled.

Only near the very end does the YouTube information panel briefly mention skepticism from conservative and libertarian think tanks. But the editors don’t let skeptics give reasons for their skepticism.

It’s very one-sided.

In addition, adding these information panels is a form of bias. They don’t add Wikipedia links on Bernie Sanders’ ignorant videos on economics (this one would help, or this).

This is not a free speech issue because the First Amendment applies (and should apply) only to government censorship. YouTube is a private company (owned by Google) that can censor whatever it wants. We have several social media companies — but just one government.

I’m glad Twitter purges robots and Facebook bans posts that call for direct violence (that’s illegal, after all). But I worry when big media companies start policing content.

Recently, Facebook, YouTube, Apple Podcasts and others banned Alex Jones’ network, InfoWars, for “hate speech.”

Jones is an irresponsible jerk, but most sites didn’t ban him for any specific thing he did recently. As Robby Soave writes on, “We don’t know which statements he made were deemed hateful, or why. We don’t know if Jones is being singled out, or if anyone who said the things he said would be banned.”

That’s a problem.

Twitter permanently banned conservative commentator Gavin McInnes, saying he was “violating our policy prohibiting violent extremist groups.”

McInnes founded a conservative group, and some of its members did attend racist rallies, something McInnes denounced. I cringe at things McInnes says. But he’s not a racist. He’s a defender of Western civilization.

Real extremists like Richard Spencer laughed about McInnes being banned on Twitter because McInnes often criticizes them.

McInnes suspects extremists like Spencer get to keep tweeting because they can so easily be dismissed or held up by the left to make the right look bad. Mainstream figures like McInnes are a bigger threat to Twitter liberals, he says.

“I’m not a violent extremist. I’m not even violent,” McInnes says. “I’m just a Trump supporter who is fiscally conservative, socially liberal and refuses to kowtow to the PC left and their silly fads. That’s more dangerous to the left.”

Twitter never told McInnes what he did to warrant being banned, so we asked Twitter. They told us they have “nothing more to share at this time.”

Another recent example: Facebook censored PragerU, a conservative outlet that posts dignified videos on topics like limited government.

Facebook “shadowbanned” PragerU’s videos. That’s when the user of a platform (PragerU) assumes posts reach viewers, but Facebook doesn’t show the post to many people. Facebook tricked PragerU into thinking their messages were getting out.

Facebook later apologized, saying, “We mistakenly removed these videos … We’re very sorry and are continuing to look into what happened.”

I suspect what happened is that leftist “content monitors” at Facebook decided that fewer conservative videos should be seen. Whatever Mark Zuckerberg says about his miraculous algorithms, censorship is generally done by humans.

Private media platforms have every right to decide who can use them. But the platforms are wrong to shut down people with whom they disagree.

President Trump took to Twitter this weekend to urge open and freewheeling debate, tweeting, “Let everybody participate, good & bad, and we will all just have to figure it out!”

Trump, despite his bluster in favor of strong libel laws, added, “Censorship is a very dangerous thing & absolutely impossible to police. If you are weeding out Fake News, there is nothing so Fake as CNN & MSNBC, & yet I do not ask that their sick behavior be removed.”

The answer to bad speech is more speech. We’re better off when people speak their minds.


On Israel's Nation-State Law

On July 19, Israel's parliament, the Knesset, voted into law the Nation-State Bill. As Israel has never had a constitution, the bill became the latest iteration of the country's Basic Laws, in the form of Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People. To many, this seemed like stating the obvious. Had not Israel been created in the first place for that very purpose? The only question was, "Why had it taken 70 years to turn the obvious into law?" Well, perhaps not the only question. The next one was "Why did 55 Knesset members vote against it, with two abstentions, with a narrow majority of 62 in favour?"

Once word got out to the outside world that the Israeli parliament had dared to enact such a definition of their state, it was, for many, as if the end of the world had taken place. As if they had never known that, since the time of the Bible, the land now called Israel was home to the Jews.

Just about everybody went out to condemn the bill as racist, discriminatory, anti-democratic, and opposed to Jewish principles of egalitarianism with non-Jewish citizens. NBC News ran a headline stating: "Israel 'nation-state' law prompts criticism around the world, including from U.S. Jewish groups". On the very day the bill was passed, the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, claimed that:

"We've been very clear when it comes to the two-state solution, we believe it is the only way forward and any step that would further complicate or prevent this solution of becoming a reality should be avoided."

She did not say why Israel's being a Jewish state with equal rights for non-Jews would interfere with a future two-state solution. Rejection of such a solution has always come from the Arab and Palestinian side, never the mainstream Jewish side. Instead, Mogherini planned a meeting for September 4 with Israeli Arab lawmakers -- these being another group vociferously opposed to the new law. She does not appear to have invited any Jewish lawmakers to an equivalent meeting.

The European Union, a supra-national conglomeration that has done much good in advancing the rights of individual nation-states that emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union as a means to preserving peace on the continent of Europe, has for many years taken an anti-Israel position that serves only to encourage Palestinians who launch wars and terrorist attacks precisely to prevent a two-state solution, all the while demanding the right to abolish Israel and create an exclusive Palestinian state "from the (Jordan) river to the (Mediterranean) sea", a call for massive ethnic cleansing or genocide.

Opposition to the nation-state law was also strongly expressed by Israeli Arabs, Israeli Druze, and many Israeli and American Jews, including the Jewish Federations of North America and the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews -- in clear defiance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, even though, for example, the United Kingdom officially exists as an Anglican state, without mistreating, at least officially, any of its minorities.

In Israel, artists, authors and purported intellectuals called for the cancellation of the law. Sometimes, the language used to describe the law passed the bounds of common decency. British Jewish socialist David Rosenberg, a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn, spoke in vile terms about three Jewish UK Labour Party MPs before slurring Israel's new law:

"If [Margaret] Hodge and her sisters in struggle, [Ruth] Smeeth and [Juliana] Berger, were not craven opportunists and selective anti-racists and defenders of human rights, they might have been speaking out more, or even at all, about the disgusting and openly racist nation state bill that the Israeli government has just approved..."

One Israeli Arab member of the Knesset, Zouheir Bahloul, resigned, predicting that other Arab MKs would follow suit. He claimed falsely that the law discriminated against non-Jewish minorities. On August 4, many Israelis, organized by Druze leaders, gathered in Rabin Square in Tel Aviv to protest the law. It later emerged, however, that the rally was paid for and directed by the left-wing Anu group, a grantee of the New Israel Fund. According to Breitbart Jerusalem:

Daniel Sokatch, CEO of the New Israel Fund, issued a divisive statement calling the legislation "tribalism at its worst," a "slap in the face to Arab Palestinian citizens of Israel," and a "danger to Israel's future."

In other words, anti-Zionists tried to weaponize the new law to promote their existing agendas.

By contrast, in Saudi Arabia and the Maldives, only Muslims are allowed to be citizens. In both those countries, the open practice of any religion other than Islam is forbidden -- even Christianity and Judaism, which are supposedly accepted by Islam. In Israel, members of all religions and ethnic groups are full citizens.

In Saudi Arabia and the Maldives, only Muslims are allowed to be citizens. In both those countries, the open practice of any religion other than Islam is forbidden. Pictured: Road signs in Saudi Arabia, designating the road to Mecca as for "Muslims Only." (Image source: Peter Dowley/Wikimedia Commons)

It probably should not be a surprise that many Arab and European leaders used the passage of the law as an excuse to further their anti-Zionist agenda, but the opposition of Israel's Druze community, always the most loyal to the state, with a long and admirable role in the Israeli armed forces, as well as the anger of so many Jews both in Israel and abroad, came as something of a shock.

There is no doubt, however, that this simple law does not change anything for anyone.

On August 8, during a special Knesset debate on the law, Zionist Union party activists, led by a former Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, attacked the government, called for fresh elections, and "said the opposition would pass the Declaration of Independence as a basic law in lieu of the nation-state law." Whatever the problems abroad, there is little doubt that the decision to make Jewish identity a core part of Israeli law has intensified political divisions at a time when unity of purpose is essential for a country that still faces existential threats on several fronts.

Readers should consult the full text of the law in order to reach their own conclusions. But it may help to consider one or two key clauses from it as a starting point for our understanding of it. In reality, the only contentious clauses are those in Article 1:

A. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.

B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.

C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.

Surely we knew all this already. The passage of the law was done simply to give a firm legal basis for the creation of Israel in 1948 following the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. Its preamble states clearly that:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. [Author's emphasis.]

As for "the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine", does not Israel's Declaration of Independence (May 14, 1948) clearly state that the State of Israel "will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions", and has not Israel done exactly that, as the Druze, Muslims, Christians, Baha'is and other minorities, can attest?

Why, then, do so many around the world claim that reinforcing the fact that Israel is a Jewish state will harm the lives of its non-Jewish inhabitants? In Iran, for instance, the large Baha'i minority suffers massive persecution, including imprisonment, execution, and much more,[1] while in Israel, they have their international governing body and their holiest shrines, and bring in pilgrims from round the world.

Accusations levelled against the new law often include outright falsehoods. Daniel Pomerantz of Honest Reporting has identified a series of, shall we diplomatically call, "myths" about the law published by the New York Times, including that "Israel is a country where Jews enjoy rights that others don't have" and "a state in which Judaism is the only national expression permissible by law will, by definition, reject any minority member who wishes to be part of it". Of course, Judaism is not "the only national expression permissible by law" and more than in England the Anglican religion is. Additionally, go tell that to any of the religious and ethnic minorities who live unmolested in Israel, who serve in parliament, in the judicial system, in universities and across all sectors.

Those false accusations against Israel, however, draw attention to something else that has been grievously neglected in this debate: Israel is being wrongly condemned for something that not one Muslim state has ever been condemned for: identifying its nationality with its religion -- and in the case of those Muslim states, this is done frequently in a manner that excludes or restricts the rights, or even the very existence, of minorities.

There are currently four countries that officially identify as Islamic Republics: Iran, Pakistan, Mauritania, and Afghanistan. There have been four others, some very short-lived, in the past: the Comoros (1978-2000), the East Turkestan (1933), the Gambia (2015-2017), and the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (1996-2000). All four of the current Islamic republics are dangerous places for non-Muslims to live, with laws against apostasy, against blasphemy (freedom of expression), and, in the case of Mauritania, prevalent slavery, all of which contradict international human rights standards.

In those republics, as well as in monarchies with Islam as the official religion (such as Saudi Arabia), the persecution of heretical Muslims, Christians and Baha'is and others, is -- in direct contrast to Israel -- commonplace. The use of shari'a law to enforce human rights abuses banned under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, clamps down heavily on the lives of women, freethinkers, secularists, and all non-Muslims. Where capital punishments are carried out for non-criminal offences such as heresy, blasphemy and "sorcery", or floggings and stonings-to-death are imposed for moral infringements such as alleged sex outside marriage, including having been raped, there is a huge imbalance between Western democracies and many Muslim states.[2]

In Saudi Arabia and the Maldives, only Muslims are allowed to be citizens. In both, the open practice of any other religion, even those (Christianity and Judaism) that are accepted by Islam, is forbidden. In Israel, members of all other religions and ethnic groups are full citizens, who may vote, serve as lawmakers and judges, and more, worship in protected holy places.

It is important to add that few Muslim states are democracies in the full sense. Several are outright monarchies or emirates: Morocco, Jordan, Brunei, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait (an emirate where there is an elected parliament, but political parties are illegal), Qatar, Oman, and the 7-emirate United Arab Emirates. In the modern period, others have been or still are dictatorships: Syria, Iran (a theocracy, formerly a monarchy), Iraq, Libya, and Pakistan under Zia-ul Haq. It is only fair to state that the three most populous Muslim-majority nations (Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) are all democracies, and that some others are democracies, yet often threatened by coups d'état or growing Islamisation. Lebanon, which was a decent democracy, is now controlled by Hizbullah. Turkey, the first Muslim secular democracy, is run today by Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who recently acquired massive powers.

Furthermore, Islam is the official religion of many states: Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Iran, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Somalia, Djibouti, Sudan, Nigeria, the Maldives, Brunei, and Malaysia. Article 4 of the 2003 Amended Basic Law of the Palestinian National Authority reads:

1. Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect for the sanctity of all other divine religions shall be maintained.

2. The principles of Islamic Shari'a shall be a principal source of legislation.

3. Arabic shall be the official language.

It is worth noting a couple of things here. By "all other divine religions", the law means only Judaism and Christianity, which are the only faiths recognized in the Qur'an as divinely-revealed (though corrupted) beliefs. Israel does not impose such limitations on other religions. The elevation of shari'a religious law to a "principal source of legislation" can rule out democratic laws that contradict Islamic punishments for offences such as homosexuality, adultery, or blasphemy.

Israel, though a Jewish state, does not have an official religion -- not even Judaism. As such, it imposes no religious conformity on any of its citizens. There are secular Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Muslims who become agnostics or atheists, even those who openly leave Islam or convert to another religion, are far safer in Israel than in any Muslim country. Israeli laws -- for all of its citizens -- are made by members of the Knesset; there, the laws are debated openly and given force by an independent judiciary, just as laws are in other genuinely democratic countries such as the USA or the UK.

Finally, one crucial question remains. Several people, including many patriotic Israelis such as Tzipi Livni of the Zionist Union party, the current leader of the opposition in the Knesset, or the Likud's MK Benny Begin, have expressed the view that the law should have included the phrases "full equality of rights for all its citizens" and "Jewish and democratic state", which might have reassured the non-Jewish population. The government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, insists that it was not necessary to do this, given the presence of such affirmations in the Declaration of Independence and other Basic Laws. There are strong arguments for and against repeating it yet again, but for the moment, that debate and others related to it remain deeply divisive. Might it not be wise to consider another Basic Law in which the issue of full equality and democracy may be made even more explicit than they already are? That is for the Israeli people to decide.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: