What Does The NSA Know About Obama?





Obama

National Security Agency (NSA) veterans Bill Binney, Russ Tice, and Kirk Wiebe spoke at a Friday news conference at the National Press Club, in Washington, D.C., with Tice declaring that the spy agency monitored Barack Obama’s telephone conversations—and those of his wife—in 2004, apparently as a result of Obama’s run for the U.S. Senate and emergence as a major figure in the Democratic Party. This should have been big news. However, the claim was ignored or dismissed by most of the major media.

A major exception was NBC News, which posted a clip from the press conference and an item noting that “Former NSA analyst Russ Tice says that, during his tenure, the NSA had a program that spied on phone and email messages of Congress, the Supreme Court, reporters, military and an up-and-coming politician named Barack Obama.” These are sensational charges.

Jeff Mason of Reuters interviewed Tice about Obama’s proposed “reforms” of the agency, but didn’t include any comments on the agency’s alleged surveillance of Obama.

Why would the NSA watch Obama? Could it have something to do with his communist and foreign connections?

Tice, who says he supported Obama for president even though he had been a conservative Republican, told Russia Today (RT) television that “…a high-level person at NSA told me this was being directed from the vice president’s office. That would be Vice-President Dick Cheney. I don’t know that for sure, but that’s what I was told from a very senior person at NSA.” Tice also told the Moscow-funded propaganda channel that Obama may somehow be “controlled” as President as a result of its surveillance of him.

Tice cannot be dismissed completely as a nut by the Left, since he was one of the sources used in The New York Times’ reporting in December 2005 on domestic surveillance activity. The media have treated him as credible in the past. His affiliations reportedly include his roles as a former intelligence analyst for the U.S. Air Force, Office of Naval Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Jesselyn Radack, an associate of NSA leaker Edward Snowden, has defended Tice as a “whistleblower”; and Tice is featured on the site of the National Whistleblowers Center.

Tice said at the January 17 National Press Club news conference that he had “in my hand,” during his work for the NSA, the telephone numbers for Barack Obama and his wife, but that the documents were destroyed. “I had numerous phone numbers. I assume his wife’s number was there as well,” he said. “I don’t know what they did with it. I know that they were recording his phone conversations, and then they were storing the information.”

asked him about the possible grounds for NSA surveillance of Obama, such as his association in Hawaii with Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis, who was on the FBI’s security index. Tice seemed unfamiliar with Davis. I also asked about Obama’s association with communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who helped launch Obama’s political career in Chicago. That meeting was set up by Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer, who had traveled to the Soviet Union and came back praising Soviet-style communism.

Tice ridiculed the idea that there were any legitimate grounds on which to monitor or investigate Obama. At the same time, he said the agency may have been seeking something they could “use against him in the future.” He wasn’t clear as to whether or not he meant they were seeking something specific. Is there something Obama is hiding?

If the interest was communism, Tice said, then why were so many other people, including admirals, members of congress, and Supreme Court justices, under surveillance? Of course, we have to take his word that all of these people were under surveillance because he said the documentation for all of this was destroyed when he worked for the NSA.

The answer may lie in Obama’s NSA reform speech, in which the President admitted that foreign intelligence agencies may be trying to monitor his conversations. He said, “There is a reason why BlackBerrys and iPhones are not allowed in the White House Situation Room. We know that the intelligence services of other countries—including some who feign surprise over the Snowden disclosures—are constantly probing our government and private sector networks, and accelerating programs to listen to our conversations, and intercept our emails, and compromise our systems. We know that.”

So is it possible that the NSA is conducting some monitoring for the purpose of determining which foreign intelligence agencies have themselves conducted surveillance of U.S. citizens, in order to compromise or recruit them? That would make complete sense.

Tice, an analyst, may not have been in a high enough position to know or understand this. His speculation about then-Vice President Cheney ordering the surveillance is just that—speculation. And it may stem from his announced preference for Obama as president. But the guidelines under which the NSA operates stipulate that investigating an American political figure for connections to foreign terrorists and regimes is permitted and justified. Similarly, the NSA would be derelict if it did not attempt to follow what foreign regimes and movements are trying to do here as well.

While Frank Marshall Davis was under surveillance for 19 years, he may have engaged in espionage for the Soviet Union. Obama covered up Davis’s real identity when he ran for president. Although Obama publicly claimed that he regarded Ayers and Dohrn as just neighbors and respected academics, declassified intelligence in the Weather Underground case shows that Ayers, Dohrn, and their comrades had connections to the Soviet KGB, the Cuban intelligence service, and the DGI, in addition to their terrorist ties.

We addressed the matter of domestic surveillance in a column on Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders (VT), asking the same kinds of questions about NSA activities. Sanders seemed shocked that anything like this was being done. The fact is that Sanders’ extensive affiliations with Soviet front groups were more than enough to justify NSA surveillance of this senator. Other senators may have been monitored because of a massive communist spy effort on Capitol Hill.

Tice ridicules the idea of the NSA monitoring “commies” on Capitol Hill. But that should be one of the legitimate functions of the NSA. After all, the NSA’s Venona project deciphered Soviet communications with agents in the U.S., including the federal government. This effort disclosed traitors and spies. However, only Obama could order the declassification of any documents in the possession of the U.S. intelligence community about his own foreign and communist connections.

We are not holding our breath.

We also don’t expect the Institute for Public Accuracy, which sponsored the news conference, to do a follow-up on this mystery. The group is funded by left-wing foundations associated with such figures as Barbra Streisand. She endorsed Obama for president in 2012, calling him a “good man” and praising Obamacare.

 

This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission. 





New Patriotic Movie Blasts The Media





hollywood-sign

As incredible as it sounds, Hollywood has produced a patriotic movie for a change. “Lone Survivor,” the new war movie starring Mark Wahlberg, is so powerful in its depiction of the brutality of al Qaeda and its Taliban backers that it could awaken the American people to the reality of President Obama’s deliberate retreat in the face of this global danger.

“‘Lone Survivor’ leaves box office shocked and awed,” is how USA Today described its debut. It depicts the grueling training of U.S. Navy SEALs and the sacrifices that American soldiers are making to keep Afghanistan free of Taliban and al-Qaeda control.

A local Texas paper noted, “Both men and women came out of the theater red in the face from crying, some still wiping tears from their eyes.”

In short, the reaction shows that the American people are not prepared to give up on the battle against Islamic terrorism.

While celebrating American heroism and sacrifice, the film also leaves the distinct impression that rules of engagement in battles with the enemy, encouraged by a “liberal media” that puts the human rights of terrorists above the lives of our troops, threatens ultimate victory in this global struggle.

The story of Marcus Luttrell, a retired Navy SEAL who received a Purple Heart and Navy Cross for his actions against Taliban fighters, is also part of a Patriot Tour coming to various U.S. cities this year. The purpose is to demonstrate appreciation for the U.S. military and to expose the brutality of the terrorists who cut off heads and massacre their own people. This, too, is shown in the film.

The release of the film comes as a new book by former defense secretary Robert Gates asserts that President Obama doesn’t believe in the Afghanistan mission, and apparently doesn’t care if al Qaeda takes control of the country.

The movie, however, makes it clear that American soldiers fighting the Taliban believe in this mission, and understand what they’re fighting for and against. It also shows that many Afghans want the U.S. to succeed, and their country to be free of terrorist control.

The Taliban is the Islamic movement that protected al Qaeda in Afghanistan before the terrorist group carried out the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America. President Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan in retaliation for the attacks and then, with Congressional approval, an invasion of Iraq in 2003 in order to expand a military campaign against terrorist-supporting Arab regimes.

The timing of the film could not be more significant. Terrorism expert Peter Bergen has recently written that “…al Qaeda appears to control more territory in the Arab world than it has done at any time in its history.”

In a related development, The New York Times reported on Friday that the fall of Falluja, Iraq, to al-Qaeda-affiliated forces, has “stunned” American troops who fought terrorists there in 2004 and liberated the city from terrorist control. One soldier told the paper, “It made me sick to my stomach to have that thrown in our face, everything we fought for so blatantly taken away.”

The film has drawn attention to Luttrell’s 2007 book, which became a best-seller and describes in detail how he became the “lone survivor” of the mission to kill a notorious Taliban commander.

Luttrell says he is not a political person, but his book is very complimentary toward President George W. Bush and detailed in its criticism of the “liberal media” and “liberal politicians” who he says thwart victory in the war effort.

He even defends the invasion of Iraq, where he had previously been deployed, saying he saw at an al-Qaeda training camp north of Baghdad, Iraq, “evidence of the strong links between the Iraqi dictator and Osama bin Laden’s would-be warriors.” He adds, “Some of the guys who had been in Afghanistan said it was just about a direct replica of the camp the United States destroyed after 9/11.”

He went to Iraq in 2003 and Afghanistan in 2005.

Luttrell makes clear that he believes restrictions on the U.S. ability to wage war, some of them emanating from fear of the media, have put the U.S. at a significant disadvantage.

He writes that in the Middle East, a captured terrorist “knew that the way out was to announce he had been tortured by the Americans, ill-treated, or prevented from reading the Koran or eating his breakfast or watching the television. They all know Al Jazeera, the Arab broadcasters would pick it up, and it would be relayed to the U.S.A., where the liberal media would joyfully accuse all of us of being murderers or barbarians or something. These terrorist organizations laugh at the U.S. media, and they know exactly how to use the system against us.”

The “liberal media,” writes Luttrell, “knows nothing of combat, nothing of our training, and nothing of the mortal dangers we face out there on the front line.”

He says the Taliban and al Qaeda are among “the monsters of history” with their savage attacks on innocent civilians. But American soldiers go into combat with “an extra element of fear and danger”—“the fear of our own, the fear of what our own navy judge advocate general might rule against us, the fear of the American media and their unfortunate effect on American politicians. We all harbor fears about untrained, half-educated journalists who only want a good story to justify their salaries and expense accounts.”

He writes about the “media war” associated with combat operations against terrorists; when the media get involved, “you’ve got a damned good chance of losing, because the restrictions on us are immediately amplified, and that’s sensationally good news for our enemy.”

The intense fighting in the movie follows a decision by the four American soldiers on a secret mission to release a group of goat herders that stumble upon their location.

If they kill the goat herders and save themselves from an anticipated counter-attack from the Taliban, they figure the news will reach CNN and Al Jazeera, and the American soldiers will be portrayed as bloodthirsty killers. Luttrell’s fellow soldier Michael P. Murphy says, “The media in the U.S.A. will latch on to it and write stuff about the brutish U.S. Armed Forces. Very shortly after that, we’ll be charged with murder.” Luttrell says the “terrible reality” of those words hit him hard. “Was I afraid of the liberal media in the U.S.A.? Yes. And I suddenly flashed on the prospect of many, many years in a U.S. civilian jail alongside murderers and rapists.”

Luttrell’s book even predicts the Al Jazeera headline that would result if they kill the non-combatants and word leaks out:

BRUTAL US TROOPS GUN DOWN

PEACE-LOVING AFGHAN FARMERS

US Military Promises SEALs

Will Be Charged

Releasing the goat herders would mean the Americans would be fighting for their lives as the Taliban learned about their presence and came after them. The latter option is what they chose, however, because they couldn’t morally justify killing the goat herders or leaving them tied up to die. After their release, one of them is shown running down the mountain to inform the Taliban of the American presence after being released, leading to death and destruction.

As a result, three of the four American soldiers on this dangerous mission pay with their lives, fighting against a much larger force of 50 Islamist fighters. Another 16 soldiers die in a rescue mission when the Taliban brings down their helicopter with a rocket-propelled grenade.

Almost miraculously, Luttrell survives the onslaught and is saved by a local Afghan villager named Mohammad Gulab. Taliban terrorists attack the village to find and kill Luttrell, but are beaten back. Eventually, the villagers contact American forces who rescue Luttrell. His book portrays the Afghans who save him as tough people willing to stand up to the terrorists, but in need of U.S. help to prevail.

 

This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission. 





Homosexual Lobby On The Attack Again





gay pride flag 3 SC

Having suffered a major setback when Phil Robertson of “Duck Dynasty” got his job back, the gay lobby is now going for a softer target—a pro-family activist in Ohio whose book, Maybe He’s Not Gay, undercuts their recruitment efforts among kids.

Author Linda Harvey, who runs a pro-family ministry called Mission America, seems to have emerged as more of a target than Phil Robertson.

Robertson was suspended—then reinstated—from the show after making comments critical of homosexuality, some of them based on biology and the facts of life, and others on Bible passages.

The Maybe He’s Not Gay book “seeks to tell kids the truth about homosexual behavior,” Harvey says. It explains in a conversational tone why no one is born homosexual, the health risks associated with the lifestyle, and factors that may lead to same sex attractions.

Harvey asserts that the homosexual movement is revolutionary and designed to overturn traditional cultural values. “It’s a revolution, both inside the minds and hearts of today’s youth—and in our culture,” her book says.

In response, the pro-homosexual Huffington Post attacked the book as “potentially dangerous” because it suggests children don’t have to engage in dangerous homosexual conduct, and that parents can influence how their children turn out. The publication also claimed that Amazon had “pulled” the book in response to homosexual criticism.

But Harvey tells Accuracy in Media she asked the publisher to pull her book from Amazon because it “had attracted the usual ‘gay’ mob with ad hominem attacks and even numerous review[er]s that admitted they had not read the book.” She said, “They just wanted to attack the idea of a book for kids, and me personally.”

She adds, “So once the book has been out for a while, we may put it back up on Amazon and hope to get actual reviews of thoughtful people who have read the book.”

However, in the meantime, her book is available on her own website.

Last June, Harvey spoke at a press conference in front of the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Human Rights Campaign, the leading gay rights lobby, to protest the organization’s inordinate influence on the public policy debate. “Their goal is nothing less than total suppression of all opposing viewpoints,” she said.

Her book argues, “At school, in the media, in books, kids are being urged to consider whether or not they are homosexual at younger and younger ages.”

She says the “You could grow up to be gay” message is being given to children even in elementary school, “creating a lot of emotional upheaval for many” and leading some to come to the false conclusion that they are homosexual.

It’s being done “to satisfy the goals of adults who want to change society through kids,” Harvey says. “Get people to accept homosexuality at a young age, and a small group of people can revolutionize the world. Trouble is, kids aren’t getting the whole story and the facts. In my opinion, they are being set up.”

The “revolutionary” aspect is apparent in that Harry Hay, a member of the Communist Party USA and supporter of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, founded the homosexual movement in the U.S.

“As a mother,” Harvey writes, “I especially want children to gain understanding about critical issues at the right time. To withhold information from young people, or worse, be intentionally deceptive, is a profound betrayal when adults ought to have the best interests of children at heart.”

In terms of those adults, the gay lobby, which is heavily funded by Hollywood and the media, reacted with dismay and outrage to Phil Robertson being reinstated on the “Duck Dynasty” show, which is carried by the A&E cable channel.

The reinstatement occurred because hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—demanded it. Visitors to one site—www.mailtheduck.com —had a free, personalized, camouflage postcard with the message, “You Can’t Camouflage Anti-Christian Bigotry. Reinstate Phil!” sent to A&E.

Robertson’s company, Duck Commander, a maker of duck calls and other products, declared “Fan Appreciation Month” in response to the outpouring of support.

 

This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission. 





Obama, The Fed, And The Phony Economic Recovery





bernanke-trillion

In a clever display of Marxist political maneuvering, President Obama and his “progressive” supporters are now attacking the substandard economic “recovery” that they have helped create. Zubi Diamond, author of the Wizards of Wall Street, says their ultimate goal is to increase federal control of the economy and “complete the fundamental transformation of America.”

The public understands something doesn’t add up. A Washington Post-ABC poll finds that 64 percent of the public thinks federal government policies currently favor wealthy Americans, while a new CNN/ORC poll shows that nearly 70 percent say the economy is generally in poor shape, and only 32 percent rated it as good.

This is after Obama has been president for five years, trying various tax-and-spending measures supposedly to spur economic growth.

The CNN poll finds that, “Thirty-six percent said they were cutting back spending on food or medicine, up from 31 percent in late 2008, the year the housing market collapsed.” Behind some apparently good economic numbers are “the long-term unemployed, the under-employed and those who have dropped out of—or never even entered—the workforce,” CNN reports.

This is a recovery?

Businessman Zubi Diamond calls it a “phony recovery,” based on the stock market rise driven by the Federal Reserve, that clearly has failed to help most Americans.

Diamond and other critics call Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke the “day trader Fed chairman” and “Magic Ben,” for his ability to print money and propel stocks to record levels. He is leaving office on January 31, to be replaced by Janet Yellen, who promises to continue the controversial policies that have given unprecedented monetary power and influence to America’s central bank.

Obama calls inequality “the defining challenge of our time,” even quoting the pope to that effect. But his policies, as carried out by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, have clearly exacerbated the inequality he now complains about. Such a claim enables Obama to avoid responsibility for his own policies and to campaign on a platform of reducing the inequality he has increased.

Talking about “inequality” seems to be the only way that Obama’s “progressive” allies in the media, such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, can change the subject from the lack of economic progress and opportunity—problems exacerbated by the disruptions to peoples’ lives caused by the socialized medicine scheme known as Obamacare.

What liberals like Krugman want the public to ignore is the fact that the politicians yakking the most about inequality—such as Obama, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, and Democratic Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren—are backed by George Soros, the billionaire socialist hedge-fund operator who says capitalism is the major global threat. Soros almost single-handedly financially underwrites the “progressive” movement today.

The political reality facing the Democrats, as they ponder congressional elections this year, helps explain why a recent Post-ABC poll focuses on the so-called “wealth gap,” and whether ploys such as raising the minimum wage can turn things around for them. Another proposal is extending unemployment benefits.

The poll is worded in such a way as to be a prescription for more federal interference—some would call it socialism—in the economy. The Democrats, backed by Soros, believe this is how they can win.

But none of these proposals would increase the real economic growth that can help the millions of unemployed Americans get back into the economy and acquire good-paying jobs. Yellen’s confirmation as the next Fed chairman only helps the money manipulators on Wall Street, and does not filter down to Main Street, Diamond insists.

Putting the matter in personal terms, he asks, “Has Ben Bernanke’s artificially inflating assets and balance sheet in the economy reached your household and personal bank accounts yet?” He asks, “How come some communities and municipalities are filing for bankruptcy protection, and how come your personal bank account is not flooded with liquidity from the Fed?”

In this sense, he argues, the Obama “recovery” is worse than the so-called “trickle-down” pro-growth policies of President Reagan, which even the pope mocked in his recent papal “exhortation.” In the Obama economy, he says there is no trickle down, unless you have major investments in the stock market or have large accounts managed by the hedge-fund operators such as George Soros.

Diamond tells Accuracy in Media, “Do not get confused or be deceived by the rising stock market. It is not based on any fundamental recovery in the macro economy. It is artificially inflated. There is no fundamental economic recovery.” He says the “recovery” has basically consisted of the Federal Reserve assisting the stock market “with freshly minted U.S. dollars electronically transferred to a select group of primary broker dealers to replace the liquidity and buying power of the investors who fled the market due to fear and lack of investor confidence” in the wake of the 2008 crash. Diamond says hedge fund operators such as billionaire George Soros were behind the collapse in 2008, and Obama’s rise to power.

He explains, “Ben Bernanke’s rationale for doing this is to artificially inflate assets and balance sheets in the economy to create a wealth effect that will spur spending and economic growth.” In this Fed-induced stock market rally, he says, “the fact that the stock price of a particular company is rising does not necessarily mean the company is profitable or that the economy is doing well.”

Diamond, with 15 years of financial market experience, cautions people not to be confused by media misreporting: “When a talking head analyst points to the rising stock price of the electronics retailer Best Buy as proof the company is doing great business, and proof of healthy consumer spending, nothing can be further from the truth. Best Buy is losing money and closing down a lot of stores.”

“Since the Federal Reserve began their asset (stock) purchase program coupled with stock price manipulations, good earnings for the publicly traded companies do not really matter,” he says. “The price to earnings ratio valuation does not really matter, either. A fundamental or technical analysis of stocks or the market indexes does not really matter. The only thing that really matters is the activities of the world’s central banks led by Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke.”

This is being done, Diamond maintains, because certain actors on Wall Street, like the hedge fund operators in the Managed Funds Association, want to see Obama turn the U.S. economy into a top-down command-and-control socialist-style system that eventually includes nationalization of the big banks.

“If the Federal Reserve continues the QE [quantitative easing] stock buying program in 2014, they will be holding up the economy artificially to lull you to complacency while the enemy of freedom remains in power to complete his fundamental transformation of America,” he says. “Things are not what they seem.”

 

This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission. 





Ripping Off the “Progressive” Mask





Photo credit: Kevdiaphoto (Creative Commons)

In a column on the “remarkable lives” of some people who passed away in 2013, Republican strategist Karl Rove writes that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, in concert with Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and Pope John Paul II, “transformed the world.” He’s right that Reagan, Bush, Thatcher, and the Pope did transform the world. In saying that Thatcher stood up to Soviet communism, however, he neglected to mention that the Soviet Communists fought back, attempting to assassinate Pope John Paul II. The Soviets lied about their involvement in this plot.

Referring to Nelson Mandela, Rove says he “spent 26 years in prison before emerging to end apartheid and serve as the first president of a multiracial South African democracy.” However, Mandela’s debt to Soviet communism, which armed his movement, went unmentioned in Rove’s Wall Street Journal column. Rove also failed to note that the communists who run South Africa today counted Mandela as one of their own. The “democratic” South Africa of today is effectively a one-party state, and the white minority is under siege and facing genocide.

Rove writes that Mandela went “on trial for his life,” neglecting to mention that he was convicted of terrorism and could have been hanged for his crimes. Instead, Mandela received a prison sentence. The white government was actually quite lenient and offered to release him if he would renounce violence and terrorism. He never did. His terrorism cost innocent lives.

Karl Rove should know better, and probably does. He apparently has his own reasons for shading the truth. Those reasons include appearing to be “moderate” in one’s public comments and accepting certain myths about public figures. That means, in Mandela’s case, accepting his false claim that he never joined the Communist Party of South Africa.

It is a sad fact that telling a lie these days has become more convenient than telling the truth. This is a terrible commentary on those with access to our major media.

Consider the coverage of the inauguration of Bill de Blasio as New York City’s mayor. The term “progressive” is used in most accounts to describe him and his backers. De Blasio accepts that term. Yet, by any objective measure, he is a dedicated Marxist, and has been for most of his life. For example, he never disavowed his support for the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua. He claims to have honeymooned in communist Cuba, when such a trip was illegal. His wife was a member of a Marxist collective.

As if to demonstrate that his views haven’t changed, one of de Blasio’s inauguration speakers was the entertainer Harry Belafonte, who performed at a “concert for peace” in communist East Germany in 1983. He claims he did not join the Communist Party USA, but acknowledges in his book My Song: A Memoir that he used to attend lectures in 1947 at the Jefferson School in New York City. He says the Jefferson School “openly billed itself as an institute of Marxist thought affiliated with the American Communist party.” He says he heard such speakers as I.F. Stone, the so-called “independent journalist” later unmasked as a Soviet intelligence agent.

At the time he attended lectures at the Jefferson School, Russia “seemed to be leading the way” internationally in achieving a “classless society,” Belafonte writes in his book.

Belafonte also endorsed and raised money for Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren when she was running for that office. The Massachusetts GOP tried to make that an issue, but the media paid no attention.

When it comes to children, the truth has to be concealed as well. Indeed, this target audience has to be “educated” intensively to become young recruits to the “progressive” movement.

Consider that a firm called Bluewater Productions has released a new “tribute comic book biography” on Nelson Mandela, insisting on page nine that Mandela was “never a communist himself” but only worked with the communists. The fact is that the South African Communist Party and the African National Congress have both acknowledged his membership on the SACP’s central committee. Mandela lied about it all his life.

Bluewater publisher Darren G. Davis calls the comic book “a great tool for kids to read about him in a different medium.” He adds that, “Our biography comic books are now taught in schools and libraries for students and reluctant readers.”

I asked Davis why the comic book lies about Mandela’s membership in the Communist Party. He told me, “I will check with the writer on that and get back to you on it.” That was over two weeks ago. Clearly, they have no justification for this striking omission.

It would seem to be important for our young people to understand the role that communism played, and continues to play, in national and world events. After all, this philosophy killed more than 100 million people, made millions more economically destitute, and continues to deny freedom to more than one billion people worldwide.

If used in schools and libraries, this comic book will deceive “students and reluctant readers” about how communism has come to power in South Africa. What purpose is served by that? It will enable the same forces to make even more gains around the world, including in the United States, by operating as “progressives.”

Part of Rove’s column was devoted to remembering two conservative businessmen, Bob Perry and Harold Simmons, who died in 2013 and were “passionate about their state and country and were generous donors to conservative candidates and causes, including American Crossroads.”

Rove is referring to his own political campaign organization, which refused to call President Obama a Marxist when buying millions of dollars of advertising against him during the 2012 presidential campaign. As a result, Obama and the George Soros-funded “progressives” won.

Rove says about Perry and Simmons, “These two self-made men never forgot that from those to whom much is given, much is required.” But the $300 million that went to Rove in 2012 was mostly wasted.

What the country desperately needs are donors willing to underwrite the organizations that are not afraid to tell the truth about the dangers we face. Being polite and politically correct when the survival of our nation’s democratic institutions and traditional values are at stake is nothing less than national suicide.

The “progressives” have to be exposed as the hard-core Marxists they are.

 

This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

 

Photo credit: Kevdiaphoto (Creative Commons)