More Useful Idiots

lkj“The banner sponsors for this [Communist] International Women’s Day included a select list of 10 prominent corporate partners that served up themselves as this year’s cast of useful idiots. The list includes Caterpillar, BP, MetLife, PepsiCo, and Western Union.” Paul Kengor

GOING RED FOR INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY… AND ITS USEFUL IDIOTS

The perfect color for a better “gender world.”

Paul Kengor, Frontpagemag.com, March 13, 2017

Reprinted from Spectator.org.

The ability of the communist left to consistently dupe an ever-wider group of suckers never ceases to amaze. It’s practically another constant of the universe.

I wrote here a few weeks ago about the now-infamous Women’s March, a parade of perversity and vulgarity that erupted after the Trump inaugural in January, where none other than Angela Davis — America’s longtime leading female Marxist revolutionary — was honorary co-chair and featured speaker. Comrade Angela fired up the female faithful as they donned ridiculous pink hats and cheered her revolution. Now, this week, the female front was enlisted again, this time going not pink but red — figuratively and literally.

Last week we had International Women’s Day. If you know little to nothing of the history of this event, then you probably know more than the vast majority of young ladies and oblivious corporate sponsors tapped as dutiful foot soldiers.

The fact is that the origins of International Women’s Day are communist-socialist. That reality is so unavoidably obvious that the “About” section at the official International Women’s Day website candidly lays out the origins in touting this glorious “collective day of global celebration” and “calls on the masses” to “help forge a better working world.” Take a look at this surprisingly honest historical timeline provided at the website: Continue reading

ACLU

ACLU-1250x650“The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was founded in 1920 by leftwing activists, including socialists Norman Thomas and Crystal Eastman, lesbian social and peace activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Jane Addams, then-radical jurist Felix Frankfurter and communist Roger Baldwin.” Robert Knight

 

The ACLU’s radical roots

By Robert KnightAmerican Thinker, March 9, 2017

Examining the pedigree of groups helps us understand why they act the way they do today.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) purports to uphold First Amendment freedoms for all Americans, but its seminal doctrines and selective choice of cases reveal something else altogether.

The ACLU was founded in 1920 by left-wing activists, including socialists Norman Thomas and Crystal Eastman, lesbian social and peace activist, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Jane Addams, then-radical jurist Felix Frankfurter, and communist Roger Baldwin.

Frontpagemag.com, founded by former leftist David Horowitz, often strips bare the liberal front groups and exposes their radical nature.  Here are some excerpts from a March 6, 2017 article by Daniel Greenfield that shed some light on the ACLU’s lineage:

In 1934, Roger Nash Baldwin, Co-Founder and Executive Director of the ACLU, wrote an article for ‘Soviet Russia’, in which he quite clearly explained why he was fighting for civil liberties.

“I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which worker’s rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental. When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever.”

Continue reading

Murray, McCarthy, Middlebury

Middlebury_19187.jpg“The violence committed against Charles Murray and others at Middlebury College is a significant event in the annals of free speech.” Daniel Henninger

“McCarthyism, the word, stands for the extreme repression of ideas and for silencing speech.” Ibid

Editor’s Note: Henninger should have labeled these student/thugs “Marxist/Leninist radicals” instead of “McCarthyist radicals” who “hound, repress and attack conservatives.” The following bibliography will correct the misapplication of Senator Joe McCarthy and his important stance against America’s enemies: (a) William Buckley and L. Brent Bozell, McCarthy and his Enemies; (b) M. Stanton Evans, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and his Fight Against America’s Enemies; (c) Fred Schwarz, You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists); (d) Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel, The Venona Secrets; (e) Eugene Lyons, The Red Decade; (f) Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov, The Secret World of American Communism.

McCarthyism at Middlebury

Daniel Henninger, The Wall Street Journal, March 9, 2017, p. A 17

The violence committed against Charles Mur­ray and oth­ers at Middle-bury College is a signifi­cant’event in the annals of free speech. Since the day the Founding Fathers planted the three words, “freedom of speech” in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Americans and their institutions have had to contend with attempts to sup­press speech.

The right to speak freely has survived not merely be­cause of many eloquent Su­preme Court decisions but also because America’s politi­cal and .institutional leader­ship, whatever else their dif­ferences, has stood together to defend this right. But maybe not any longer. America’s campuses have been in the grip of a creeping McCarthyism for years. Mc­Carthyism, the word, stands for the extreme regression of ideas and for silencing speech. In the 1950s, Republican Sen. Joe McCarthy turned his name into a word of general­ized disrepute by using the threat of communism, which was real to ruin innocent in­dividuals’ careers and reputa­tions.

Today polite liberals—in politics, academia and the media arts—watch in silent assent as McCarythyist radi­cals hound, repress and attack conservatives like Charles Murray for what they think, write and say. Continue reading