Bring Back the HUAC

In the years immediately following World War II, most American were understandably  concerned about Communist infiltration at the highest levels of the U.S. government.  For example, how could anyone forget the photograph taken at the Yalta Conference, February 4-11, 1945, in which Alger Hiss, a deep-cover Soviet agent, was seen leaning over FDR’s shoulder, whispering advice to him as he negotiated with Churchill and Stalin?  Hiss served as Roosevelt’s senior advisor on political affairs.

Roosevelt arrived in Yalta carrying copies of the Morgenthau Plan, which advocated that the post-war occupation of Germany include measures to eradicate Germany’s ability to wage war, and to remove or destroy other key industries basic to military strength.  The Morgenthau Plan was the brainchild of yet another deep-cover Soviet spy in the highest echelons of the Roosevelt administration, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White.

But it was not until the Cold War and the US-Soviet arms race became a fact of life that most Americans became fully aware of the dangers of Soviet expansionism and the extent to which Soviet agents had infiltrated the U.S. government.  It was then that Congress took steps to facilitate the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), created in 1938, with the passage of the Communist Control Act of 1954, and similar measures.

The HUAC was abolished in 1975, but now, in the early years of the 21st century, we find ourselves confronted by an enemy every bit as ruthless as the enemies we faced in World War II and the Cold War, but far more numerous.  If, as some Muslim apologists suggest, only 5 percent of the world’s Muslim population are radicalized, the number of potential airplane hijackers, suicide bombers, and jihadists we face is approximately 70 million.  In World War II, the combined military forces of the Germans, Japanese, and Italians numbered only 31.4 million.

A recent article in Investor’s Business Daily, describes the recent formation of the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO).  It provides a clear insight into how far Muslim infiltration of the U.S. has advanced.  The report tells us that, “With an eye toward the 2016 election, the radical Muslim Brotherhood has built the framework for a political party in America that seeks to turn Muslims into an Islamist voting bloc.”

IBD cautions, “This development bears careful monitoring in light of the U.S. Brotherhood’s recently exposed goal of waging a ‘civilization jihad’ against America that explicitly calls for infiltrating the U.S. political system and ‘destroying (it) from within.’ ”  The IBD article explains that this subversive plan was spelled out in hundreds of pages of documents seized by the FBI during a raid on a Muslim Brotherhood leader’s home in a Washington suburb after 9/11.

The article goes on to quote Nihad Awad, Founder and Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as saying, “Muslim voters have the potential to be swing voters in 2016.  We are aiming to bring more participation from the Muslim community.”

One might ask, “Is that a proffer, available to the highest bidder?”  Liberals and Democrats have always been known for their willingness to embrace almost any special interest agenda so long as that special interest brings enough money and votes to the table.  Is it possible that they might be tempted to adopt the cause of radical Islam, ignoring the fact that they and their families are as much targets of radical Islam as conservatives and Republicans?

The Democratic Party has been very successful at tap-dancing around the disparate interests of a large coalition of special interests, each demanding some self-serving policy or program from government.  However, it is probably too much of a stretch to think that they would be so reckless as to adopt the anti-American, counter-cultural, agenda of radical Islam.  Given the danger that radical Islam represents, they would do so at their own peril.  Even they are smart enough to understand that an ant should not contemplate swallowing an elephant.

Such was the case when the Communist Control Act of 1954 was under consideration.  The Communist threat during the early years of the Cold War led most liberals to overlook the fact that the CCA suspended citizenship rights of Communist Party members.  Few liberals and Democrats offered more than token opposition; most ardently supported the CCA, as they did the unconscionable internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

The Communist Control Act of 1954 made membership in the Communist Party a criminal act, conviction of which carried a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for five years, or both.  However, it should be noted that, while no administration has ever attempted to enforce it, the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of the CCA.  Provisions of the act outlawing the Communist Party have not been repealed and could easily be customized in our efforts to protect our country and our culture from the internal threat posed by radical Islam.

Reading Section 2 of the CCA, it is easy to see how the act could be tailored to meet the threat of Islamic jihad.  By removing references to Communists and the Communist Party and substituting references to Islam, Section 2 of the Act could be paraphrased to read as follows:

Sec. 2. The Congress hereby finds and declares that Islam, although purportedly a religious sect, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States.  It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to individuals of other religious denominations, but denying to all others the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.  Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, the policies and programs of Islam are secretly prescribed by the foreign leaders of Islam.  Its members have no part in determining its goals and are not permitted to voice dissent to Muslim objectives.  Unlike members of political parties, members of the Islamic community are recruited for indoctrination with respect to Islamic objectives and are organized, instructed, and disciplined to carry out assignments given them by their leaders, including the order to kill and maim innocent men, women, and children by acting as suicide bombers.  Unlike political parties, Islamic jihad acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members.  As a segment of the U.S. population, Islam is relatively small numerically and gives scant indication of its capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means.  The peril inherent in the existence of Islam arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence.  Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States.  It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of Islam, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services.  Therefore, the organization known as Islam shall be outlawed in the United States.

As the prominent sociologist, Ernest van den Haag said at the time of passage of the CCA, there is “no place in a democracy for those who want to abolish [it], even with a peaceful vote.”  Nor is there a place in a democracy for Islamists who acknowledge no respect for U.S. constitutional principles or the rule of law.

Perhaps the next Republican president will sign legislation expanding the Communist Control Act of 1954 to cover the activities of radical Islam.  His signing statement might echo President Eisenhower’s CCA signing statement of August 24, 1954, declaring, “The American people are determined to eliminate from their midst organizations which, purporting to be “religious,” in the accepted sense of that term, are actually conspirators dedicated to the destruction of our form of government by violence and force…”

The Muslim infiltration of old Europe is such that some very old cultures are in serious danger of extinction.  In Sweden, for example, one in every four Swedish women are victims of sexual assault, while more than three out of four convicted rapists in Sweden are Muslim immigrants from North African nations.  They demonstrate no respect whatsoever for the people or the laws of nations that have thrown their doors open to them, making the great liberal experiment in multiculturalism a complete failure.

Radical Islam poses a clear and present danger to the lives and property of the American people, and to the continued existence of western civilization.  So that the American people can be fully cognizant of the subversive activities of Islamic jihad and to the dangers posed thereby, the Congress should take immediate steps to outlaw Islamic fundamentalism and to document its eradication by reestablishing the House Un-American Activities Committee.

It matters little to Muslims whether the conquest of the West takes 10 years, 100 years, or 1,000 years.  They have endless patience and the only way to deal with the threat is to confront it courageously and forthrightly.  Islam must be made to understand that they will never gain full  acceptance in the Western world until such time as they renounce all forms of violence against non-Muslims, and Christians, Jews, and other religious denominations are accorded full religious freedom throughout the Muslim world.  That is the line in the sand that must be drawn… nothing less will suffice.

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

Obama’s Chickens Have Come Home

In a March 26, 2014 article for The Jerusalem Post, titled Column One: Campus Brownshirts Rising, writer Caroline Glick reports on the efforts of Vassar College Earth sciences professor Jill Schneiderman’s abortive attempt to arrange a field trip to Israel to study water supply issues in the Holy Land.

The trouble started when Professor Schneiderman conducted a pre-trip seminar for students who intended to participate in the field trip to Israel.  When the Vassar student chapter of an anti-Semitic hate group, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), picketed her seminar, pressuring Earth science students to drop Schneiderman’s class and to forego any plans to travel to Israel, Schneiderman complained to Vassar college administrators, seeking redress for her students whose civil rights and academic freedom were under attack by the SJP.

Instead of taking action against the thuggish actions of the pro-Palestinian students, college administrators once again demonstrated the sort of cowardice that has become so common among college and university administrators across the country.  They referred the issue to the college’s Committee on Inclusion and Excellence.  But when those vested with the responsibility for “inclusion and excellence” at Vassar convened to discuss the anti-Semitic outrage, Professor Schneiderman was, as she noted in her blog, “knocked off-center by a belligerent academic community dedicated to villifying anyone who dared set foot in Israel.”

As Schneiderman and her Vassar students proceeded with plans for their trip to Israeli, the University of Michigan student government was voting on a motion to suspend debate, indefinitely, on a resolution submitted by an anti-Jewish student group, calling upon the University to boycott and divest from all companies that do business with Israel… precipitating yet another confrontation in which Jewish interests came in second to the interests of Muslims on a traditionally liberal college campus.

According to the Jerusalem Post, a Michigan students group, calling itself Students Allied for Freedom and Equality (SAFE), “responded with rage and violence,” staging sit-ins at the student government offices and cursing Jewish members of the council, hurling epithets such as “kike” and “dirty Jew.”

Then, on Thursday, March 27, 2014, fascism reared its ugly head on the Dearborn campus of the University of Michigan.  On that evening the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was successful in blocking the screening of a documentary film, titled Honor Diaries.  The film tells the story of the unspeakable horrors endured by women throughout the Muslim world, including such brutal practices as female genital mutilation, honor violence, honor killings, the forced marriage of eight and nine year old girls to thirty and forty-year-old men, the lack of educational opportunities for women, and restrictions on their freedom of movement.

However, according to a Fox News report, CAIR wasn’t doing its own dirty work, or even its own research.  The group relied on facts and arguments presented by Richard Silverstein, a liberal blogger who argued, “One has to ask why a film about the purported abuse of Muslim women was produced by Jews… ”  In other words, how could a group of Jews possibly produce a film that profiles human rights abuses against Muslim women?  It flies directly in the face of Muslim sensibilities… the truth of the matter be damned.

In the end, those who sponsored the screening of the film were fearful that the showing would be seen as “Islamophobic.”  Wishing not to offend the Islamic community… and perhaps in fear of violent retribution… university administrators canceled the screening, proving once again that intimidation works.  But, as the Fox report asks, “Who is being offended when we are talking about mutilation and women setting themselves on fire to escape marriage before puberty?”

Then, just days later, the April 9, 2014 edition of Frontpage Mag reported that Brandeis University, a longtime bastion of liberal orthodoxy, had conferred an honorary degree on leftist anti-Semite writer, Amos Oz, who has described religious Jews as “Hezbollah in a skullcap.”  Brandeis is the very same “progressive” institution which yielded to pressure from Muslim Brotherhood front groups, such as CAIR and the Muslim Students Association, causing the university to withdraw a similar honor intended for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a noted Somali critic of Islam and co-producer of the Honor Diaries film.

So what’s happening on our college and university campuses?  Haven’t the most liberal colleges and universities always been places where Jewish academics hold forth and children of Jewish families are prepared for lucrative careers in medicine, academia, and the law?

For answers we might refer to a February 1, 2014 Jerusalem Post article by Caroline Glick,  titled, “Column one: The New York Times Destroys Obama.”  In that column, Glick quotes extensively from a Times report by David Kirkpatrick on Barack Obama’s handling of the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.  Glick writes that Kirkpatrick “tore to shreds the foundations of President Barack Obama’s counterterrorism strategy and his overall policy in the Middle East.”

Glick reminds us that “Obama first enunciated those foundations in his June 4, 2009 speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University.”  It was his first venture abroad as president and is best remembered for his warm embrace of Islam, for his unprecedented bow to the King of Saudi Arabia… described in the Washington Times as a “shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate”… and for the cold shoulder he delivered to Israel, America’s most steadfast ally.

The thought that a newly-inaugurated president of the United States would take a major overseas trip, passing within fifty miles of Israeli territory, and not pay a courtesy call on the Israelis… the only functioning democracy in the Middle East… was a snub of gargantuan proportions and a major diplomatic faux pas.  It was also a portent of things to come in the Obama foreign policy.

Reassuring his friends in the Muslim world of his belief that the violent extremists in the Muslim world were but a “small but potent minority of Muslims,” Obama went on to say that he had traveled to Cairo “to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”  Instead, he asserted, “they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”

The Israelis, listening to his words from less than 220 miles away, must have been shocked and dismayed to hear Obama refer to Islam… the most violent and intolerant force on the face of the Earth, where Christians, Jews, and others are brutally murdered and persecuted simply because they are not Muslims… as sharing American principles of justice and progress, tolerance, and the dignity of human beings.

Then Obama went on to say that Islam had “carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment.  It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed… And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

It was then that he shocked Americans, describing how “Islam has always been a part of America’s story…”  He reassured Muslims that “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the (Sharia) laws, religion, or tranquility of Muslims.”  He claimed that, “since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.  They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch.  And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.”

So, if we wonder how radical Muslims have come to feel as if they are welcomed with open arms at our institutions of higher learning, and if we are wondering why Muslims feel as though they can shut down major portions of Americans busiest cities by holding prayer sessions in the middle of public thoroughfares, we may have struck on the answer.  It is Barack Obama who has set the stage and who has invited them to take full advantage of American tolerance and generosity.

Since the first day that Obama occupied the White House, he has extended the hand of friendship to the most brutal and intolerant people on the face of the Earth.  In doing so, he has denied the Judeo-Christian origins of our great nation.  He has caused the gloom of a declining culture to fall across the face of America; his chickens have come home to roost.

 

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

Democrats Being Democrats

Having begun my career as a lobbyist under the dome of the state capitol in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, I know a thing or two about political corruption in the Keystone State and the City of Brotherly Love… I’ve seen it “up close and personal.”  So it came as no surprise when the Philadelphia Inquirer published a story on March 16, detailing the results of a sting operation launched in 2010 under then-Pennsylvania attorney general, now governor, Tom Corbett.

However, to fully understand the evolution of the sting operation it is necessary to begin at the very beginning.  The central character in the sting is a man named Tyron B. Ali, age 40, an immigrant from the Caribbean island nation of Trinidad.  Ali is the owner of a day-care center in North Philadelphia and a registered lobbyist in Harrisburg.

Ali first came to the attention of law enforcement officials in April 2009 when he was arrested in connection with a $430,000 fraud.  According to the Inquirer, Ali was accused of submitting phony invoices and forging hundreds of bank statements, tax forms, and paychecks in a Pennsylvania program designed to aid low-income families and seniors.  State prosecutors were also aware that, in order to circumvent statutory campaign contribution limits, Ali was found to have been lining up illegal “straw” contributions for the campaign of Daniel D. McCaffery, a Democratic candidate for Philadelphia DA, now a Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge.

In that case, campaign finance records showed that four contributions of $2,500 each were made to the McCaffery campaign, all from associates of Ali.  However, at about the same time that Ali delivered the four checks to the McCaffery campaign, McCaffery staffers learned of Ali’s arrest in the unrelated fraud case.  McCaffery’s campaign manager telephoned the four donors and one admitted that the money was not his; the money was Ali’s.

Then, in a surprising move for a Democrat, McCaffery reported the violations to attorney general Tom Corbett, a Republican, and promptly refunded the illegal contributions.  It was then that a top prosecutor, Frank Fina, chief of the attorney general’s Public Corruption section (who earlier led the criminal investigation of Penn State assistant head football coach, Jerry Sandusky), was assigned to handle the Ali investigation.  In the hope of receiving a more lenient outcome in his fraud indictment, Ali agreed to assist Fina’s investigation into widespread official corruption by wearing a body wire.

In order to keep Ali from “wandering off the reservation,” the attorney general assigned a 24-year veteran of the attorney general’s office to serve as his driver and constant companion.  In the eighteen month period between October 13, 2010 and April 23, 2012, Ali produced some 400 hours of audio and video recordings detailing 113 conversations with Pennsylvania political figures, Republicans and Democrats.  And although Ali dangled inducements before a great many politicians, of both political parties, only four Democratic lawmakers and a Philadelphia traffic court judge took the bait.

Rep. Louise Bishop took $1,500; Rep. Vanessa Brown took $4,000; Rep. Michelle Brownlee took $3,500; Rep. Ronald G. Waters accepted multiple gifts totaling $7,650; and Traffic Court Judge Thomasine Tynes received a Tiffany bracelet.  All are Democrats, all are from Philadelphia (representing precincts that gave not one single vote to Mitt Romney in 2012), and all are African-Americans.

According to the Inquirer, “Things were going so well that, in the summer of 2012, prosecutors considered setting Ali up in a fancy lobbying office near the Capitol.  The plan was to rig the office with hidden cameras and expand the hunt…”  However, before they could implement the plan, Pennsylvanians went to the polls and elected Democrat Kathleen Kane as attorney general.  Within days after taking office Kane brought the investigation to an abrupt halt.

Thumbing through the Democrat Party playbook, Kane found that the simplest and easiest ploy to support her brazenly partisan contempt for the rule of law would be to do what Democrats always do when they find themselves without a plausible argument: she threw down the race card.  In a statement to the Inquirer on Friday, March 14, Kane called the investigation “poorly conceived, badly managed, and tainted by racism,” saying it had “targeted African Americans.”

In truth, what motivated Kane was the need to keep Philadelphia’s black voters on the Democrat political plantation.  It just wasn’t smart politics for a Democrat attorney general to prosecute four black Democrat lawmakers and a black Democrat judge for accepting bribes, even though most of their crimes were caught on audio and/or video tape.

The Inquirer report reminded readers that, during her 2012 campaign for attorney general, Kane had been critical of what she felt was the slow pace of the Sandusky investigation at Penn State.  Once elected, she hired a former Philadelphia federal prosecutor to investigate Fina’s handling of the case.  After a full year of investigating the investigation, Kane declared that her investigation was taking longer than she had anticipated.

In Democrat-speak, that is another way of saying that it takes a lot longer to uncover Republican wrongdoing when there is no wrongdoing to be uncovered.  But that doesn’t normally stop Democrats when they’re out to find dirt on Republicans.  According to the Inquirer, within hours after taking office, when Fina was in his last week on the job, Kane sent technicians into his office on a “black bag” mission, after working hours, for the purpose of removing the hard drive from his computer… apparently in the faint hope of finding some usable tidbit of damning evidence relating to his conduct of the Sandusky case.

If nothing else, the mess in Pennsylvania is a perfect example of what happens when the people elect Democrats to public office.  Since the publication of the Inquirer story on March 16, the Democrat Party has been hit by a long list of scandals, from New York to California, where State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), an outspoken foe of 2nd Amendment gun rights, has been charged with multiple offenses, including charges relating to illegal gun trafficking.

But the biggest Democrat fish caught in the corruption net is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)… the most despicable Democrat in a long list of despicable Democrats.  Reid is charged with digging into his campaign chest to give his granddaughter, Ryan Elizabeth Reid, a gift of $17,000, even though she is an aspiring actress in New York and did no useful work for the Reid campaign.  Several members of Congress have gone to prison for committing similar crimes.  It remains to be seen how “Dingy Harry” manages to slither out of this predicament.

This is not to say that there is not an occasional rotten apple in the Republican barrel, but in all my years as a lobbyist and as a political operative I have found very few Republicans who’ve demonstrated the sort of moral and ethical lapses that we regularly see among Democrats.  During my years in the political arena I can recall only two instances in which I was solicited for a bribe.  The first was a member of the Kentucky State Senate and the second was a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.  Both were Democrats.  My immediate response in both instances was, “I’m sorry, but we just don’t work that way.”

I have long felt that it is impossible to be elected to public office as a Democrat without first making a deal with the devil.  And while there exists a single common thread of ideology that binds all Republicans… of all ages, races, creeds, professions, and economic status… the same is not true of Democrats.  The Democrat Party is a coalition of special interests, each of which demand something specific, and quite different, from government.

For example, when a Democrat candidate appears before a black audience, his/her stance on quality education must be vastly different from the message he/she delivers before an audience of unionized public school teachers.  And when that same politician campaigns before a group of radical environmentalists, his/her message on issues such as the Keystone XL pipeline must be vastly different from the message he/she would deliver before a roomful of blue collar workers.

In order to be successful as a Democratic candidate it is absolutely essential to have a separate position on all of the major issues for each of the party’s many constituencies, and to remember without fail which lies you’ve told to each of them.  It is such a flexible moral compass… standard equipment for all Democrats… that made it possible for all those members of the Pennsylvania Black Caucus to succumb so easily to Mr. Ali’s proffered goodies.

But all is not lost; the Pennsylvania bribery sting may yet have a silver lining.  It is possible that the greatest beneficiary of the Black Caucus political scandal will be Republican governor Tom Corbett.  As matters now stand, Corbett’s approval rating is somewhere in the mid-30s and his reelection chances appear to be in a bit of trouble.  But when the Democrats choose a candidate from among seven candidates running in the May primary, that candidate will be called upon to defend attorney General Kane and the bribe takers of the Black Caucus.  Yes, the fish does rot from the head and it’s clear that Barack Obama’s Chicago-style politics has infected Democrats all across the country… just in time to backfire on the Democrat Party and its candidates in  November.

 

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment