Recently an acquaintance dropped this site link in an email with a note that it is a progressive group near a military base which got my attention. The Progressive Student Alliance (Pensacola) is active in the area but the fact that the location is encased in brackets means they are either spread out state-wide or across state lines.  This group may be very active in this area which is mostly military (Naval Air Station Pensacola) and a potential pool of members just waiting to be baited. Perhaps my take on these groups is somewhat hard but consider the fact that young minds are just as easily influenced whether they’re civilian or military. Sometimes being away from home is enough to encourage unhealthy alliances with people who appear to be mentors of a good cause but are hard core communists.

A look at this site quickly shows its purpose as the group is not exactly secretive about it; they just present their group not what they’re about but that was hidden in the site links they posted. I loved the pictures of the Israeli Anarchists Against the wall party goers (any guesses on what they’re about?) who look like the bathtub time machine malfunctioned and made them into a cross between 60’s hippie subversives (pardon the redundancy) and Tuareg tribesmen (no offense to the tribesmen).  Frankly if I were to see one of my junior personnel in the company of these people off base I would have to take some notice as the site does not give a physical address. However some of the links the site offers range from progressive supplies (hippie gear) to schools which were even more interesting. One link to a forum discussion is named School of the Americas but required member registration (may have to join soon) to view. Their videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8xTOadn1n0&feature=player_embedded#) are about social justice which can be misrepresented with catchy beats and a good picture collage; a very powerful recruitment tool indeed.

If this group does not seem to be a looming threat to the academic influence in these areas look at some of their supporters.  Links to Z-Magazine and South End Press websites will lead you to some of the most radical masters of leftist revolution such as Lydia Sargent and Michael Albert who were best buds with the late uber-evil historian Howard Zinn. Given the kind of radicals mentoring this group base commanders may want to monitor further and prepare for the potential influences of their brand of  ’education’ in relation to operational readiness of personnel.

For years Nebraska has been one of the top teams in college football. So it is no surprise when Nebraska Assistant Coach Ron Brown was recruited by Stanford Univ. in California to be interviewed for the head coach position. He didn’t get very far. He was not discriminated against because he is black. Not at liberal Stanford. Brown’s problem at Stanford is that he is a Christian, apparently with rather firm beliefs on matters such as homosexuality and abortion. Said Alan Glenn, Assistant Athletic Director at Stanford, “Brown’s religion was definitely something that had to be considered. We have a very diverse community with a diverse alumni. Anything that would stand out that much is something that has to be looked at.”

Stanford prides itself in being in the vanguard of institutions which value “diversity” and “inclusion” .In fact it helped crystallize the movement to emphasize these ideas when on Jan. 15 , 1987, everyone, in a massive protest , started chanting “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Culture has got to go”, thereby launching the movement known as “multiculturalism.”

The Western canon, the generally accepted list of the greatest books of the West were now attacked as having been written by biased “dead white males” These books are generally based on universalism, the belief that there are universal truths that are potentially available to everybody. What Stanford now embraced was particularism, which says that what one may know is determined by the circumstances of one’s birth. Race, gender, and class became more important than ideas.

From this beginning there flowed out throughout the universities of America a whole new plague of totalitarian horrors, like “diversity”, “sensitivity training”, “political correctness”, “speech codes”, “dormitory re-education,” “deconstructionism”, and “gender feminism,” all under the general umbrella of “multiculturalism.”

That was 15 years ago. Lets take a look at a how it has all has turned out. Offhand, it looks like Stanford better hire every Christian it can find.

The brief comments that begin each section below are from “The Diversity Myth”, an almost definitive critique of multiculturalism by David Sacks and Peter Thiel, two former graduate students at Stanford University. (Independent Institute, $24.95) The book is especially recommended to students who wish to protect themselves from brainwashing by multiculturalists. Included are some other quotes, notably by Robert Bork, former Supreme Court nominee, along with comments by Mr. Magruder in parentheses, prefaced by LM.

(Sections of this article are reprinted with permission from the book , “The Diversity Myth: Multiculturalism and the Politics of Intolerance on Campus, by David Sacks and Peter Thiel. Copyright 1998. The Independent Institute , 100 Swan Way , Oakland , CA. 94621-1428;info@independent.org; )

Trustees, congressional representatives, alumni, and the general public have begun to perceive that the great multicultural experiment has brought the very opposite of higher learning. It has brought speech restrictions, a new kind of intolerance known as “political correctness” a hysterically anti-Western curriculum, the increasing politicization of student life, and campus polarization along racial and ethnic lines.

“It is impossible to imagine that academic inquiry flourishes where thought police abound. Indeed, the intellectual apparatus of the 60’s radicals now dominating the universities is built for intellectual oppression, not for inquiry” -Robert Bork

“Of the 55 top-ranked universities in the nation, not a single one requires a course in American history, and only 3 require a course in Western Civilization”-The American Council of Trustees and Alumni

Underneath a glossy veneer of open-ended and utopian rhetoric, multiculturalism depends upon very specific values to operate, and at Stanford the values that inform this process happen to be the radical values of the 60’s. Most of the multicultural faculty and administrators were student activists in the late l960’s.

( LM- Professors who were campus radicals in the 60’s love to begin the semester by bragging to students how idealistic they were in their betrayal of the 40 million people of Southeast Asia. The truth is, although they cloaked themselves in an aura of great moral purpose, the war protestors gave aid and comfort to the enemy, marched under the flag of the Viet Cong, allowed Hanoi to dictate their agenda, and turned their backs on the American soldier when they returned. Now they run the universities, teaching students how to betray the West, and to cover up their earlier betrayal they write history books riddled with lies about the Vietnam War and their role in it.).)

When a stray look can lead to a charge of sexual harassment or an ill-timed joke to a charge of a racial slur, careers and lives are needlessly destroyed. Hapless innocents get thrown out of housing, lose their jobs because of “insensitivity.” or spend years fighting frivolous lawsuits. The multiculturalist hunt for nonexistent “oppressors” who can be held responsible for all of America’s ills leads to the vilification of innocents .

“Said Brown University “sensitivity” consultant Donald Kae, “If you are feeling comfortable or normal then you are probably oppressing someone, whether that person is a woman, or a gay or whatever. We probably won’t rid our society of racism until everyone strives to be abnormal.” (LM- What horse—- !).

The speech code never had to be enforced because it had not really been needed, at least not for the stated reason of combating an epidemic of fighting words and similar abuse. In March 1995, the Santa Clara County Superior Court agreed with the students and found Stanford’s speech code unconstitutional. Because of the ruling, Stanford students can now speak as freely as the residents of neighboring Palo Alto.

(LM- Judge returns basic American freedoms to student victims of multiculturalist tyranny. What a hoot ! Free Students Now from Multiculturalist Oppression! Turn on to Truth! Tune out the lies! Drop Out of Multiculturalism !)

In a widely discussed editorial in “The Stanford Daily,” columnist Andrea Park described the ritual clitorectomies performed in some African cultures but stopped short of condemning the barbaric practice. As a feminist Park wished to condemn the custom; but after much “soul-searching”, Park wrote that she realized she could not judge other cultures by her own standards. “Is it relevant that I, an outsider, may find the practice cruel ? As hard as it is for me to admit, the answer is no. To treat the issue as a matter for feminist outrage would be to assume that one society, namely mine, has a privileged position from which to judge the practices of another.”

(LM- How does one live with such hypocrisy ? This is a perfect example of the moral coma brought about by the cultural relativism embraced by multiculturalists.)

“Radical feminism is the most destructive and fanatical movement to come down to us from the 60’s, it certainly deserves its own place in the halls of intellectual barbarism…women’s studies programs and courses are abysmal swamps of irrational dogma and hatred.” Bork

It is worth noting that all of these efforts have not had a positive impact on the level of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, or abortions at Stanford, relative to American society at large. More than 100 Stanford women still have unwanted pregnancies each year, of which about 90 percent end in abortion. The resulting abortion rate at Stanford is about twice the national average. And as for AIDS, the rate of death at Stanford is perhaps four to five times that of the relatively “uneducated” society at large .One university residence now even has coed group showers.

(LM- What an inspiring example for American society multiculturalism is setting!)

“It is remarkable how vigorously the modern intellectual defends the descent of popular culture not merely into vulgarity but into obscenity… multiculturalism is barbarism, and it is bringing us to a barbarous epoch.”-Bork

In recent years race relations on campuses have taken a turn for the worse. King’s dream is rarely mentioned and the races remain divided There are even separate commencement ceremonies for Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and African Americans. It is not inconceivable that a minority student, if so inclined, could spend all four years at Stanford without ever eating, living, speaking, or graduating with someone from a different race.

“Multiculturalists have turned Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream into a nightmare. He asked that his children “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” But multiculturalists say, “Judge me by the color of my skin for therein lies my identity and my place in the world.” -Bork

“The result of multiculturalism can only be the fragmentation , resegregation, and tribalization of American life.”- the noted liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

The Western religious tradition seeks to redeem all of humanity, not just select subgroups. The multiculturalists, by contrast, are interested in the rehabilitation only of those of a particular race, gender, class, or sexual preference who happen to share their ideological commitments. Religious Studies 8 , “Religions in America”, devotes whole lectures to Shamanism, the Peyote Cult, and the Kodiak sect, but not one to the Catholic Church.

(LM- Multiculturalism is a massive assault on the Judeo-Christian values of the West at the very time that discoveries in physics and molecular biology are lending new support to natural theology and theism. Leftist academic thugs, however, continue to carry on the spirit of the 60’s by beating up dissenting guest speakers to keep students ignorant of the issues)

“The American university has become a culture of forbidden questions.” Leon Botstein – President of Bard College.

Despite its well-earned reputation as a school with perhaps the most competitive admissions process in the country, classwork at Stanford in many ways no longer demands the intellectual equivalent of sweat. Of all letter grades granted to students, about half are A’s, 39 % are B’s, only 10% are C’s and about 1% are D’s.

(LM- Pay-offs for buying into the multiculturalist agenda. As a college professor on three campuses over l5 years I’d say the true average grade of American students is a C minus. The juxtaposition of inflated grades with declining S.A.T. scores clearly exposes how educators, steeped in the values of the 60’s, are lying to both students and parents.)

“All have won and all must have prizes.” The Dodo Bird in “Alice in Wonderland”.

Western civilization and classical liberal arts education truly are dead, killed off in the same multicultural epidemic that expunged “dead white males” from the reading lists. To be certain, the buildings are well maintained, the lawns are well watered, the football team plays for cheering throngs of fans, the faculty and the staff are well paid, and the students attend classes and receive diplomas. The institution can keep going for a while on autopilot. But the heart of the university’s humanities program – involving the quest for universal truth – has decayed into dust.

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and
Everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned.

Did we think it only rhetoric when Yeats asked us; “And what rough beast, its hour come round at last slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?” In multiculturalism we approach the logical outcome of the campus values of the 60’s- fascism.

Art after Art goes out, and all is Night
See skulking Truth to her old Cavern fled
Mountains of Casuistry heap’d o’er her head!
Philosophy, that lean’d on Heav’n before
Shrinks to her second cause, and is no more
Lo! Thy dread Empire, Chaos ! is restored
Light dies before thy uncreating word:
Thy hand, great Anarch! lets the curtain fall;
And Universal Darkness buries all. “Duncaid” -Alexander Pope

Since the sixties, Noam Chomsky has been calling the United States an imperialist nation and continues to do so, now saying U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are imperialist. The purpose of Mr. Chomsky’s’ philosophy is to destroy the legitimacy of any and all acts of force by an ethical, lawful state. In essence, Mr. Chomsky asserts that such a state is identical to barbarians who use force for self-interest, i.e. dictators and fascists. By doing this, Mr. Chomsky is willing to put heroes such as policemen and soldiers on the same level as villains such as murderers and terrorists.

According to Mr. Chomsky’s twisted reasoning, “…torture has been routine practice from the early days of the conquest of the national territory, and then beyond, as the imperial ventures of the “infant empire” — as George Washington called the new Republic” (The Torture Memos, Chomsky, May 24, 2009). He believes that George Bush was simply following some “secret” mandate from Washington to expand the empire through the use of torture. To buttress his case, he cites the Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis, “Adams as the grand strategist who laid the foundations for the Bush Doctrine: the doctrine that ‘expansion is the path to security’” (The Unipolar Moment and the Culture of Imperialism, Chomsky, December 3, 2009). Yes, John Adams (1735 – 1826) is responsible for the War on Terror, not the 19 terrorists who orchestrated the takeover of four commercial planes on September 11, 2001, killing thousands of innocent people. You can learn a lot at college.

Mr. Chomsky slanders Washington as a vile Machiavellian: “A prince that acquires new territories and removes the natives to give his people room will be remembered as the father of the nation (Machiavelli).’ And George Washington agreed. He wanted to be the father of the nation. His view was that ‘the gradual extension of our settlement will as certainly cause the savage as the wolf to retire, both being beasts of prey, though they differ in shape.” (Modern-Day American Imperialism: Middle East and Beyond, Chomsky, Boston University, April 24, 2008)

Mr. Chomsky bases this statement from Letter to James Duane dated September 7, 1783.  In his letter, Washington was appealing for a non-violent resolution with the Indians and to find peaceful means of living with them on a common land, not advocating war. “As the Country, is large enough to contain us all; and as we are disposed to be kind to them and to partake of their Trade…draw a veil over what is past and establish a boundary line between them and us beyond which we will endeavor to restrain our People from Hunting or Settling.” Washington’s intent to Duane was clear: peaceful means of coexistence.

His thought that directly precedes Mr. Chomsky lifted quote is this, “I am clear in my opinion, … of being upon good terms with the Indians, and the propriety of purchasing their Lands in preference to attempting to drive them by force of arms out of their Country; which as we have already experienced is like driving the Wild Beasts of the Forest…”  In other words, if you make war with the Indians, they will scatter in the country side and return to hunt you down, as they are to be respected as is the wolf.

Mr. Chomsky lacks credibility because he has to rely on fabrication of events in order to support his opinions. Fabrication is part of the leftist anti-War movement which is really the leftist/socialist “Make America Surrender” movement.

The second part is asserting that equal actions (war and terrorism) are equal in ethics.  Everyone agrees that murder is evil, and murder is caused by killing. However, not all killing is evil—certainly, accidents and self-defense stand out as two exceptions.  Chomsky must assert, for his reasoning to be sound, all value judgments can be based on actions alone and not on intentions; he confuses actions and intentions. In contrast, Western ethics are quite clear in saying that a person can commit the very same action with more than one intent. Every child knows that you can step on someone’s toes with or without harmful intent, yet the action is the same.

Here is perfect example of his inability to separate actions and ethics: “…the most elementary principle of just war theory, universality. Those who cannot accept this principle should have the decency to keep silent about matters of right and wrong, or just war”(Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, 2003, pg 202). He follows this assertion with the question, “Have Cuba and Nicaragua been entitled to set off bombs in Washington, New York, and Miami in self-defense against ongoing terrorist attack?”  His point is that any and all states have equal right to the use of force or no one has it, “universality.” This is a complete failure on his part to differentiate between fascist dictators and communist death-squads from those who have no other self-interested motive other than justice.

The greatest danger of Mr. Chomsky’s anti-war ethics and lies is that it fuels the anti-war movement. Moreover, it paves the way for the college student to believe that power exists without justice as a limiting factor. Thus, making it moral to quest for power for power’s own sake, which is foundational to Marxist thought. But all power must be subservient to justice and the law, especially when American national security is at stake.

By Franke Schein

AMERICAN PATRIOT; a name that inherently denotes a love for America, it’s Constitution, and a deep understand of the things that set America apart from the rest of the world. There are far too many people that call themselves American Patriots, yet they are anything but a patriot. If they are anything at all, it would be Un-American, Anti-American, and/or a Racist American.

For example, I get hate mail from readers that call themselves patriots, when in fact they are members of a White Power group, or ascribe to the Jew hatred prevalent in that segment of society that lives on the shadowy fringes of America. The kind of people that proudly wave “Ol’ Glory” while calling for the extermination of Jews, Immigrants, Blacks, and white people that don’t agree with their foulness.

The kind of Americans[sic] that would murder minor children while they sleep, slit the throats of African-Americans, and create a climate of terror and anarchy that would put Hitler’s vermin to shame.

These groups blame everyone and everything but themselves for America’s problem. They preach a dialog of hatred, murder, mayhem, and feel that theirs is the Master Race-and that Jesus will raise them to heavenly highs-where they will rule the world for generations to come.

Huh?

Hitler said the same thing-and he’s surely rotting in Hell at this very moment, as are all of the Gestapo and Nazi’s that supported him. There’s a special hot-seat on the lake of fire with every Nazi’s name on it.

Americans went to war with the Nazis. Americans went to war with Imperial Japan. American’s went to war with communist North Koreans, and American’s went to war with fascist communist nations that have tried to conquer the rest of humanity with their aspirations of world conquest and the enslavement of humanity. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.

As I mentioned in other articles [ HERE ] the root of the hatred occurred thousands of years ago. The replies to this article by a few caustic people were predictable. Even other articles found these same foul Nazis leaving disparaging comments-and the article had nothing to do with Nazis.

These people are obsessed with hate. They surround themselves with hatred, so much that the very air is made foul. Most are cowards that can’t do their dirty deeds unless there are many of them. They like to prey on the people less able to defend themselves, and always outnumber their victim. ( Pitiful cowards! )

I know Patriots from all over the USA. Most are ex-military veterans that have served their time in hell. They are the ones that have spilled their blood for America, and remain as The True Patriots of America. Not these unclean loathing cockroaches that wave the Swastika around and toss “Sieg Heil” to elderly Jewish ladies. ( What real man terrorizes old ladies like that? )

Then there is another kind of false Patriot-the socialist that champions the cause of every terrorist group and blames it on America. This kind of patriot is just as bad as the White Power Trash because most of them have received advance degrees in something or another. They preach their foul un-American style hatred onto hapless school and university students.

Campus Watch is one of the many organizations that keep a close eye on academia. It’s great to have these groups countering the claims of these overtly socialists and communist that indoctrinate Americas children with their twisted ideologies. [ http://www.campus-watch.org/ ]

• American University
• Arizona State University
• Brandeis University
• Brown University
• Central Connecticut State University
• City University of New York
• Colorado College
• Columbia University
• Concordia University
• Connecticut College
• DePaul University
• Duke University
• Florida Atlantic University (FAU)
• Georgetown University
• Harvard University
• Khalil Gibran International Academy
• New York University
• Northeastern University
• Princeton University
• Rice University
• Rutgers University
• San Francisco State University
• Sarah Lawrence College
• Stanford University
• State University of New York, Binghamton
• State University of New York, New Paltz
• University of California, Berkeley
• University of California, Irvine
• University of California, Los Angeles
• University of California, Santa Barbara
• University of California, Santa Cruz
• University of Chicago
• University of Hawaii
• University of Maryland
• University of Michigan
• University of Minnesota
• University of Missouri
• University of North Carolina
• University of Notre Dame
• University of Oklahoma
• University of Oregon
• University of Pennsylvania
• University of South Florida
• University of Texas
• University of Toronto
• University of Victoria
• University Wisconsin – Madison
• Yale University
• York University

If you know of a school teacher, university professor, or other educational based candidate, and know that they are racists, socialist, communist, anti-Israeli, or anti-Jewish-then contact campus watch [HERE] or Veterans for Academic Freedom.org [HERE] None of these people should be allowed to stand in front of our children. None of them should be allowed to stand at the head of a classroom or lecture hall.

American universities a breeding ground for socialists, communists, and terrorists

By Frank Schein, Anchorage Conservative Examiner

The ascension for higher education is a fundamental characteristic in our society. To provide a better education for our children so that they may prosper within our society, becoming the leaders for future generations-represents the central role of a parent. However; while attending these very expensive centers of higher learning, our children are being indoctrinated with leftists, socials, communist, Marxists, and terrorist ideologies.

Der Stürmer as Instructional Material in School Lessons (c. 1935) Courtesy of © Bildarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz

For example, a group calling itself “The Socialism Conference” that described themselves as “A new left for a new era” recently held a conference in Chicago and San Francisco.  [HERE The New Statesman was created in 1913 with the aim of permeating the educated and influential classes with socialist ideas” ] Some of the key speakers that were featured include one particular anti-american radical John Pilger, whose clearly hostile idioms have been floating around the septic tank of cyberspace through various articles posted at The New Statesmen, a socialist newspaper that describes itself as”

Join these speakers at Socialism 2009:

John Pilger

John Pilger is a world-renowned journalist, author and documentary filmmaker, who began his career in 1958 in his homeland, Australia, before moving to London in the 1960s. His first film, The Quiet Mutiny, is credited with disclosing to a worldwide audience the internal disintegration of the US army in Vietnam.
Thirty-six years and some 60 documentaries later, he is still making challenging films for ITV. His films have won Academy Awards in Britain and the United States. He has been a freelance writer since 1986, with his work appearing in newspapers such as the Guardian, the Independent, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The South China Morning Post, the Mail & Guardian (South Africa), the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age (Australia), Aftonbladet (Sweden), Morgenbladet (Norway) and Il Manifesto (Italy) and Socialist Worker (US)

“Iran’s crime is its independence. Having thrown out America’s favorite tyrant, Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran remains the only resource-rich Muslim state beyond US control. As only Israel has a “right to exist” in the Middle East, the US goal is to cripple the Islamic Republic. This will allow Israel to divide and dominate the Middle East on Washington’s behalf, undeterred by a confident neighbor. If any country in the world has been handed urgent cause to develop a nuclear “deterrence”, it is Iran.”

“The suppression of the suffering of Britain’s and America’s colonial victims is an article of media faith, a tradition so ingrained that it requires no instructions.”

“The most obvious example is the bombing atrocities in London on 7 July 2005; no one in the British intelligence mandarinate doubts these were a gift from Blair. And yet “terrorism” describes only the few acts of individuals and groups, not the constant, industrial violence of great powers.”

Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/john_pilger/page/3

“no one in the British intelligence mandarinate doubts these were a gift from Blair.” What Mr. Pilger is trying to convince everyone is that the people of London that were slaughtered in a terrorist act by radical islamists-were killed because they asked for it by simply being British.

In another quote from one of his articles: “As only Israel has a “right to exist” in the Middle East, the US goal is to cripple the Islamic Republic.” Pilger once again shows his contempt for Israel, and fails to mention the ever increasing terrorist attacks at the hands of Palestinian terrorist, and makes ideological assumptions that Iran’s Islamic Regime has the right to acquire nuclear weapons.

I applaud the fact that Mr. Pilger has the strength and impudence to stand up for what he believes in, but the fact that he is a socialist that espouses a totalitarian communist manifesto, and a person that denounced every action, every administration, and every foreign policy in America-while condemning Israel and their right to self defense, puts him in the same category as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and other criminal against humanity.

Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/john_pilger/page/3

Dr. Jess Ghannam

Dr. Jess Ghannam, the son of Palestinians forced to flee their homes when Israel was established in 1948, is a member of the international executive committee of Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition and the Free Palestine Alliance. A clinical professor of Psychiatry and Global Health Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of Ethnic Studies at San Francisco State University, he has also helped establish medical clinics across the Gaza Strip.

The list of Anti-American speakers goes on and on. All of these socialist speakers share the same sentiment-they hate Israelis, and denounce Americanism-calling for the elimination of American democracy over the communist manifesto, which they so reverently worship. The dictatorial leader of China Hu Jintao would be proud of these people.

Bill Fletcher:

Bill Fletcher is a Republican politician from the U.S. state of North Carolina. Fletcher was the Republican nominee for North Carolina Superintendent of Public Instruction in the North Carolina Council of State election, 2004.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Fletcher
Bill Fletcher’s Iran Commentary [ Pay close attention to the very last statement where this Israeli hating American sums up his racist opinion : "And this administration is not gonna let the Israelis do their dirty work for them..”

When one looks closer at this “alleged educator”; the blatant racism and hate mongering is most evident with artwork being displayed on their website: [ HERE ] and again [ HERE ]
Source: http://www.resistanceart.com/2010_USA_Canada_BC.htm

The In many of Fletcher’s article he speaks out against racism and intolerance; yet when viewed from the abstract-his blatant hostilities against Israelis and Judaism are most evident. Perhaps his form of tolerance for other religions and races doesn’t include Israel. This is a signatory of American educational system?

American educators are indoctrinating our children with their racists attitudes at an alarming rate. College professors that should be teaching our kids educational courses, are intermixing their own twisted socialist ideologies into the lesson plan.  The answer is to monitor every teacher in American Universities. Identifying those that stray from the lesson plan and include their Anti-American and anti-Israel sentiments in front of our children. Radical Islamist that set up shop in our schools need to be booted onto the street with utter disgust. Their Jihadist propaganda and empathy for Palestinian terrorist groups is a slap into the face of every freedom that real Americans enjoy.

The American educational system is under attack from within. At stake are the fresh and impressionable minds of our children. The consequence of inaction might well results in another Nazi party emerging to slaughter yet another 8-Million people, and the radicalization of American Muslims that want to destroy the US Constitution and replace it with Islamic Sharia law.

All across America hundreds of socialist and communist student clubs and parties exist with the goal of eliminating the Constitution of the United States and bringing about a revolution such as was seen in Soviet Russia.

Years ago Ronald Reagan was a strong opponent of communism as he saw it for what it was: slavery to the state.  In this documentary you will see the dangers of communism explained by the first president of the U.S.S.R

Please take the time to watch and learn the dangers so you may clearly explain them to those around you. This movie is old, a little slow, but very important.

Introduction

On the 90th October Revolution´s Anniversary, this documentary presents the violent rise of the Soviet Empire from the Chaos of revolution to the terror of the Cold War and is charted using remarkable footage of actual events. Special interest is the subject of the Spanish Revolution. This is the bestcollection of historical film footage on the topic of CommunistImperialism ever assembled. Featuring an introduction from Alexander Kerensky President of Russia following the Revolution that deposed the Czar Regime and before the Communist took over. Narrator: Ronald Reagan Year: 1962

Run Time 120 min.

University of Delaware: Re-Education Camp
by Leonard Magruder

The purpose of this article is to review the bitter, decades-long struggle to expose the massive lies told by the Left during the 60’s, now being re-cycled in new anti-war protests; to challenge the outrageous claim by academics that “the fundamental issues of the Vietnam War are not open to debate”; and to challenge the politicization of students as seen, for example, at the University of Delaware.

Under the title “Campus Fascism” the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education issued this statement on Thursday, Nov. 1, 2007

“The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological re-education that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. Students living in the university’s eight housing complexes are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs).

“When did you discover your sexual identity?”

The university suggests that at one-on-one sessions with students, RAs should ask intrusive personal questions such as “When did you discover your sexual identity?” Students who express discomfort with this type of questioning often meet with disapproval from their RAs, who write reports on these one-on-one sessions and deliver these reports to their superiors. These programs are described using the harrowing language of ideological re-education. In documents relating to the assessment of student learning the residence hall lesson plans are referred to as “treatments.” The fact that the university views its students as patients in need of treatment for some sort of moral sickness betrays a total lack of respect not only for students’ basic rights, but for students themselves.”

“Dormitory re-education;” is a major concern of this organization. As stated in our mission statement: “Leading the student revolt against speech codes, political correctness, multiculturalism, gender feminism, dormitory re-education, lying about Vietnam, and other instruments of academic oppression.”

With Vietnam vets handing material directly out to protesters, as happened recently in Washington, with experts challenging Islam right on campus, the new name of the game is confrontation. No more hiding out in academic cubicles. America should march right up on campus and demand an explanation for the “treatments” going on and student ignorance about Vietnam and now Islam and terrorism.

Academics defaming Reagan in the name of socialism

Please note the following article is of interest in terms of academic freedom because it was written in response to Matthew Dallek, who writes for The American Scholar, which is the academic journal of the Phi Beta Kappa Society.  This exposes the politicization of academia.

If you do not like socialism then you’re a racist.  This is what Matthew Dallek is saying—and saying about Ronald Reagan. I have read hundreds, if not thousands of pages on Reagan. I have reviewed his speeches, radio addresses and remember most of the events during his time as president. A racist Reagan was not. Senator Robert Byrd, West Virginia Democrat, was indeed a member of the Ku Klux Klan, so you are on good ground calling him a racist, but not Reagan. Give me a minute to tie in the socialism part.

Mr. Dallek of the University of California, Washington Center, is asserting “states rights” equates racism in his malignant attack on Ronald Reagan—surprising even from a former speechwriter for Missouri Democrat Congressman Richard Gephardt. He recently penned an article in the August 2009 issue of The American Scholar titled, “Not Ready for Mt. Rushmore: Reconciling the myth of Ronald Reagan,” in reference to those who are appealing for Reagan to be added to this monument.  However, Mr. Dallek is not just trashing Reagan with an insipid assertion of racism, nor is he running interference during Mr. Obama’s plunge in the polls. Rather, he is attempting to pave the way for Mr. Obama’s socialism.

First, Mr. Dallek is aware of Mr. Obama’s inability to perform as expected. He is currently losing many disgruntled voters who are looking for a new set of ideas and it won’t take the politically curious long to trip over Reagan’s incredible legacy. Most of Mr. Dallek’s attack is an economic one.  He starts his affront on Reagan’s legacy by calling him an “angrier, more divisive figure than he is remembered.” He says that George W. Bush’s “economic failures” were a product of “Reagan’s controversial approach to tax cuts.” He then turns to Reagan’s Cold War success by referring to Rutgers historian David Greenberg who says that “[historians have] given him some credit for the end of the Cold War. While most historians would give far more credit to Gorbachev…” From the Cold War he moves to racism, “His social policies were not designed to advance civil rights, [or] promote social equality,” and “he fanned the embers of discontentment.”  It is a rather brutal assault, the kind that reminds me of the vandals in France, angered by the U.S. invasion of Iraq, painting swastika’s on my great uncle’s tombstone in March of 2003 where he died liberating them in World War I.

When Mr. Dallek makes the charge of racism, he truly exposes himself as a politico. He cites a speech by Reagan given in Neshobas County, Mississippi in 1980. Mr. Dallek quips, “He struck a note of racial defiance, praising, ‘states’ rights’ as a worthy cause in the place where three civil rights workers were murdered.”  The very idea of racism in this speech is as fallacious as a crooked cop’s speed trap.  Deroy Murdock of National Review Online exposed this in the November 20, 2007 issue titled “Reagan, No Racist.” Mr. Murdock reveals that columnists Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert propagated the idea that Reagan was stirring the fires of racism by invoking “states rights,” as if the merest acknowledgment ipso facto means racism.  However, Mr. Murdock cites the context of the speech, found by columnist David Brooks who likewise defended Reagan. In context Reagan is promoting empowerment of the local government rather than omnipotence of the Federal Government—that does sound like the Reagan.

“I believe in states’ rights. I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. And I believe that we’ve distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the Constitution to that federal establishment.”

States have rights and because someone is willing to stand against big government it does not follow that he is a racist. I’m rather good at playing Where’s Waldo, and that paragraph is devoid of any racist sentiments—just as Reagan was.  “States’ rights” are part of the vital system of checks and balances of the United States. They can be likened to the so-called “separation of church and state” for those on the Left.  Mr. Murdock also cites Reagan’s own defense, “Because I said I believed states should be allowed to regain the rights and powers granted to them in the Constitution, he [President Carter] implied I was a racist pandering to Southern voters.”

But, Mr. Dallek is not interested in facts, “If history is written by the winners, then the conservative environment of the Bush years was a logical time for the burnishing of Reagan’s reputation, and the new era of Obama is a logical time for a reassessment.”  Such an unveiled appeal to politicization of history is shocking, but laying that aside, I want to touch upon his motive.

States’ rights have been the red-headed stepchild of constitutional law since they were erroneously used to defend slavery by Southern-democrats.  However the rights of states were a strong force against slavery and were used by Northern states to nullify Southern states claims over “run away” slaves. Northern Republicans would claim that one state’s claim is not binding on another state. Then the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision ruled that slaves had no claim to freedom; they were property and not citizens.  In contrast, for Mr. Dalleck’s charge of racism to be cogent, he must believe that if states have rights, then this always means slavery is allowed. If not, then he must allow that “states’ rights” were misused by slavers, and Reagan has not committed an error.  Moreover , who would make the claim that states never have any rights?  Only those who would say states are property of the U.S. Federal Government and following in kind her citizens.

Mr. Dallek destroys his credibility when he twists Reagan’s words out of context, implies states are without rights, fails to disclose his political background and ignores sound refutes to Mr. Krugman and Mr. Herbert’s claims by Mr. Murdock.  From this point, we can say something quite disappointing: Mr. Dallek is willing to put political hubris over honesty and his professional integrity as a professor of history and political science. It is also disappointing that the Phi Beta Kappa Society allowed The American Scholar to stoop to such levels as accepting political mudslinging as scholarship.

Reagan and conservative thought were Mr. Dallek’s first victims, but he is really after something much bigger, and something current.  States’ rights are the single biggest obstacle to socialism, Mr. Dallek knows this, and by falsely joining racism to states’ rights he hopes to prevent the use of this appeal from interfering with Obama’s incredible grab for power.  States’ rights can stop Mr. Obama’s neo-slavery called democratic socialism.

There is no need to recount the events at Ft. Hood, or 9/11, or the 1993 WTC bombing, Iran Hostage Crisis, etc. There is no need to recount the thousands of acts of terror for the last 1400 years since Mohammad created Islam. No need to mention the sixty-seven campaigns of Mohammad, the invasions of the Moors, the sacking of Constantinople, etc. Nor is it necessary to remind anyone of Islamic terror in the Philippines, or how Thomas Jefferson sent in the Marines to end Islamic piracy at Tripoli. Because the liberal media, Leftist professors, and Muslim apologists have all told us that the study of history is a useless endeavor, unless it is the history of the horrors of the Catholic Crusades over 800 years ago. Then history is all that matters.

When it comes to how and what people believe–their ideology, or theology–that too is unnecessary, since multiculturalism tells us to suspend all judgment against anyone’s belief system. If you see a faith or culture that teaches a barbaric system of justice, or advocates the beating of women, or killing of non-believers, or other acts of barbarism, it is intolerant to impose your values upon them. The major exception to that rule is Christianity, which is a judgmental ideology. It is therefore judged evil and should been banned. The Ten Commandments must never be displayed at a school, prayer should not be said, and a not a single head must bow, except on a prayer rug. That is why the U.S. Military burned bibles in Afghanistan, because someone in that country might read it and convert.

We can also thank the Left for giving us the freedom not to worry about passages in the Koran such as 9.5: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush…, because no matter what those passages say we cannot understand them; but anyone who is a Muslim can somehow understand them perfectly, even without any formal training; whereas scholars in the U.S. are complete buffoons.

We are also free from 3000 years of western philosophy from Socrates to Edmund Burke. No longer do we need to study social contract theory, Aristotle’s pursuit of happiness, or Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. We can dispense with the Magna Carta, the Constitution, case law, and all of state law, as all we need is Sharia law to solve all of our problems.

Nor do we need to wonder why, if Islam is so great why it cannot police its own people? Why are there so many “rouge” mullahs, teachers that teach the “wrong path of Islam?” We are told that since there are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world and if they were all radical they could take over the world. This explains why those same 1.5 billion are never able to stop any of the terrorists, or wrong-headed teachers who “high-jack” Islam.

Yes, I’m getting to the Jihad at Fr. Hood, but please give me just a bit of your time.

Because of this new freedom we can now ignore people like Michael Savage, David Horowitz, Robert Spenser, or any of the others who warn us about Islam as Churchill warned us of a coming storm—the rising of Nazi Germany. We no longer have to listen to them, because World War II never happened either, Chamberlin was able to sit down and talk with Chancellor Hitler and reach a peace agreement thus saving us all from a horrible war.

No need to question the “Ft. Dix Six” and their plot to kill as many soldiers as possible, or Sgt. Asan Akbar, a member of the 101st Airborne Division who killed two U.S. soldiers in a grenade attack in 2003. We can ignore Thailand’s military warning of infiltrations. The French armed forces fears of the large numbers of Muslims within their ranks, currently at 15%. The Dutch and Austrians are now trying to investigate radical Muslims with their ranks. But, it is not necessary to worry that radical Muslims would ever do anything wrong, or infiltrate our ranks, so as to tap into our communications, learn our tactics, steal our secrets, because no enemy force has ever done this before.

Now when people are gunned down in cold-blood we can turn a blind eye, pretend to care and return to important matters like creating a socialist system of government, or worry about what Hollywood starlets are wearing. We can now cast-off all feelings of patriotism or sentiment toward our long history as a force for good, because Michael Moore told us, “There is no terrorist threat.” Thus, no one was killed at Ft. Hood. There was no shooter who is a devout, observant Muslim. Nothing bad is happening, there was no Jihad at Ft. Hood. There is no reason to stand up and say enough with political correctness, no reason to review history, no reason to learn western philosophy, no reason to examine the teachings of Islam—because nine people were not killed at Ft. Hood. Thirteen graves were not filled, thirteen flags were not folded, and thirteen families did not weep bitterly. There is no need for examination, go back to sleep, it was just a dream.

A Manifesto of Student Liberation from Leftist Tyranny by Leonard Magruder

Download here:

A Manifesto of Student Liberation from Leftist Tyranny by Leonard Magruder (468)