Thursday, October 19, 2017

ARCHIVE: Scottish Independence - Project 21 black leadership network

New episode from
Chuck Morse

"ARCHIVE: Scottish Independence - Project 21 black leaders..."

Fresh off the press!
Chuck Morse just published a new podcast episode.

Listen to it now

Podcasters love their craft and love their listeners even more. Show you care, share this episode and spread the word!

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

NEWSMAX: The Vietnam War Was Lost by Liberal, Post-Nixon Congress

Tags: vietnam war | nixon | congress

The Vietnam War Was Lost by Liberal, Post-Nixon Congress

Image: The Vietnam War Was Lost by Liberal, Post-Nixon Congress
Ken Burns participates in the "The Vietnam War" panel during the PBS portion of the 2017 Summer TCA's at the Beverly Hilton Hotel on Sunday, July 30, 2017, in Beverly Hills, California. (Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP)
By Tuesday, 17 Oct 2017 02:00 PMCurrent | Bio | Archive
The excellent documentary "The Vietnam War," produced by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick, takes us through a painful history and in the process, we learn about events and forces that brought us here.
My only criticism of this otherwise extraordinary film is that it glosses over a certain aspect of the final stage of the war, an aspect that puts liberalism in a bad light. That aspect is simply that America won the war and that liberals in Congress sold out that victory and in the process turned victory into a disgraceful defeat that cost upwards of millions of innocent lives.
By late 1972, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong were virtually defeated, American troops had been mostly withdrawn, and the war was winding down. America had at that point bombed North Vietnam into submission with B-52’s, with the mining Haiphong Harbor and by disabling the Ho Chi Minh Trail along with incursions into Cambodia. Indications were that South Vietnam was stepping up to the task of defending itself, was addressing its problems of corruption and was beginning to prosper.
The Paris Peace Accords were signed January 27, 1973, officially ending hostilities between North and South Vietnam and leaving the cease fire border at the same DMZ that was originally established by the 1954 Geneva Agreement. North Vietnam had failed in its goal of conquering South Vietnam which was, in turn, guaranteed sovereign rights by the agreement. North Vietnam proceeded to withdraw and return American POW’s. The United States signed several separate side agreements with South Vietnam that insured American training, military, and material support and economic assistance. The war was over, the shooting had stopped, South Vietnam was free.
Two months later, President Richard M. Nixon became embroiled in the Watergate scandal that consumed his presidency over the next year and a half leading to his resignation on August 8, 1974. This was followed two months later by the November 1974 mid-term election which resulted in a resounding victory for the Democrats who consolidated control over both the Senate and the House. Many left-wing Senators and congressmen were elected that year including Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Joe Biden of Delaware. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts emerged as the liberal Democratic ring-leader.
In a complete betrayal of the letter and the spirit of the Paris Peace Accord, the most liberal congress in a generation proceeded to cut off virtually all military assistance to South Vietnam and Cambodia in March 1975. Historian Louis Fanning stated: It was not the Hanoi communists who won the war, but rather the American Congress that lost it. Within weeks of this infamous and disgraceful betrayal, North Vietnam, with the full military support of the Soviet Union and Communist China, launched a full-scale invasion of the south.
Standing alone against the brutal onslaught, South Vietnam was forced to surrender, April 29, 1975. The result was the type of wholesale slaughter of the innocent that often accompanies a communist takeover. Simultaneously, Cambodia fell to the Khmer Rouge headed by Marxist doctrinaire leader Pol Pot. The subsequent Cambodian genocide resulted in an estimated million-plus dead. Hundreds of thousands of fleeing Vietnamese men, women, and children got on rickety boats in shark infested waters to escape from Ho Chi Minh’s left-wing progressive paradise.
We will never fully know of the extant of the death, poverty, disease and suffering the people of Southeast Asia would have to endure under the jack-boots of these so-called progressive regimes. America does, indeed, require some soul searching regarding our support of South Vietnam facing communist aggression but that such an honest reckoning might point in another direction than the one we are fed by the liberal establishment.
Chuck Morse is a radio host who broadcasts live Thursday's at 10 a.m. ET at WMFO-Tufts. Chuck hosts the podcast "Chuck Morse Speaks" on iTunes and Stitcher and his books are available on Amazon.com. For more of his reports — Click Here Now.

Monday, October 16, 2017

Cause of Weinstein cover-up

How did lecherous film producer Harvey Weinstein get away with inflicting his perversions on young women seeking jobs in Hollywood for 20 years? Why were Hollywood actors, some now facing similar accusations, able to intervene to stop the media from exposing this grotesque accused rapist and serial sexual molester? Why did the media, particularly the New York Times, look the other way when confronted with evidence of the grossest sort of sexism and misogamy?

Hollywood icons, such as the insufferably self-righteous Meryl Streep, act like Sargent Schultz in the 1960’s sit-com Hogan’s Heroes: I know nothing! I see nothing! I hear Nooo-Thing!! Will this scandal at least wipe that smug expression off her uninteresting face? Why didn’t Hollywood actresses such as Ashley Judd, who clearly knew what was going on, have the courage to at least drop a dime on this disgusting predator and save other members of the sisterhood from abuse? Perhaps she was too busy attending anti-Trump women’s rights rallies

The overt answer to this question is money and politics. Harvey Weinstein and his ilk are part of the predominantly liberal top 1% richest Americans. They can make or break people in their professions which, in and of itself, likely drove their sick behavior. They were big donors to liberal candidates and causes. The Clinton's, Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, liberal organizations and phony liberal foundations, they all got millions of dollars in the aggregate. They had financial reasons for keeping quiet which doesn’t for one minute excuse their corruption.

But more fundamentally, the reason why Weinstein and his cabal could routinely commit crimes against women is because they are the leaders of the liberal sexual revolution. They are not expected to behave morally, nor do we expect them to have any semblance of a moral compass, because they advocate and they celebrate moral relativism. Indeed, they are the avatars of moral degradation as evidenced by how their movies and TV shows, which profoundly influence the culture, push the sexual envelope. They use their media vehicles as propaganda to normalize and thus condone the same pervasions that they engage in. Through their media vehicles, they convey the message that we are just like them.

Yet they will use these same accusations against their enemies which is anyone who doesn’t dance to their leftist tune. Thus Alec Baldwin and Meryl Streep can attack Donald Trump for talking about, in a private conversation with Access Hollywood host Billy Bush that was recorded, his ability as a celebrity he could grab a women’s pussy while Baldwin grabs Streep’s pussy onscreen in the movie It’s Complicated.

The same goes for their campaign against “gun violence” while their movies depict increasing numbers of gun kills. They seek to disarm law abiding American gun owners while they increase their own security details. They yammer on about “gun control” while ignoring the growing death toll in the inner city of Chicago caused by illegal guns. Apparently, for them, those lives don’t matter.

If a conservative commits a moral indiscretion, one that runs against his belief system, he faces a high likelihood of character assassination and career destruction. If a conservative lives a moral life and advocates for morality he is more than likely ignored as they cannot find anything incriminating to use against him. The conservative activist can expect his every utterance to be analyzed under a microscope in a search for evidence of sexism. Unlike Weinstein and his cabal of women haters, the conservative must be judged by moral standards that are only trotted out as a weapon to stop his advocacy of moral standards.

Sunday, October 15, 2017

PODCAST: Apologist for Sandy Hook slaughter

New episode from
Chuck Morse

"Apologist for Sandy Hook slaughter"

Fresh off the press!
Chuck Morse just published a new podcast episode.

Listen to it now

Podcasters love their craft and love their listeners even more. Show you care, share this episode and spread the word!

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

NEWSMAX: Russia Has Long Co-Opted Left to Sow Political Division in America

Russia Has Long Co-Opted Left to Sow Political Division in America

Image: Russia Has Long Co-Opted Left to Sow Political Division in America
By Wednesday, 11 Oct 2017 10:23 AMCurrent | Bio | Archive
According to military intelligence, as reported by CNN, Russian government affiliated troll farms bought ads for Black Lives Matter on Facebook during the Ferguson and Baltimore race riots. Clearly Russia has been employing the same dialectic in America as it did back in Soviet times proving once again that the leopard hasn’t changed its spots.
Russia is clearly trying to exploit America’s Achilles heel by fanning the flames of race conflict and division and, in the process, attempting to weaken American society and self-image. While the extent of the Russian agit-prop is not yet known, the shared interests of Russia and the American left has been exposed and is as plain as day. This does not therefore mean that the American left, and the Democratic Party they control, were in conscious collusion with Russia.
If collusion with Russia occurred it is not likely that it was as pervasive or as deadly as was the collusion between Soviet Russia and members of the Roosevelt Administration back in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Back then, Soviet agents literally lived in the White House down the hall from a disabled president who they informally held hostage. Roosevelt was a patriot and a Christian who had no idea that his White House roommates, Soviet agents Harry Hopkins and Laughlin Curry, were reporting to Stalin. He was either unaware or he was unwilling to consider the dangers of having his under Secretary of State Alger Hiss and his under Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White crafting policies that favored Soviet Russia over the United States. His attitude was implacable insouciance as he presided over an administration that was shot through with subversives.
The information about Harry Hopkins and Laughlin Curry, among others including Frank Coe, has been confirmed by numerous sources including congressional testimony, the declassification of the Venona Projectdecrypts in the 1990’s, the opening of Soviet Files in the 1980’s and the book "American Betrayal" by journalist Diana West.
The situation today is more analogous to the description offered by Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein in his autobiography "Loyalties: A Son’s Memoir." The red diaper baby Bernstein wrote of asking his communist uncle whether he received his marching orders from the Kremlin. The uncle responded that he didn’t need such orders since all communists think alike.
As the old saying goes, birds of a feather flock together. While the left hardly needs Russia to buy ads from Facebook for them to magnify racial conflict to advance their agenda, there are certainly many tell-tale signs that they have at least coordinated their efforts with their traditional ally. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to the New York Times article "Cash flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal," dated April 23, 2015, allowed Russia to purchase one fifth of America’s uranium supply. That deal was followed by millions in donations to the Clinton Foundation and a half a million dollar “honorarium” for former President Bill Clinton to speak in Moscow.
Several self-described progressive media figures are paid by Russian government run Russian Television. While there is no hard evidence that the mainstream liberal press and cultural institutions have directly colluded with Russia, perhaps the poison was introduced into the body politic in generations past and that they are the inevitable if unconscious spawn.
We can only hope that the several congressional investigations into Russian interference into the election actually gets to the bottom of a scandal that can be traced back to well over a half a century of collusion. Let’s hope they get beyond a partisan witch hunt and instead expose the real rot that has infested elements of our government and public life for some time.
Chuck Morse is a radio host who broadcasts live Thursday's at 10 a.m. ET at WMFO-Tufts. Chuck hosts the podcast "Chuck Morse Speaks" on iTunes and Stitcher and his books are available on Amazon.com. For more of his reports — Click Here Now.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

NEWSMAX: Have Radical Students Taken Over Tufts University?

Have Radical Students Taken Over Tufts University?

Image: Have Radical Students Taken Over Tufts University?
By Thursday, 05 Oct 2017 01:14 PMCurrent | Bio | Archive
Have Tufts University students gone off the political deep end? Or, more likely, are they a microcosm of a national trend?
First, the so-called “disorientation” guide, published annually by students at the beginning of the school year, referred to the State of Israel as a “white supremacist state” while accusing the college Hillel of “exploit(ing) black voices for their own pro-Israel agenda.” Now students, writing in the student run Tufts Observer, have accused the Economics Department of promoting “capitalist ideologies” as opposed to so-called “social justice,” which is a euphemism for socialism.
Earlier this year, the Tufts student senate, meeting a day before Passover when most Jewish students were out of town preparing to attend Seders, voted to boycott Israel. The day after the election of 2016, instead of celebrating the peaceful transfer of power that has taken place in this great country every four years since 1789, Tufts students were offered mental health and counseling services and so-called “safe spaces.”
The atmosphere at Tufts has become hardly conducive to anything remotely resembling the free and open expression of opinions and ideas. Indeed, Tufts has instituted a “Bias Response Team” that asks students to drop a dime on each other to report so-called hate speech as the student defines the term. More than one report could lead to suspension or expulsion. Understandably, students learn to conform and keep quiet. They are not to blame given the fact that their parents might shell out upwards of sixty grand a year for their young charges to attend this august institution. The Tufts Anti-Bias office is comparable to one set up by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey in the aftermath of the 2016 election, a hot line for citizens to drop a dime on Trump supporters.
Left-wing Tufts students ought to be free to openly discuss and debate ideas that others might describe as anti-Semitic and anti-American. In fact, such debate, and the unvarnished expression of ideas in opposition to those views ought to be welcomed at this institution of higher learning, this incubator of America’s future leaders. Instead the left-wing cabal, consistent with their authoritarian orientation, seek to use the levers of power, the student government, the left dominated student periodical, the college sanctioned bias police, to enforce their views and intimidate their opposition. They use free speech to end free speech in the name of free speech.
I hosted a talk show at WMFO Tufts in 1997, 20 years ago, for one year, and I returned 20 years later in 2017. Like the mythical Washington Irving character Rip Van Winkle, who falls asleep before the American Revolutionand wakes up 20 years later, I found myself entering a different world at Tufts. Back in 1997, I was challenged both on and off the air by predominantly left oriented students with lively and at times ribald and hilarious debate. Back then I often interviewed prominent liberals as my guests including Noam Chomsky, Gloria Steinem, the late Howard Zinn and Barney Frank who I would later challenge as a candidate for Congress in 2004. Few liberals accept my invitations or even return my calls today.
Now the atmosphere at Tufts is turgid, dull and fearful. Students are afraid to speak to me and when they do they look around to make sure no one is looking. I get hostile stares and am shunned. The student-run paper publishes a hit piece on me, filled with half-truths and wildly out-of-context comments in response to a student who turned me in to the anti-Bias office. I returned to Tufts with the naive hope that I might contribute an alternative opinion and generate genuine thinking and dialogue only to be gravely shocked and disappointed over the condition of the young and upcoming generation. My hope is that, in this regard, Tufts is an anomalyand is not typical of the condition of Americas colleges today.
But I am optimistic. I believe that the positive forces of free expression will ultimately prevail knowing that only a few brave souls are required to stand up to cultural tyranny.
Chuck Morse is a radio host who broadcasts live Thursday's at 10 a.m. ET at WMFO-Tufts. Chuck hosts the podcast "Chuck Morse Speaks" on iTunes and Stitcher and his books are available on Amazon.com. For more of his reports — Click Here Now.