English

Monday, March 27, 2017

Podcast: Where We Stand After the London Terrorist Attack


New episode from
Chuck Morse

"Where We Stand After the London Terrorist Attack"


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!

Where We Stand After the London Terrorist Attack

Tags: london | terrorist

Where We Stand After the London Terrorist Attack

Image: Where We Stand After the London Terrorist Attack
Floral tributes to the victims of the March 22 terror attack and a message reading "We are not afraid. London stands united" are seen in central London on March 26, 2017. (Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP/Getty Images)
By Chuck MorseMonday, 27 Mar 2017 10:52 AMMore Posts by Chuck Morse
We have become used to the type of slaughter that occurred March 22 in London. We grimly shrug when our fellow Americans are gunned down wholesale at a nightclub in Orlando or when office employees are wiped out in San Bernardino. Our souls are penetrated by the sound on the radio of a scream of a young girl at an airport in Brussels. We are thankful that we were not there. A little calculator goes off in our heads working the odds of whether we or our loved one might become the next person to by the farm. We stand by as these sickening acts of perversion and hate, driven by an incomprehensible rage, break out like clockwork across the firmament like bedsores.
Our leaders respond with bland lectures that subtly shift the blame for this new phenomenon to us. We are at fault because we are too successful or because we are intolerant. They forbid us to identify the beliefs and motives of the killers, or to view such killings as systematic as opposed to carried out by lone wolves. They threaten to call us names and smear our reputations if we allow ourselves to think out loud. Indeed, no major publisher with any integrity in America, as the term is now defined, would publish the truth about these killers. Meanwhile, the killers publicly and boastfully identify themselves and proudly declare their motives.
The phenomenon is worse than Nazism and Communism. The Nazis tried to hide their monstrous crimes because they had at least some scruples, some shreds of humanity clanking around in their sick skulls that told them that what they were doing was wrong. The Communists wrapped their atrocities, mass starvations, killing fields, as grim but necessary in a great march toward a sunlit utopian future. They not only tried to hide their crimes, usually from themselves, but they projected their crimes onto their opponents. As the old communist saying goes: You’ve got to crack a few eggs to make an omelet.
The enemy now is worse, and is potentially more deadly, because they declare their atrocities as a virtue and they site their crimes as a command in their doctrine which they claim is divine. They follow commands that order them to kill specific groups of people, groups that are walking the earth today. They believe that they are commanded, essentially, to kill anyone who does not submit to their will. This is the barest form of intolerance for the so-called other.
When General Ulysses S. Grant called for the “unconditional surrender” of rebel forces, he drew a moral contrast between the Union and the rebellion and this marked the true beginning of the end of the Civil War. This was likewise the case when President Franklin D. Roosevelt, echoing Grant, called for the unconditional surrender of the Nazis. President Ronald Reagan, by identifying the Soviet Union as the “evil empire” likewise contrasted their immoral society with our superior one and this led to their collapse without firing a shot.
We need the same courage and clear thinking today. We must unabashedly contrast our superior civilization with that of an enemy that is killing us and that seeks to destroy us. We must study their doctrines and read them back to them publicly so that we have a clear eye regarding exactly what we are up against. We must maintain a big tent that welcomes all peoples and nations who want to join our effort to defend ourselves against evil. If we fail to do this, if we get used to the terror in our midst, then we are doomed.
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.

Friday, March 24, 2017

Trump Travel Ban Prompts Constitutional Questions About Sovereignty


Trump Travel Ban Prompts Constitutional Questions About Sovereignty

Image: Trump Travel Ban Prompts Constitutional Questions About Sovereignty
Demonstrators march against the immigration polices of President Donald Trump and other issues on February 11, 2017, in New York City. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
By Chuck MorseFriday, 24 Mar 2017 12:00 PMMore Posts by Chuck Morse
Does a person or a group of people have a right to travel or to immigrate from one sovereign nation to another?
This question is being tested by American judges responding to the Trump administration's attempt to regulate foreign travel and refugee status. Several federal judges have sought to grant constitutional rights, under the guise of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to foreign non-citizens who seek to travel to or settle in the United States.
Does the American constitution extend to the rest of the world? The fundamental question is whether the United States, or for that matter any sovereign nation has the right to decide who enters the national home.
What is at stake here is the definition of property and national sovereignty.
International law and custom, historically and presently, indicate that all nations reserve the right to make such determinations. Such a right of nations is as natural as the right of the individual or the family to decide who enters the private home. There are laws in place to protect those rights. To enter a person’s home uninvited could lead to legal charges such as trespassing or breaking and entering.
This natural right is observable in the animal kingdom. The bird decides which animal goes near its nest. The bee detects an intruder into the hive. No person, no animal, no nation needs to explain why they have chosen to exclude any visitor from their home.
Yet there are moral questions to consider.
It was immoral, for example, for the Roosevelt Administration to deny entry to Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Europe. Their lives were in danger, they had few if any options open to them, and they had the resources and sponsors who were willing to take responsibility for them, yet America slammed the door shut. In the 1970’s, America was right to welcome Vietnamese boat people fleeing the brutal communist jack-boot. Likewise, America welcomed Cubans fleeing that slave island at least until the final days of the Obama Administration when Obama, as one of his last acts in office, slammed that door shut.
For better or for worse, our government ought to retain the right to make such decisions on behalf of the American people.
As a sovereign nation, like all sovereign nations, we must reserve the right to determine who enters our nation. No person or group has a right to go from nation A to nation B without the consent of nation B. If our nation is denied this right, for any reason, then our government is hog-tied in its ability to protect our safety as well as our culture and our land. We should be free to debate, without rancor or hyperbole, the serious question of whether it is in our interest, as a nation and as a culture, to admit any foreigner or foreign group.
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, March 23, 2017

Chuck Morse discusses radical Islam at Tufts University


Wednesday, March 22, 2017

The Russian Double Game

The Russian Double Game
Chuck Morse

If the Russians played a role in our election, and FBI Director James Comey is in the process of conducting an investigation, then they were playing the same double game as they did back in the old Soviet days. Back then they drew inspiration from the Communist Manifesto which calls for the secret infiltration of targeted governments and societies by operatives who would use methods of subversion to bring about the desired changes. Marx called upon socialist agents to disguise themselves and adapt to conditions of the targeted society, to bore from within to use communist jargon.

The dialectical approach involves control over both sides of the argument, the creation of false conflict, and the stripping away of ideas that would stand in the way of the communist goal which was a worldwide collectivist system. In this manner, communist operatives might be disguised as a cleric, a religious leader, even a conservative who would subtly change the
direction of the targeted group. Congressional testamony indicates that these methods were used in the 20th Century by the Soviets to infiltrate American unions, corporations, academia, cultural institutions, and the government itself.

This method may have been employed to influence the Trump campaign although it is doubtful that the Russians, in the remote possibility that they infiltrated the Trump campaign, wanted Trump to win the election. Their candidate was more likely Hillary Clinton who they had already effectively compromised. According to the New York Times Cash flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal, dated April 23, 2015, Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, signed off on a uranium deal that allowed a Russian company to purchase American uranium and assume control over one fifth of American uranium production. The deal, which was partially hidden from the Obama Administration, 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.

Russian Television, RT, is a major Russian propaganda arm that has a growing influence within American leftist circles. American leftist media commentators including Thom Hartmann, Ed Schults and Mike Papantonio as well as more mainstream commentators such as Larry King and Peter Lavelle are all on their network and payroll. In classic Soviet style, the left-wingers on RT are leaders in the vanguard movement against President Donald Trump. Indeed this represents the dialectic in its purest form as they accuse President Trump of collusion with Russia from their own Russian platform.

In Soviet times, the international communist conspiracy, coordinated from the Kremlin, was

only one finger in the hand. Other pieces of the appendage included establishment and even conservative and religious groups that had been infiltrated and compromised. It now appears that a similar hand might be at play against President Trump as this establishment, which did not expect him to win, very well might be trying to harry his effort to return governing responsibilities back to the people. Indeed, if common ground and aims can be at all detected and are at play, reason and observation would indicate that such collusion on the part of the Russian oligarchs is likely.

Is travel and immigration a right?

Is travel and immigration a right?
Chuck Morse

Does a person or a group of people have a right to travel or to immigrate from one sovereign nation to another? This question is being tested by American judges responding to the Trump Administration attempt to regulate foreign travel and refugee status. 

Several federal judges have sought to grant constitutional rights, under the guise of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, to foreign non-citizens who seek to travel to or settle in the United States. Does the American constitution extend to the rest of the world? The fundamental question is whether the United States, or for that matter any sovereign nation has the right to decide who enters the national home.
What is at stake here is the definition of property and national sovereignty.
International law and custom, historically and presently, indicate that all nations reserve the right to make such determinations. Such a right of nations is as natural as the right of the individual or the family to decide who enters the private home. There are laws in place to protect those rights. To enter a person’s home uninvited could lead to legal charges such as trespassing or breaking and entering.

This natural right is observable in the animal kingdom. The bird decides which animal goes near its nest. The bee detects an intruder into the hive. No person, no animal, no nation needs to explain why they have chosen to exclude any visitor from their home.
Yet there are moral questions to consider. It was immoral, for example, for the Roosevelt Administration to deny entry to Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Europe. Their lives were in danger, they had few if any options open to them, and they had the resources and sponsors who were willing to take responsibility for them yet America slammed the door shut. In the 1970’s, America was right to welcome Vietnamese boat people fleeing the brutal communist jack-boot. Likewise, America welcomed Cubans fleeing that slave island at least until the final days of the Obama Administration when Obama, as one of his last acts in office, slammed that door shut.


For better or for worse our government ought to retain the right to make such decisions on behalf of the American people. As a sovereign nation, like all sovereign nations, we must reserve the right to determine who enters our nation. No person or group has a right to go from nation A to nation B without the consent of nation B. If our nation is denied this right, for any reason, then our government is hog-tied in its ability to protect our safety as well as our culture and our land. We should be free to debate, without rancor or hyperbole, the serious question of whether it is in our interest, as a nation and as a culture, to admit any foreigner or foreign group.

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Chuck Morse discusses Trump travel ban at Tufts University

New episode from
Chuck Morse

"Chuck Morse discusses Trump travel ban at Tufts University"


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!

Chuck Morse discusses Trump travel ban at Tufts University

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

How to spot fake news part 1

Monday, March 13, 2017

Haman - The world's first Communist leader

McCarthyism of Al Franken, Left Undermines American Interests

McCarthyism of Al Franken, Left Undermines American Interests

Image: McCarthyism of Al Frankin, Left Undermines American Interests
U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy (1909-57). (AFP/AFP/Getty Images)
By Chuck MorseMonday, 13 Mar 2017 12:53 PMMore Posts by Chuck Morse
Senator Al Franken, D-Minnesota, while pushing the fake conspiracy theory that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia, routinely asks Republican nominees if they had any Russian contacts. He asked Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions if he had contact with Russians on behalf of the Trump campaign. Sessions answered honestly when he said no, however, and as is normal for any Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he had plenty of contact with the Russian Ambassador in that capacity. If the Democrats are successful in pulling off their Russia hoax, then Franken and the Democrats might be able to make the case for perjury.
They have not, however, made the case as even Obama Director of Intelligence James Clapper admits that his investigation of these charges came up with no evidence.
The tactic employed by Franken harkens back to the congressional hearings hosted by Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, R-Wisconsin, back in the 1950’s, when he asked government officials if they had contact with Russia, except for one difference.
Joe McCarthy was right.
Senators John F. Kennedy, D-Mass., Lyndon B. Johnson, D-Texas, Hubert H. Humphrey, D-Minnesota, as well as others inside and outside of government agreed with McCarthy’s contention that many government employees, starting in the 1930’s, had secretly colluded with Soviet Russia. Indeed, the de-classified Venona intercepts and the opening of Russian archives in the 1990’s proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that American officials did collude with Communist Russia. Many of those same officials, among them FDR’s Under Secretary of State Alger Hiss and his Under Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White, had put the interests of both Stalin and, I might add, Adolf Hitler over those of their own country in the first two years of World War II.
It was during this period, Aug. 1939-June 1941, that the international left was essentially allied with Nazi Germany. After the war, the clear majority of Americans, including many prominent liberals, wanted this conspiracy investigated. The far left mocked Americans, accusing them of paranoia, of seeing a Red under every bed.
Now the shoe is on the other foot. Now the left sees a Russian under every bed.
But in a sense the enemies of McCarthy back then are the same as the enemies of President Donald Trump today. They sought to destroy McCarthy for his audacity in defending American interests in the same way that they now seek to damage Trump’s ability to do the same, to put Americans and American interests first. The American far left supported Stalin and Hitler back then because of a misguided and amoral belief in world order. Today the left supports open borders for the same reasons. Both then and now they seek to subsume the national interest and, I might point out, their own personal interests in exchange for some demented and artificial fantasy of an authoritarian international order of absolute equality.
When Joe McCarthy took on those who had secretly supported Hitler and Stalin, he was standing up for the same principles back then that Donald Trump is standing up for today.
Chuck Morse is an author and radio talk show host. Chuck received the 2003 Communicator of the Year award from the National Right to Work Committee and was named a "Heavy 100" Radio Talk Host by Talkers Magazine. Chuck ran for Congress in Massachusetts against Barney Frank. For more of his reports — Click Here Now.

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

The Chuck Morse Letter: Newsmax Media



Chuck Morse


Mar 7, 2017

Much to the chagrin of the legions of Trump haters, the anti-Semite who perpetrated at least eight of the recent spate of bomb threats against Jewish Community Centers turns out to have been a leftist, an activist who sports a tattoo of Malcolm X.

Mar 3, 2017

Speaking at CPAC, Trump strategist Steve Bannon named the deconstruction of the administrative state as a primary goal of the Trump Administration. This set the left into a fiery paroxysm of rage.

Feb 27, 2017

Trump's refusal to kowtow to political correctness, the totalitarian idea which places every American under a microscope in a search for a racist gene, had neutralized the biggest weapon in the left-wing arsenal.

Feb 22, 2017

A meme permeating the leftist firmament compares President Donald Trump to famous fascists and dictators, including Hitler.

Feb 13, 2017

Apparently Warren is slipping in the polls in Massachusetts. Perhaps the people of Massachusetts have finally had enough of this phony and like the U.S. Senate, they are ready to tell her to sit down.

Feb 7, 2017

President Trump’s opponents, who constitute an incoherent combine of street protesters, Democrats, establishment Republicans and most of the top 1 percent wealthiest Americans, are motivated at their core by more than some insulting tweets.

Jan 30, 2017

While President Trump has accomplished more in his first week in office than Barack Obama did in 8 years, his boldest initiative so far has been his call for an investigation of vote fraud.

Jan 23, 2017

Obamacare, with its authoritarian confiscatory mandates and with its increasing premiums and deductibles, should be replaced by a free-market model that would insure more Americans at affordable rates while restoring competition and choice.


More Chuck Morse Stories