Bigot, racist, islamophobe, xenophobe, not who we are as a nation, global citizen, safe spaces, civil society, social justice, inhumane, diversity – These are just some of the words we hear every day from the Cultural Marxists whose goal is to change our way of thinking about any issue that they want to control.
If we understand what their goals are, then we have a much better chance of being able to fight their insidious ideology. Nancy
Cultural Marxist academics, their sycophant students, and the main stream media are at war with America—a war of violent Marxist ideology and a war of cleverly chosen words and euphemisms that appear time and time again in many college courses, high school classes, in propaganda literature, newspapers, conferences, and in the manufactured news. Cultural Marxists are regular guests on all the alphabet soup networks masquerading as real news, spewing their hatred, their disdain and disrespect for our President, and their calls to renewed violence in the streets through their masked Black Shirts.
As David Horrowitz said, “Worse yet, this is the dominant culture in our universities, in our media, in our judiciary, in government, in unions, and in the shadow political universe of non-profits, with billions of tax-free dollars at their disposal.”
Language is a powerful tool of discourse, mass political indoctrination and agitation. Marxist Democrats are quite adept at using inflammatory language and deceptive euphemisms to suit their nefarious political ends.
This helps to understand the positions of all the candidates in the French presidential race. This French election has important implications for the future of France, the EU and the Muslim migrant issue. Nancy
“What poses a problem is not Islam, but certain behaviors that are said to be religious and then imposed on persons who practice that religion.” — Emmanuel Macron
“Those who come to France are to accept France, not to transform it to the image of their country of origin. If they want to live at home, they should have stayed at home.” — Marine Le Pen
“It [France] is one nation that has a right to choose who can join it and a right that foreigners accept its rules and customs. — François Fillon
Jean-Luc Mélenchon has called for a massive increase in public spending, a 90% tax on anyone earning more than €400,000 ($425,000) a year, and an across-the-board increase in the minimum wage by 16% to €1,326 ($1,400) net a month, based on a 35-hour work week.
Benoît Hamon has promised to establish a universal basic income: he wants to pay every French citizen over 18, regardless of whether or not they are employed, a government-guaranteed monthly income of €750 ($800). The annual cost to taxpayers would be €400 billion ($430 billion). By comparison, France’s 2017 defense budget is €32.7 billion ($40 billion).
Voters in France will go to the polls on April 23 to choose the country’s next president in a two-step process. The top two winners in the first round will compete in a run-off on May 7.
The election is being closely followed in France and elsewhere as an indicator of popular discontent with mainstream parties and the European Union, as well as with multiculturalism and continued mass migration from the Muslim world.
We all might want to take a trip down memory lane to when Glenn Beck had an hour show on Fox News at 5 pm. I learned so much from Glenn about George Soros and his Open Society Foundations and Obama. I stopped whatever I was doing at 5 pm and sat down with an extra large glass of wine as Beck pulled back the curtain with his chalkboard for all to see how the One World Government powers and Socialism were taking hold in our country. Fox News was pressured to push Glenn Beck out too supposedly because of pressure from sponsors. The Left wanted to shut down Beck because the public was learning too much about what really goes on in the world of the Puppet Masters.
For the last year or two O’Reilly has been more critical of the Left and now he has been shut down too. Do we see a pattern here ? The following is an excerpt from Rush Limbaugh’s commentary about what really happened to Bill O’Reilly. To read the entire article , please click on the link. Thanks to Lynn Ross of South Carolina for sharing. Nancy
Ask Yourself Why Left-Wing Media Personalities Are Never the Target of Advertiser Boycotts
Apr 20, 2017
EXCERPT FROM RUSH’S COMMENTARY:
The way this works is this. The New York Times runs a story, and the story talks about how valuable O’Reilly is to Fox News and how much money O’Reilly is generating, and this irritates everybody that reads the New York Times. They don’t want to see this. They don’t want to see how successful O’Reilly is. They don’t want to see how big Fox is ’cause they hate it. They hate Fox, they hate O’Reilly, they don’t want to see any of this. And the New York Times pounds ’em with how much money O’Reilly is making, how much money he’s generating for Fox, how powerful Fox is, and they see as they read this.
And then the New York Times lowers the boom and points out that O’Reilly is a serial whatever and has paid off $13 million to other women to shut up. There has to be an outlet for the anger. Then what happens is where the real story begins. And it is not that advertisers are reading the New York Times and going, “Oh, my God, I can’t have my product there,” and they call their agency and say, “You get us out of there.” That is not how it happened. That is what they want you to think happens, but that’s not how it happens.
The advertisers are not taking the initiative here. The advertisers are themselves being inundated with what they think is tens of thousands of complaint emails and tweets from people they believe represent tens of thousands of legitimately angry citizens. When in truth it is a bunch of bots, Facebook bots and Twitter bots that may have been generated by no more than 10 people, made to look like tens of thousands. And that’s all she wrote.
The EPA and its counterparts need reining, a measure that’s long overdue
ByKelly Riddell– The Washington Times – Thursday, January 26, 2017
:
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE: According to a report in The New York Times the “EPAsponsored a drive on Facebook and Twitter to promote its proposed clean water rule in conjunction with the Sierra Club. At the same time, Organizing for Action, a grass-roots group with deep ties to Mr. Obama, was also pushing the rule. They urged the public to flood theagencywith positive comments to counter opposition from farming and industry groups.”
TheEPAeven employed Thunderclap, an innovative social media tool, to help spread its message to hundreds of thousands of people, like a virtual flash mob, the Times reported.
All of this is against the law because federal agencies are prohibited from propagandizing. You see — federal agencies are supposed to be neutral in their rule-making, and let public opinion, industry, scientists and lawmakers derive the best path forward.
Scott Pruitt,Mr. Trump’s pick to lead theagency, knows this all too well. He’s sued the agency 13 times, and understands its culture of executive overreach, lawlessness and environmental activism. That’s why he’s the perfect man for the job.
The mainstream media is in panic mode.
“Hour by hour — shock decree by shock decree — a once great nation is being diminished by self-inflicted blows beyond its enemies’ wildest dreams,” Philip Gourevitch, a staff writer at The New Yorker, penned on Twitter in response to the news that the Trump administration is mandatingEnvironmental Protection Agencyscientific studies and data undergo review by political staff before public release.
EPAstaffers — who reportedly cried and had to take days off for counseling afterDonald Trumpwon the presidency in November — are in full revolt. After the Trump administration took away their social media accounts and froze their grants, a rogue staffer at the National Park Service tweeted out climate facts.
And yet, theEPAand its environmental counterparts within the federal bureaucracy need reigning in — it’s a measure that’s long overdue
Greenfield: How George SorosDestroyed the Democratic Party
The Left ultimately destroys itself.
by Daniel Greenfield Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
December 28, 2016
It was the end of the big year with three zeroes. The first X-Men movie had broken box office records. You couldn’t set foot in a supermarket without listening to Brittney Spears caterwauling, “Oops, I Did It Again.” And Republicans and Democrats had total control of both chambers of legislatures in the same amount of states. That was the way it was back in the distant days of the year 2000.
In 2016, Republicans control both legislative chambers in 32 states. That’s up from 16 in 2000.
What happened to the big donkey? Among other things, the Democrats decided to sell their base and their soul to a very bad billionaire and they got a very bad deal for both.
It was 2004. The poncho was the hottest fashion trend, there were 5 million new cases of AIDS and a former Nazi collaborator had bought the Democrat Party using the spare change in his sofa cushions.
And gone to war against the will of the people. This was what he modestly called his own “Soros Doctrine”.
“It is the central focus of my life,” George Soros declared. It was “a matter of life and death.” He vowed that he would become poor if it meant defeating the President of the United States.
Instead of going to the poorhouse, he threw in at least $15 million, all the spare change in the billionaire’s sofa cushions, dedicated to beating President Bush.
In his best lisping James Bond villain accent, Soros strode into the National Press Club and declared that he had “an important message to deliver to the American Public before the election” that was contained in a pamphlet and a book that he waved in front of the camera. Despite his “I expect you to die, Mr. Bond” voice, the international villain’s delivery was underwhelming. He couldn’t have sold brownies to potheads at four in the morning. He couldn’t even sell Bush-bashing to a roomful of left-wing reporters.
But he could certainly fund those who would. And that’s exactly what he did.
The following commentary from Troy Senik (vice president of policy and programs at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research) contains a couple of what I thought to be poignant observations (highlighted).
For a sizable number of Donald Trump’s supporters, those moments may have been justification enough for their vote. After years of being sneered at, they got a front-row seat for a collective nervous breakdown radiating out through the Acela Corridor and the West Coast’s Highway 101. They got to hit the elites—a term that, though promiscuously applied, does identify a distinct cultural phylum—right in their (glass, it turns out) jaws.
Trump’s victory may well have completed the transformation of partisan politics into cultural proxy war—a transformation that, it bears noting, began well before he arrived on the political scene. As the pundits observed ad nauseam on election night, the America that voted for Trump lives, in large measure, at both a physical and social remove from the one that voted for Hillary Clinton. They failed, however, to note an important asymmetry that explains why progressive America was so thunderstruck as Tuesday night passed into Wednesday morning: the Trump parts of the country understand the Clinton parts much better than vice versa.
ByRowan Scarborough– The Washington Times – Thursday, October 20, 2016
Hillary Clintonhas aligned herself closely with a vision for America laid out by her benefactor — left-wing financierGeorge Soros, who talks of “international governance,” more open borders, increased Muslim immigration and diminished U.S. global power.
The phrase “American exceptionalism” is not part of his agenda. He wrote in 1998: “The sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.”
“We need some global system of political decision-making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy,”Mr. Soroswrote.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks on New York City and the Pentagon, he said, “Military power is of limited use in dealing with asymmetric threats such as terrorism.”
The Clinton-Sorossymbiosis came into clearer focus this month with WikiLeaks’ release of thousands of hacked emails from John Podesta,Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman.Mr. Soros‘ name comes up nearly 60 times.
Cultural Marxist academics, their sycophant students, and the main stream media are at war with America—a war of violent Marxist ideology and a war of cleverly chosen words and euphemisms that appear time and time again in many college courses, high school classes, in propaganda literature, newspapers, conferences, and in the manufactured news. Cultural Marxists are regular guests on all the alphabet soup networks masquerading as real news, spewing their hatred, their disdain and disrespect for our President, and their calls to renewed violence in the streets through their masked Black Shirts.
And then the New York Times lowers the boom and points out that O’Reilly is a serial whatever and has paid off $13 million to other women to shut up. There has to be an outlet for the anger. Then what happens is where the real story begins. And it is not that advertisers are reading the New York Times and going, “Oh, my God, I can’t have my product there,” and they call their agency and say, “You get us out of there.” That is not how it happened. That is what they want you to think happens, but that’s not how it happens.
The Left ultimately destroys itself.
December 28, 2016