Yeah, sure Newt, because Mandela was JUST LIKE Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin

There goes Newt, doing one of his two favorite things, lecturing Conservatives. this time on the wonder that was Mandela, who according to Newt is just like our Founders

Yesterday I issued a heartfelt and personal statement about the passing of President Nelson Mandela. I said that his family and his country would be in my prayers and Callista’s prayers.

I was surprised by the hostility and vehemence of some of the people who reacted to me saying a kind word about a unique historic figure.

So let me say to those conservatives who don’t want to honor Nelson Mandela, what would you have done?

Mandela was faced with a vicious apartheid regime that eliminated all rights for blacks and gave them no hope for the future. This was a regime which used secret police, prisons and military force to crush all efforts at seeking freedom by blacks.

What would you have done faced with that crushing government?

What would you do here in America if you had that kind of oppression?

Some of the people who are most opposed to oppression from Washington attack Mandela when he was opposed to oppression in his own country.

After years of preaching non-violence, using the political system, making his case as a defendant in court, Mandela resorted to violence against a government that was ruthless and violent in its suppression of free speech.

As Americans we celebrate the farmers at Lexington and Concord who used force to oppose British tyranny. We praise George Washington for spending eight years in the field fighting the British Army’s dictatorial assault on our freedom.

Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote and the Continental Congress adopted that “all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Doesn’t this apply to Nelson Mandela and his people?

It applies to all people Newt, but Communism, which Mandela embraced, never respects or enables liberty does it? You can sugar coat Mandela’s record if you like Newt, but you might want to consider that allowing to Left to rewrite Mandela’s legacy, and allowing them to bestow sainthood upon him do not aid the truth or liberty. If you wish to bow to Mandela fine Newt, go right ahead, you and Charles Johnson can maybe get a drink or two and talk about how much y’all have in common. After all, Mandela ONLY turned to Communism AFTER those Conservatives refused to back him and oppose apartheid right? 

 

Mandela was “appointed the leader of the newly formed Umkhonto we Sizwe guerrilla movement, an underground military arm of the ANC,” in 1961, to quote the Washington Post. “After raiding the ANC offices, police [found] documents outlining an armed campaign to overthrow the government. Mandela and nine others [were] charged with conspiracy. . . . After an eight-month trial, Mandela and seven others [were] sentenced to life in prison [in 1964] and taken to Robben Island.”

This happened when the presidents of the United States were John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. If JFK or LBJ (both Democrats) protested the arrest and imprisonment of Mandela, or did anything to end apartheid in South Africa, this has escaped my notice. But as to the wisdom of U.S. policy, either under JFK or LBJ or later under Reagan, it is important to remember that the chief object of our foreign policy was opposition to communism, especially Soviet-backed “wars of national liberation” in Third World countries. Charles Johnson will not let the evident fact that he doesn’t know a goddamned thing about Cold War history (or any other history, for that matter) impede the use of his “Race Detective” skills against Ronald Reagan.

Let the education begin. What do we know about the ANC and its military wing, the Umkhonto we Sizwe (“Spear of the Nation”) guerrilla movement, known as MK? From The Diplomacy of Liberation: The Foreign Relations of the ANC since 1960 by Scott M. Thomas:

The less publicized support socialist states gave the ANC was the military training of its cadres. Before the Sino-Soviet split, key ANC personnel were trained in China at the Nanking Military Academy. Soviet bloc para-military training took place in Cuba, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. For more advanced training, recruits went to the Soviet Union.
Unkhonto training bases in Africa in the early 1960s were mainly in north Africa. By 1964, recruits were being trained in Egypt (about 25), in Algeria (about 50-70), and smaller numbers in Ethiopia, Ghana (organized by Ghana’s Bureau of African Affairs, but with Soviet instructors), in Morocco and Tanzania.
Chinese and Soviet training arrangements were made until the Umkhonto’s camps could be built in southern Africa. The first bases were in Tanzania, after independence in 1961, and in Zambia after independence in 1964. According to Anatoly A. Gromyko, the Director of the Institute of African Studies, arms, ammunition and some Soviet training personnel began arriving at these newly established Umkhonto bases after Zambia’s independence. . . .
The Soviet Union, Cuba, the Eastern bloc, particularly the GDR [German Democratic Republic, i.e., East Germany], and Angola trained cadres . . . North Korea and Bulgaria helping to a lesser extent. By the early 1980s, the ANC’s Chief Representative in [East Germany] acknowledged that an increasing number of ANC cadres were being trained there in various fields, particularly law, engineering, and natural science. This was a cover for military training since Umkhonto recruits in the Soviet Union were openly identified with the ANC and the SACP [South African Communist Party], but in [East Germany] they trained in civilian clothing under the guise of doing other courses.
For some Umkhonto recruits there was a country specialization in the progression of training: Mozambique … for political strategy, Angola for weapons training, the Soviet Union for general training, including a platoon commanders’ course in tactics and artillery and an advanced infantry course for officers. The best Umkhonto recruits were sent to [East Germany] for more advanced studies in communications, sabotage, topography, map reading, military engineering, and political theory. …
The [South African Communist Party] was instrumental in forming Umkhonto we Sizwe. …. While Mandela made the arrangements to set up training bases for Umkhonto cadres during his Africa tour in 1962, Arthur Goldreich, a member of the SACP and Umkhonto, went to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe for the same purpose. Although his trip was to obtain military assistance, including explosives for sabotage, Goldreich tried to convince the Soviets to directly intervene in South Africa, but they declined. They only promised military assistance and reportedly gave Goldreich $2.8 million.
Oliver Tambo has acknowledged he went to the Soviet Union for the first time in 1963. He was accompanied by Moses Kotane, Secretary-General of the SACP, and Duma Nokwe, Secretary-General of the ANC. …
The ANC’s main training bases were set up in northern Angola in 1977. … Five training camps were set up in northern Angola, holding between 2,000 and 8,000 Umkhonto combatants. … [T]he training was given by East German, Cuban and Soviet instructors. …
Developments in Angola were closely connected to the ANC’s relations with Cuba. Six months after military preparations began in northern Angola, in October 1977, Oliver Tambo went to Havana to discuss the role Cuba could play in the liberation struggle. The following year, Alex La Guma, a South African author who was also a key member of the SACP, established the ANC’s office in Havana. …

The fact is, the ANC was allied with the South African Communist Party and, for nearly two decades before Ronald Reagan became president of the United States, the ANC and its MK guerrilla movement were aligned with the Soviet-led communist bloc, including East Germany and Fidel Castro’s Cuba.

In short Mandela was a Communist Newt! And Communism is evil. Again, you want to point out the positives about Mandela, fine, but don’t you wag your damned finger at those who DO point out all the facts, even the politically incorrect facts about Mandela

Wall Street editorial as racist data-point for the right, “Nelson Mandela (at Google)”:

The bulk of his adult life, Nelson Mandela was a failed Marxist revolutionary and leftist icon, the Che Guevara of Africa. Then in his seventies he had the chance to govern. He chose national reconciliation over reprisal, and he thus made himself a historic and all too rare example of a wise revolutionary leader.

Mandela, who died Thursday at age 95, had a patrician upbringing and a Methodist education. But his coming of age coincided with the rise of apartheid. Winning whites-only elections in 1948, the National Party lavished its Afrikaner base of European descendants with state jobs and privileges. Black, mixed-race and Indian South Africans were disfranchised.

Trained as a lawyer, Mandela was drawn to the African National Congress, which was founded by professional, educated blacks in 1912. He was not a born communist, but as he rose in its ranks the ANC moved toward Marxism and an alliance with the Soviets. Mandela kept portraits of Lenin and Stalin above his desk at home. Frustrated with the ANC’s ineffective peaceful resistance, he embraced armed struggle in the early 1960s and trained to become a guerrilla leader. He was arrested for plotting sabotage.

His 1964 trial gave Mandela a platform. In his famous closing argument, he said: “I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But, if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

This speech was the last the world saw of him for 26 years. He started his life sentence at Robben Island prison near Cape Town a would-be Lenin. He walked out of jail on February 11, 1990—at age 71—an African Havel.

Age mellowed him. Times changed. The apartheid leadership had opened secret talks with the ANC in the mid-1980s. While still in prison, Mandela became “president in training” under F.W. de Klerk, the last apartheid leader. In early 1990, Mr. de Klerk lifted the ban on the ANC.

Mandela ditched the ANC’s Marxism and reached out to business. Somehow—another miracle—the illiberal ANC and the illiberal National Party together negotiated a liberal new constitution with strong protections for minorities and an independent judiciary. “You do not compromise with a friend,” Mandela often said, “you compromise with an enemy.”

He won the country’s first free presidential elections in 1994 and worked to unite a scarred and anxious nation. He opened up the economy to the world, and a black middle class came to life. After a single term, he voluntarily left power at the height of his popularity. Most African rulers didn’t do that, but Mandela said, “I don’t want a country like ours to be led by an octogenarian. I must step down while there are one or two people who admire me.”

Sorry there Newt but, Mandela did do some noble things, and if that is what you wish to focus on, that is you. As for me, I focus on the totality of the man. That totality leaves a lot of blood on his hands that no amount of white washing by those who admired him can wash away.

 

 

The Lefts’ tragic addiction to appeasement

Ah those special fools, here they go again, seeking peace at any price. Deluding themselves into trusting evil people with evil intentions, to be honest and above-board. Here they go again with their clueless “if we are nice to them…..” strategy. Ed already blogged about this but I wanted to add my two cents worth. I remember watching Liberals in the mid 1970’s as they called for peace with the Soviets. We should cut our military, so as not to frighten the Soviets they opined. We must show them we mean them no harm they said. Even as a child, I was aghast that they did not see that the Soviet Union, and in fact all Communists were bad, very bad, and meant us no good will. I never grasped how anyone could look at a country that was our sworn enemy, a country that had enslaved other countries and committed horrific atrocities, and even consider bowing to them. Years later I still am amazed at the depth of the stupidity of the Left. These are folks who would not only buy ocean front property in Arizona, but demand to pay twice the asking price. The Other McCain has some thoughts

We need not know anything about the details of this “historic deal” to know that it is absolutely worthless. The Islamic Republic of Iran has no respect for law, and cannot be expected to honor any promise it makes, except for its long-avowed purpose to annihilate Israel, to destroy “the Great Satan” and otherwise to carry out its violent worldwide revolutionary jihad against the West.

All the Iranian dictatorship seeks to accomplish by negotiation with the West is to anesthetize its enemies, to render opposition impotent by means of treaties that will postpone the inevitable confrontation until Iran has become stronger and we have become weaker.

Any “deal” with Iran is necessarily a bad deal, and the double guarantee of a bad deal is that it was approved by the Obama administration, which is “historic” only as a monument to incompetence with few parallels in human experience.

“The practical way of looking at things . . . may serve well enough in ordinary, normal times. But our times are not ‘normal’ in the good old Victorian sense, and never will be again. . . . These men, even Halifax, were essentially middle-class, not aristocrats. They did not have the hereditary sense of the security of the state, unlike Churchill, Eden, the Cecils. Nor did they have the toughness of the 18th-century aristocracy. They came at the end of the ascendancy of the Victorian middle-class, deeply affected as that was by high-mindedness and humbug. They all talked, in one form or another, the language of disingenuousness and cant: it was second nature to them — so different from Churchill. . . . It meant that they failed to see what was true, until too late, when it was simply a question of survival.”
– A.L. Rowse, Appeasement: A Study in Political Decline, 1933-39

Maybe it is because the Left denies the existence of evil that they cannot recognize its presence, even when it is so blatant as to be unmistakable.

Remember the promises of Communism are sweet, the realities evil

90 Miles From Tyranny takes us to one of the places where Communism showed its evil head, Cambodia. Amazingly, despite the lessons of Cambodia, China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, East  Germany, and many other “Communist Utopia’s” so many on the Left still say Communism just has not been implemented correctly. So many on the Left refuse to grasp that many of the ideals they embrace are Communist in nature. They refuse to see that embracing Communism in any form is like knocking down that  first domino. What is that they say about those who forget history? Yeah, you know the rest

This organization is remembered especially for orchestrating a Genocide, which resulted from the enforcement of its social engineering policies. Can You guess? No, It is not the Obama genocides (not yet anyways), it’s our cute commie friends the Khmer Rouge or Red Khmers.  The Khmer Rouge wanted to eliminate anyone suspected of “involvement in free-market activities.” Suspected capitalists encompassed professionals and almost everyone with an education.  Now who would want lots of people with poor education?  Oh, that’s right, Democrats.

The Khmer Rouge believed that parents were tainted with capitalism, so they separated children from their parents and indoctrinated them in communism.  And That would be happening now in where?  You got it, common core classrooms, in the good ole USSA.

The post is long, but you should read it, and if possible, get a Liberal friend to read it. Here is a bit Mike Miles linked from another blog

We are not the first to arrive here, and at first I cringe at the bus loads of well-fed tourists mulling about with their headsets on. They are listening to an audio-tour, no different than a day out at an art museum and the contrast to the starvation and suffering on these grounds 30 years ago was too much to handle for me.  But within a few minutes of listening in, I realize how important it is for people to come here and learn about the genocide unleashed on Cambodia by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

In school, we learn about Nazi Germany under the pretext that genocide must never happen again, yet no mention was made of Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge killed anyone who was educated or spoke foreign languages, while others were forced to work in labor camps. Over 25% of the population, or 2 million people, were killed from 1975-1979, in order to create the all-agrarian society Pol Pot believed was necessary in order to free Cambodia and make it independent of outside influence.
Visualizing how the ground bubbled up as gasses from the 20,000 buried bodies were released. Seeing the clothes that had rotted off the victims still scattered on the ground, partially exposed by wind and rain. Standing in front of the Killing Tree, against which Khmer Rouge soldiers bashed babies and their mothers like sacks of potatoes until they died; the price of bullets too precious to waste.
Stop 18, the last stop on the walking tour, brings you to the massive pagoda, the center point of what is now a memorial park. Over 9,000 skulls are piled inside this 17-storey structure, along with bones and more piles of clothing. Witnessing this makes the scale of the killing truly tangible. As at other points of the tour, I am immediately sick; nausea mixes with a piercing pain in my temples and an angry fire in my heart and my stomach too hard to explain.
We learn at our next stop, the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum, that of the 20,000 people who were tortured at this former prison, only seven people survived. Around the country there was a much higher rate of survival, but here at S-21, just stepping through the doors meant sentencing to months of torture before eventual death.
Before we stepped through the doors, however, we were confronted by a legless blind man begging for money outside. I decide he is, no doubt, a victim of the regime, who now spends his days outside one of the darkest locations in Cambodia’s history.
Passing through the doors, thousands of fearful eyes stare back at us, in the form of black and white photographs. Head shots of every single man, woman and child brought to this detention center were taken, methodically documented their arrival. I stare at photograph after photograph choking back tears, knowing that if I let one fall, I won’t be able to stop.
I worked with a girl a few years ago who was Cambodian, her name was Sineath, she was beautiful, and very sweet. If I had been 15  or 20 years younger, I might have fallen in love with her. Her parents came to the US before she was born, but she knew the history of Cambodia. So I did some research into Cambodia, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. It was heartbreaking, especially those pictures they spoke about. The bastards in the Khmer Rouge kept detailed records of their evil atrocities, and the worst, by far were the pictures. Especially those pictures of children, all slaughtered in the name of the foundation of Communism, the common good.
I write a lot about Individualism and Collectivism. Cambodia is a glaring example of where Collectivism leads. Such horrific suffering and evil is the natural end to Collectivism because Collectivism seeks to eradicate every last vestige of individual liberty. Once those liberties are sacrificed upon the altar of the common good, well, let tens of million Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, North Koreans, Cubans, and Eastern Europeans answer that.

 

How Lenin destroyed marriage and family in the Soviet Union

Found at the Lonely Conservative

Monica Showalter has been writing a series of columns for IBD about life in the Soviet Union. The eighth and latest deals with how Lenin and the Bolsheviks went about destroying marriages and families. I urge you to read the whole thing (and the whole series) but here are a few excerpts. Does any of this sound familiar?

• Equating marriage with slavery. Lenin and his feminist lieutenants, particularly Alexandra Kollontai, the first female commissar in the Soviet government, considered much of what the suffragettes were fighting for, including voting rights and equal protection under the law, “bourgeois convention.”

What they had in mind was something far more radical: An all-out war on “old and outdated” institutions like marriage and family so dominance of the state could be achieved. Instead of marriage, there would be more disposable “unions of affection and comradeship.”

The first salvo in the “liberation” of the family was easy divorce, established almost immediately by the Bolsheviks. Abortion on demand — until then illegal in every country in the world — came in 1920.

“The family is ceasing to be necessary either to its members or to the nation,” Kollontai wrote that year. But capitalists, she said, “are well aware that the old type of family, where a woman is a slave and where the husband is responsible for the well-being of his wife and children, is the best weapon in the struggle to stifle the desire of the working class for freedom and to weaken the revolutionary spirit of the working man and working woman. ….

• It takes a village. The Bolsheviks believed communism would eliminate the need for families. The country, after all, would become “one whole family.” Hearth and home were viewed as potentially subversive.

Those who just wanted to look out for their own children were “selfish,” Kollontai wrote. Women should see all children as their own with duties shared. This made it easier to force wives and mothers into factories and gave rise to day-care centers, communal meals, even community laundries and clothing repair centers. …

• It takes a community organizer. Lenin dispatched Kollontai to set up the Zhenotdel, a community organizing group financed by the Communist Party for agitation and propaganda of the new model.

Zhenotdel representatives not only had their own publication, “Kommunistka,” they also were tasked with going out into the rural villages to set up community centers and force women’s political participation. They also agitated for divorce, abortion and all the other agenda items that Bolsheviks touted as “liberating.” (Read More)

Anyone who doubts that the Left is, in fact, not far removed from the likes of Lenin ought to read this, and hopefully learn from it. I have seen the similarities in the Left and Communists for years, ultimately, they are out for the same basic goals. Of course today, believing in a bogey man is frowned upon. Accuse anyone of being a Socialist/Marxist/Communist will get you ostracized by the Left and frowned upon by many on the Right. Communism is dead remember? It died with the Soviet Union they would have us believe. Only a fool would buy that. Communism will never die because Communists will never admit the truth, that they are wrong. They will keep trying, they will repackage their ideology, frame their arguments in different ways, soften their rhetoric, but forcing the chains of Marxism onto is all is their goal, as much today as it was in the past. They are still very much dedicated to their cause.

Obama’s war on charities

Weasel Zippers has it right

Just like the Soviet Union, do in private charities, so all that remains is the State.

Via Forbes: 

President Obama’s long-awaited budget proposal, to be released today, does not come right out and say that it  intends to reduce  contributions to charity—but that is almost certainly what would happen were it to become law.  Here’s why.  The White House has effectively doubled down on a tax change it has been pushing for four years that would limit the value of the charitable tax deduction.  The Administration has, since 2009, pushed unsuccessfully to allow only 28 cents on a dollar donated to charity to be deducted—even though the top tax rate for the wealthy donors who make most use of the deduction has been 35 percent.  In the budget released today, the President again proposes to cap the charitable deduction at 28 percent—despite the fact that the top rate on the highest earners has increased to 39.6 percent.  Think of it this way:  the White House proposal would raise the cost of giving to charity from 60 cents per dollar to 72 cents per dollar.  That’s a 20 percent increase in what can be called the “charity tax.” 

 

Your reality check of the day- Communism never died

Bob Belvedere speaketh the truth!

Many on the Right [I'm ignoring the Left on this subject because they are all lost causes in matters like this] have been going around for over two decades saying something exactly or near the following statement: ‘When the Soviet Union fell, we defeated Communism’.

What brought this to mind was reading and hearing people use a variation of that phrase these past several days when they were discussing the legacy of Margaret Thatcher. It’s gone something like this: ‘Reagan, Thatcher, and John Paul II together defeated Communism’.

We never ‘defeated Communism’.

We defeated Soviet Communism when The Iron Curtain was lifted and the USSR fell.

Communism still lives and, in some places like Red China, thrives [as much as such an unnatural system can thrive].

The battle against it rages on.

Communism is still a menace.

In fact, it is more of a menace now that the Democratic Party in America has been taken over by Communists.

I have no compunction about using that word because

Since the Progressives began moving into the Party in the late 19th Century and up until the 1960′s, the Leftist Democrats were Fascists — they had no desire to nationalize every industry and no plan to eventually take ownership of all private property. They merely wanted to construct a large regulatory state, where government kept a firm and controlling hand on commerce and took a hands-off approach to what they considered private and personal matters [such as what went on in bedrooms].

This all began to change in the late 1960′s when the, for lack of a better term, New Left [really a collection of Marxists, Maoists, Trotskyites, and all sorts of other -ites] decided to gain power from within the Democratic Party. People like the Socialist Michael Harrington fought with the more violent-minded of their comrades on the Radical Left in favor of adopting the strategy of pursuing this course of action — and they eventually won. The Radical Left took control of the Party in less than two decades. They were aided in this effort by those of their ilk who had invaded other influential institutions, such as think tanks, the Mainstream Media, and education. For years, they all worked behind the scenes, occasionally releasing trial balloons to gauge, via the reaction to them, how far they could now push their Revolutionary Agenda. It was a Creeping, Stealthy Socialism.

Go read it all. Bob nails it! The Left has never stopped believing in Marxism. They might have become more stealthy, using indoctrination, and that slow-moving Socialism Bob talks of. But, in the heart of the Left is still that darkness, that evil, and yes evil IS the proper description of Communism. It was, after all, under the veil of Communism that 110,000,000 people died last century. No, Communism is not dead, and sadly, I do not know if there are enough Americans left who know that.

A lesson every American better remember

“Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened“-George Washington

“The best means of forming a manly, virtuous, and happy people will be found in the right education of youth. Without this foundation, every other means, in my opinion, must fail.” George Washington

Stacy McCain reminds us that history is written by the winners

America spent four decades locked in an eyeball-to-eyeball nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union and, when the Berlin Wall came down, most of us thought that we had “won” the Cold War.

Alas, little noticed by most Americans, intellectual subversives sympathetic to the Soviets had ensconced themselves in academia, making the “long march through the institutions” so that our nation’s children are now indoctrinated with a Marxist worldview. This fact — the Sovietization of American history — is now belatedly apparent to John Hinderaker in Minnesota’s public-school social studies standards:

As you read them, you imagine a senile old man, shuffling around in his pajamas and muttering, “Race, class, gender…race, class, gender.” Everything is about demographic interest groups.

Hinderaker notes the anti-heroic concept of the social studies standards, which slight the great deeds of great men, among them the gallant soldiers of the First Minnesota Infantry Regiment.

Well . . . there are still five A’s in RAAAAACISM, after all. Lessons celebrating the heroism of the First Minnesota would, according to the contemporary view, fail to represent non-white, non-male contributions to society. Why should the daughters of Hmong immigrants, for example, be taught to revere these dead Anglo-Saxon men?

History — excuse me, social studies — is now no longer about the facts of the past, but is rather a form of political propaganda, carefully airbrushed in much the same way that Stalinists removed Leon Trotsky from historic photos of the Russian Revolution.

McCain knows of what he writes. Liberalism thrives readily among ignorant minds. And the most deeply ignorant mind is often not the uneducated mind, but the MIS-educated mind. Because the MIS-educated have been taught, maybe they made honor roll, they have excelled. They are certain of the “knowledge” that has been imparted to them. They KNOW that FDR was a great president, and that he SAVED us from the Great Depression for example. They KNOW how LBJ’s Great Society, gave us the glory of Medicare, and other failed entitlement programs that made us more dependent on government. They today are being taught that Obama SAVED the U.S. auto industry. And the long march towards national government dependency continues on the road paved with government subsidized ignorance.