Monday, September 21, 2020

Scientific American's Scientifically Indefensible Biden Endorsement

An editorial that begins and ends with lies is, by definition, not credible and unworthy of a purportedly "scientific" journal ...

Read the whole thing at

Thursday, September 10, 2020

Diana Rigg Died With Her Go-Go Boots On


Diana Rigg as PBS Mystery! Host 
Rigg was holding court at a round table filled with TV journalists at a reception for her PBS series. For some reason, I had been seated right next to her, on her left-hand side. On her right sat a venerable Newark Star-Ledger TV critic, doing an interview. He appeared smitten, and regaled her with the most filthy jokes I had ever heard, in order to impress her. She appreciated them all, and responded with some dirty jokes of her own. Then came my turn to ask questions...

Read the whole thing at TheLatest.Com:

Thursday, September 03, 2020

The LATEST Podcast: Republican Convention 2020

Aug 29, 2020

It’s another episode of agreeing to disagree. 

We welcome back Conservative writer Larry Jarvik from and progressive political communications professor Keri Thompson of Emerson College to discuss the latest in politics this week: The 2020 Republican National Convention. Your host: Jeff Hall.

Recorded on Thursday, August 27th, 2020

Check out our website:

Send us feedback:

Listen here:

Sunday, August 30, 2020

The Republican Convention was President Donald Trump's "Really Big Show"

In the immortal words of Golden Age TV host Ed Sullivan, this year's Republican Convention was "a really big show" that made television great again...

Read the whole thing at

Monday, August 24, 2020

My LATEST podcast...


(Posted August 25, 2020 at

I am a current user of social media, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Gab, Parler, YouTube, Vimeo, Bitchute, Google, Amazon, Netflix and others. In addition, I have been a blogger for some two decades, first with and later with LaurenceJarvikOnline.  


I hosted one of the first panels on the Blogsphere, held at the National Press Club in 2002 (see:  and  



I also hold a Ph.D. in Film and Television from UCLA, was Bradley Scholar at the Heritage Foundation, Director of the Washington Office of David Horowitz’s Center for Popular Culture, and taught at Johns Hopkins University’s Carey Business School, the University of Maryland University College, Moscow’s Russian State Humanitarian University as a visiting professor, and the University of World Economy and Diplomacy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan as a Fulbright Scholar.


My books include PBS: Behind the ScreenMasterpiece Theatre and the Politics of QualityPublic Broadcasting and the Public Trust, and The National Endowments: A Critical Symposium. I have testified a number of times before Congressional committees as an expert witness on cultural and media issues, and appeared on radio and television.


I have two feature-length documentary films, Who Shall Live and Who Shall Die? and The Trump Effect: Deprogramming the American Mind, which have been distributed in a variety of formats.


I currently write an online column for and also have two small publishing imprints, Washington Books and Penny-a-Page Press.


Therefore, I have had both personal and professional experience as a content provider and a small publisher for some two decades.


It is my conclusion from this personal experience, as well as from observation of actions by companies with dominant market share, that Section 230 requires serious reform -- due to bad faith, misleading and fraudulent practices by social media companies which rival the “Quiz Show” and “Payola” broadcasting scandals during the 1950s.


Whether as a producer or consumer, one nowadays can have little faith that purported search results are honest, rankings are genuine,  that people have  not been shadowbanned, locked, blocked, or banned arbitrarily, unreasonably, based on false or defamatory charges, or that others have been boosted by suspicious means.


Initially promised as an open forum to provide a marketplace of competing ideas, much of the internet, especially social media, has become instead corrupted by large corporations pursuing commercial, political and private agendas which conflict with the free exchange of ideas and are inimical to the public interest, good government, and honest competition.


Indeed, political speech, the one form of speech which America’s Founding Fathers judged deserved the highest level of protection, has been specially targeted by social media companies, which have banned Florida Congressional candidate Laura Loomer, among others—while permitting their opponents to communicate.


I’m sure other comments in this docket will provide numerous examples of serious problems, so I’d like to emphasize that by definition one cannot provide a neutral forum while picking and choosing, or boosting and shadowbanning, messages which are preferred over those which are disfavored.


It is a logical contradiction, therefore absurd—and Orwellian.


Sadly, one can’t be sure that content being favored is not being promoted on the basis of favors exchanged between business partners in “off-the books” agreements as happened in the Quiz Show and Payola scandals. 


News feeds that favor established big media companies with proven track records of error, fraud and outright lying—including substantial settlements in defamation cases—cannot reasonably be held to be reliable or honest sources. 


In addition, there is no way to know how cases are actually being adjudicated. 


Vague references to “terms of service” often lack specifics as to what exactly the infraction might be—or to any form of due process to rectify the decision. I can’t tell you what qualifications, expertise or experience persons or entities being used to judge such controversies by social media companies might have…and I bet the FCC can’t do so either.


Whenever I have seen media coverage of such issues in a political context, reported “fact-checkers” or other similar judges used by social media companies have appeared to be partisans, selected by unclear and mysterious procedures.


One just cannot serve simultaneously as a neutral platform and a publisher, as Senator Cruz and others have said. 


The only reasonable solution to the current conflict over Section 230 is to entirely separate the platform function from the publishing function, in order to cut the Gordian knot.


Just as the telephone company may not refuse to complete a telephone call because they don’t like what someone is saying, social media companies should not be permitted to regulate content on their electronic platforms.  


Of course, obscene, threatening, or fraudulent telephone calls are against the law—criminal and civil charges may be brought against those who make such calls. But the phone company cannot deny service on the basis of eavesdropping or complaints from third parties.


The same principle needs to be applied to social media. The FCC or other enforcement bodies need to establish reasonable due process for adjudication of any claims of illegal communication on social media, either at the FCC or in the courts—in order to preserve the rights of the accused and the integrity of neutral platform. Some sort of FCC bureau may need to be established to perform this function.


However, social media companies must be stripped of their rights to alter, edit, boost, ban, shadowban, trend, or affect the ranking of content in any way that is not completely neutral, objective, fair, open, honest, unbiased, and apolitical..


If individuals find a tweet or post offensive, they are free to unsubscribe, block, or delete it—but they don’t have the right to censor it.


Social media companies are at present serving two masters by simultaneously acting as platforms and publishers. 


To solve this problem, the FCC must force social media companies to choose one or the other:  Either to become publishers legally responsible for content they provide, or to become truly neutral platforms which do not interfere with freedom of speech.


As Luke 16:3 says: “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other…”


In my opinion, for FCC action in this regard is long overdue, especially during an election year in which social media companies play a significant role. 


Tuesday, August 18, 2020

Interview with James Kurth about THE AMERICAN WAY OF EMPIRE

James Kurth talks about the influence of Samuel Huntington's CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS, briefing US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on China, why General Douglas MacArthur provided a model for dealing with Asia, how George Soros sponsored a chapter, and his upcoming book on the Coronavirus crisis, inspired by St. Agustine's CITY OF GOD.

Monday, August 17, 2020

The Audacity of Chutzpah


Democrats apparently want to undermine democracy itself in order to defeat President Trump in November. That's "Chutzpah."

Read the whole thing at

Thursday, August 06, 2020

Peter Miller's Letter to Chris Boggs About Insurance Companies Paying for Antifa/BLM Riot Damages

Dear Mr Boggs,

Thank you for a very interesting and informative article on the applicability of
the Insurrection Act of 1807 to the current riots in American cities. The link
was sent to me by Laurence Jarvik in response to his article on BLM and Antifa
possibly owing reparations for damage they have caused:

It is quite helpful to have the original Insurrection Act, its applications, and
the exegesis of Latin terms defining applicability, or not, of the insurrection
exclusion to insurance claims.

I gather from your article that insurance companies will pay damage claims due
to rioting regardless of whether the Insurrection Act is invoked. This
conclusion appears to be based on a reading of the minds of the rioters that
they do not intend to overthrow the (Federal?) Government, i.e. that the riots
are random acts not attributable to any organized plan of revolt. This raises
three questions:

(1) What was the purpose of the bricks, shields, fireworks explosives, lasers,
and incendiary devices delivered to rioters? Were these deliveries made by some
organization that supplied funds, transportation, and staff, and if so, would
that level of organization fit the legal definition of insurrection?

(2) A novel feature of the current riots is that Mayors and Governors appear to
be encouraging them or are 'in cahoots with' the rioters. (That's not Latin, but
I trust the meaning is clear.) Local officials' explicit orders to police to
refrain from taking action to quell violent law-breaking, their sudden removal
of funds from police departments, disbanding of plain-clothes police units in at
least one city (New York), and their public endorsement of rioters' political
goals indicate a substantial degree of collaboration with those engaged in
violence, arson, and other illegal activities causing widespread property damage
(as well as loss of life, and injury). Indeed, unprecedented though it may be
since the Civil War, if any insurrection may be said to exist, it is one in
which insurrectionists have ALREADY CAPTURED local and State Governments. The
question then becomes: Would the insurrection exclusion apply to an effort by
local and State Governments, using BLM and Antifa as their militia, to overthrow
the Federal Government?

(3) If later evidence were to disclose a substantial degree of insurrectionist
organization, planning, intent, and purpose behind the riots in 20 or more
American cities, how would such evidence affect the insurrection exclusion? I
can only speculate on the nature of the evidence that might be found, but there
could be a trail of documents, emails, and phone conversations related to the
purchase and deployment of vehicles, explosives, lasers, incendiary devices, and
other materials and equipment not normally readily at hand. Websites and social
media sites have enabled calls for 'volunteers' who are paid to assemble at
pre-arranged times and places to await instructions from organizers. Of course
the language of such calls fits the 'peaceful demonstration' narrative whereby
said 'peaceful demonstrations' 'intensify', as one news source put it, into
violent rioting. Would such evidence 'trigger' the insurrection exclusion?

I am neither an insurance expert, nor do I have any bias (that I am aware of) in
favor of or against insurance companies. I am certainly sympathetic, as anyone
must be, to the business owners and individuals all across the United States who
have suffered collectively billions of dollars of damage to their property
caused by rioters and their collaborators in local and State Government. For the
sake of the communities that rely on the services those businesses provide, I
hope they can be made whole as soon as possible.

If insurance companies do not seek relief from claims-payments obligations via
the insurrection exclusion, then the cost of the damage from the current riots
will likely be paid by policy-holders in general, through increased premiums.
That might be considered an instance of the fundamental insurance principle of
risk-spreading. That, however, raises the further question of 'moral hazard'
similar to what occurred with Federal bailouts of mega-banks during the last
U.S. financial crisis. Could insurance payouts reduce societal incentives to
place financial responsibility where it belongs, namely on the rioters
themselves, and their sponsors? The risk, from both an insurance-company and
societal perspective, is that further riots (whether or not they are deemed
insurrections) with even greater loss of life, injury, and property damage will
be 'baked-in' to any arrangement that does not exact financial responsibility
from those who are in fact responsible.

Again, thanks for your article, which as you can see from the above, is


Peter Miller

Wednesday, July 29, 2020

Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times

by Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton
Originally published by as SPECIAL COMMENTARY on April 8, 2002, reprinted and reviewed all over the world in many different publications, now under the growing censorship in the U.S., this article acquires a new importance today.
          From Zenon Yanez Osorio's 7 page essay on Nov. 1, 2015, titled The Dangers of Political Correctness:
"In Political Correctness: The Scourge of our Times published by the Independent UK, Agustin Blazquez introduces us to the origins of political correctness and condemns its censorship of the American mind. Political Correctness, according to Blazquez, was invented in Germany during the Third Reich as both a propagation technique for communism and a solution to the western way of thinking. He points out that for communism to extend its reach it had to undermine the foundations of Western Civilization by chipping away at the rights of its people; one way to do this was to change our speech and thought patterns by spreading the idea that vocalizing our beliefs is disrespectful to others. Blazquez also shows through several examples how 'PC’ness' is a sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the ultimate goal of manipulating, brainwashing, and destroying its society. He also goes into some depth about the double standard of combining religion and state in our country; as well as the proliferation of Political Correctness by our educational system. Blazquez concludes his argument by stating, 'it’s one thing to be educated, considerate, polite, and have good manners; and another to be forced to self-censor and say things that are incorrect in order to comply with the arbitrary dictums of a deceiving and fanatical virus that is embedded in our society.'" 
"Both Poniewozik and Blazquez confront the validity of political correctness in our society; Poniewozik finds that 'PCness' has a place in our lives if used more like common sense, while Blazquez believes that political correctness is a scourge that we must abolish, both articles forced me to question the origins and mediums of political correctness, while also analyzing the results and effects of it on our civilization. Poniewozik and Blazquez agree that it is used in situations where simple common sense would do the trick. While Poniewozik seems on the fence about Political Correctness you cannot misinterpret Blazquezes hatred of its origin and the roles it plays now. He believes that as a principle political correctness should be abolished. Blazquez also tells us about the double standard of religion and state present in our society. In the winter of 2006 Christmas decorations at schools were being attacked as unconstitutional for the first time in America. While at the same time school staffs were having their students pretend to be warriors fighting for Islam."
by Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton
"Political Correctness remains just what it was intended to be: a sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the ultimate goal of manipulating, brainwashing and destroying our society."
 Does anyone know the origins of Political Correctness? Who originally developed it and what was its purpose?
 I looked it up. It was developed at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 and came to be known as the "Frankfurt School." It was a group of thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia.
 The problem? Why wasn't communism spreading?
 Their answer? Because Western Civilization was in its way.
 What was the problem with Western Civilization? Its belief in the individual, that an individual could develop valid ideas. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing.
 And they believed that the only way for communism to advance was to help (or force, if necessary) Western Civilization to destroy itself. How to do that? Undermine its foundations by chipping away at the rights of those annoying individuals.
 One way to do that? Change their speech and thought patterns by spreading the idea that vocalizing your beliefs is disrespectful to others and must be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustices.
 And call it something that sounds positive: "Political Correctness."
 Inspired by the brand new communist technique, Mao, in the 1930s, wrote an article on the "correct" handling of contradictions among the people. "Sensitive training" -- sound familiar? -- and speech codes were born.
 In 1935, after Hitler came to power, the Frankfurt School moved to New York City, where they continued their work by translating Marxism from economic to cultural terms using Sigmund Freud's psychological conditioning mechanisms to get Americans to buy into Political Correctness. In 1941, they moved to California to spread their wings.
 But Political Correctness remains just what it was intended to be: a sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the ultimate goal of manipulating, brain-washing and destroying our society.
PC Cuba
 My first conscious exposure to Political Correctness was in 1959 - the first year of Castro's revolution in Cuba - while attending an indoctrination session at a neighborhood elementary school in Havana. There I learned for the first time of the claimed superiority of life in the Soviet Union vs. the U.S.
 There I also learned that the word "compañero" (filtered version of the communist "comrade" - Fidel was denying his communist preferences) was the correct way to refer to the other members of the new Cuban society-in-the-making.
 Mr., Mrs. and Miss were no longer acceptable, and their further use could reveal that you were not a Fidelista. Since repression and violations of human rights came roaring in right behind Castro's sweep down from the mountains in 1959, objection or rejection of Fidel Castro's revolution would (and still will) land you in a lot of trouble. You could easily lose your life in those summary executions at La Caba prison under the direction of Che Guevara.
 But don't worry about Che. Che was later transformed and cleansed by the masters of Political Correctness. His likeness became a revered icon of the far left, with T-shirts and posters still adorning the campuses of America.
 The same techniques were used to cleanse one of today's "heroes," Mumia Abu-Jamal (even if he was convicted, by overwhelming evidence, of killing a cop).
 And under the pervasive guidance of Political Correctness that took hold from elementary school to university, from the media to the arts, from the country fields to factories and offices, Cubans learned to say what it was safe to say. Always in line with the overpowering state. Always following the dictums of the only political party left: the Communist Party.
 The self-censorship resulting from Political Correctness easily trampled freedom of speech. Political Correctness has succeeded in Cuba by creating a uniform political discourse that has lasted for 43 years.
 Political Correctness has given the state (Castro) complete control of speech. That is the main reason why the U.S. media cannot extract the truth of what Cubans really feel when they interview regular citizens and deceptively present their comments as valid to the American public.
 The same was true in the former Soviet Union and the former satellite countries. The same continues in the remaining communist world.
 It's nothing new. The U.S. media must know that, so why don't they openly report that fact instead of misleading the public? Perhaps that is the reason why the American people are so uneducated about the Cuban tragedy and acted regrettably during the Elian Gonzalez affair.
The PC U.S.
 With profound dismay, I have seen how the scourge of Political Correctness has taken hold in the U.S. It is very well entrenched in our educational system, at scientific, religious and community levels, the media, the workplace and even our government.
 It is changing the American society from within, and the citizens of this nation are increasingly censoring themselves and losing their freedom of speech out of fear of Political Correctness repression.
 It is the nature of Western Civilization to be civilized -- respectful of others and concerned with correcting injustices. We don't need Political Correctness to make us think we are not civilized on our own and must have our thoughts and words restricted.
 In December 2001, in Kensington, Md., an annual firefighters Santa Claus festivity to light the Christmas tree was objected to by two families. The city council, in the name of Political Correctness, voted to ban Santa from the parade. Fortunately, due to citizen outcry, the decision was reversed in the end and many people protested by dressing up as Santa.
 Logically and respectfully, how can one person's benign icon be objectionable to the point of banishment? Offer to add other people's icons. Make it a broader celebration. That's the Perfectly Correct American way.
 The rulers of Political Correctness reach absurd levels when they refer to the betrayal of America by the spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - executed in 1953 - as "nontraditional patriotism"!
 We see shameful situations created in our schools and universities in America that have fallen prey to Political Correctness. Some professors, students and publications are being attacked for expressing a point of view that differs from that imposed by a fanatical far left, under the guise of Political Correctness.
 In schools and workplaces we see that "diversity" has degenerated into reverse discrimination, where often the less qualified are admitted and the incompetent cannot be fired. We have seen characters like Rev. Jesse Jackson shamelessly blackmailing and threatening to boycott entire corporations if they don't hire those selected by him or simply make "donations" to his organizations.
The Double Standard Emerges
 Our Constitution requires the separation of church and state, which has always discouraged our public education system from teaching religion. However, in December 2001, while Christmas cards, symbols and decorations were being objected to for the first time in American public schools in Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Oregon, in an elementary school in Texas, a girl was allowed to give to her classmates an overview and show a video about her Muslim religion.
 And in January 2002, a public middle school in San Luis Obispo, Calif. had its students pretend to be warriors fighting for Islam. Another school near Oakland, Calif. also encouraged 125 seventh- grade students to dress up in Muslim robes for a three-week course on Islam.
 This arbitrary double standard was applied in the name of Political Correctness following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
 According to Ellen Sorokin's "No Founding Fathers?" published by the Washington Times on its front page on Jan. 28, 2002, even our Founding Fathers have fallen victim to the travesty. The article says of the New Jersey Department of Education's history standards,
 "The latest revisions to the state standards have disappointed educators across the country, who said the board's exclusion of the Founding Fathers' names is 'Political Correctness to the nth degree.' "
 Sorokin points out that "the standards specifically note that students should identify slavery, the Holocaust and modern Iraq as examples in which 'people have behaved in cruel and inhumane ways,' " Conveniently, communism is absent from that short list.
 In another article by Sorokin, published by the Washington Times on March 10, "Report Blames Anti-Americanism on College Teachers," she presents two examples of upcoming courses for next spring and fall. They are "'The Sexuality of Terrorism' at University of California at Hayward; and 'Terrorism and the Politics of Knowledge' at UCLA, a class that, according to its course description, examines 'America's record of imperialistic adventurism.' "
 Recently, a historic photograph of the New York firefighters raising the American flag over the ruins of the World Trade Center was going to be made into a sculpture as a memorial.
 But history's revisionists used Political Correctness to dictate that other minority faces replace some of the faces in the historical photograph! Fortunately, in the end that didn't fly either, due to the outcry of firefighters and the public.
The Goal of the PC Dictators
 For people with the background and firsthand experience of living inside a totalitarian communist society, the tilt and goal of the dictators of Political Correctness in America are obvious.
 The beneficiaries in the end will be the fanatic believers in the totalitarian state, who, in spite of the dismal failure of communism and the 100 million people exterminated pursuing that criminal system, have not given up.
 Political and religious fanatics, as demonstrated by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the subsequent war in Afghanistan, are extremely dangerous in today's world.
 All citizens who cherish liberty must reject the scourge of Political Correctness. Freedom of speech must be preserved in America if we are to continue to be free.
 Let's say it: Castro is not a 'president,' as the U.S. media's Political Correctness calls him. Castro has not been democratically elected to anything in Cuba. The correct word to define him is 'tyrant.' He is not just a 'leader,' as the U.S. media also calls him. He is more of a criminal Mafioso-type character.
 Why criminal? Because he has caused the deaths of more than 100,000 Cubans. Thousands have died through his support of guerrillas in Central and South America. Thousands of blacks were killed by Castro's soldiers in Africa. Castro in the 1980s introduced the use of bacteriological weapons to kill blacks in Angola.
 How many thousands have died in America as a result of his drug trafficking into the U.S.? How many thousands have died all over the world due to terrorists trained in Castro's Cuba?
 Former Soviet colonel Ken Alibek, who defected to America, was once in charge of the Soviet Union's production of biological weapons. In Alibek's 1999 book, "Biohazard," he revealed that with the help of the Soviet Union, in the 1980s Cuba created laboratories to produce chemical and bacteriological weapons of mass destruction -- just 90 miles from U.S. shores.
 The information about Castro's involvement with bacteriological weapons also comes from various independent sources. We must not forget either that Cuba is on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist nations.
 Why Mafioso? Well, Castro is like an untouchable godfather, surrounded by bodyguards and thugs and a private army of about 40,000 soldiers for his personal protection (roughly the size of the entire army of Cuba prior to 1959).
 He stole foreign and national properties in Cuba. He has become one of the richest men in the world, according to Forbes magazine. He has created a despotic and corrupt elite to exploit the Cuban people and keep himself in power. He has made the Cuban people hostages and slaves of his corrupt regime.
 The U.S. media do not call Al Capone "the former leader" of the Italian Mafia. Why the double standard with Fidel and other far-left regimes? The answer can be traced to where the sympathies lie -- with the elite dictating Political Correctness in America.
 It's one thing is to be educated, considerate, polite and have good manners, and another to be forced to self-censor and say things that are totally incorrect in order to comply with the arbitrary dictums of a deceiving and fanatical far-left agenda.
 Let's preserve our freedom and say NO to the scourge of Political Correctness.

Tuesday, July 28, 2020

Friday, July 24, 2020

BLITZ: Trump Will Smash the Left and Win" by David Horowitz

After reading David Horowitz's new book, I called him to explain exactly how President Trump plans to win the 2020 Election. This is what he told me...

Read the whole thing at

Sunday, July 19, 2020

THE LATEST PODCAST: Larry Jarvik on Why He Supports Trump

Host Jeff Hall: "In recent weeks, we've had some guests on THE LATEST PODCAST who made it clear they weren't big Trump fans. In order to balance the scales -- THE LATEST is completely neutral when it comes to politics -- this week we interviewed Larry Jarvik. Jarvik describes himself as an independent -- but he clearly likes Donald Trump. Democrats? Not so much."

Listen to the podcast at

Tuesday, July 14, 2020

Lower Retirement Age to 60 to Safely Reopen Schools and Restart the US Economy

President Donald J. Trump listens to participants deliver remarks during the National Dialog on Safely Reopening America's Schools event Tuesday, July 7, 2020, in the East Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks)

As controversy swirls around the Trump Administration's push to reopen schools this Fall, and restart the economy, there is one possible solution which might garner bipartisan support.

Read the whole thing at

Monday, June 01, 2020

American Kristallnacht: May 30-31, 2020

You may not punish the innocent merely because they share some collective characteristics with the guilty. Therefore, to hold all white people responsible for the death of George Floyd is as immoral, unjust and dangerous as holding all Jews responsible for the suffering of Germany following World War One -- precisely what Hitler did.

Read the whole thing on

Friday, May 22, 2020

Created Equal: Clarence Thomas In His Own Words

Bottom-line: This workmanlike two-hour production allowed Justice Thomas to speak directly to the PBS audience, revealing a sympathetic and intriguing side they probably had not seen before.

Read the whole thing at

Thursday, May 14, 2020

A Post-Coronavirus Crisis of Institutional Legitimacy

Unless American institutions are able to regain lost public confidence, it may become increasingly difficult to control the coronavirus pandemic.

Saturday, May 09, 2020

Tuesday, April 28, 2020

Thursday, April 23, 2020


George McGovern with Fidel Castro in Cuba
 ©ABIP 2020
by Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton

It baffles me how anyone can sit and watch newscasts about Coronavirus on CNN, MSNBC or the former big three TV networks of the past.

Not long after I came to the U.S., simply by watching NBC, ABC and CBS, I realized their bias during the Vietnam War.

Their reporting contributed to the Communist takeover of South Vietnam, and the death of 58,220 American soldiers and 1 million after Communism in Vietnam and 2 million in Cambodia.  

They have a lot of blood in their hands.

While U.S. so-called “liberal” media was silent for years during Hitler's National Socialism in Germany in relation to Jews, after WW2 they didn't have any other alternative once others had exposed those crimes in the Nuremberg Trials.

However, the media subsequently failed to report 20 million killed in the Soviet Union since 1917 or 65 million in China's Mao Zedong since 1949.  As well as the result of Communism taking hold around the world. (See:

Herbert Matthews, in The New York times in February of 1957 promoted the false image of Castro as a hero in the mountains of Cuba and supported him after his guerrilla takeover of Cuba imposing a criminal communist regime that killed many.  

Yet Castro caused extraordinary pain and suffering, as he completely ruined the economy and prosperity of a capitalist island.

I cannot forget the glowing and romantic reports on NBC, ABC, CBS and PBS by Dan Rather, Barbara Walters, Diane Sawyer, Peter Jennings, Bryant Gumbel, and others with interviews of Fidel Castro and his regime officials.  

Sympathy went to them, instead of Cuban victims. (See:

Most media reports made Cuban exiles in the U.S. vomit or get ulcers. Yet when Cuban exiles criticized those propaganda pieces by writing and calling the networks or newspapers, it was to no avail. (See:

Once Richard Nixon was elected, the liberal media went into a frenzy against him.  The anti-Communist Nixon was not the candidate the media wanted America to they agitated relentlessly against the will of the American people.  Finally they got lucky with Watergate!

Early on in the affair, it had been reported that the reason for the break-in of the Democrat Party Office at the Watergate complex was to try to get proof that the Cuban Government (Fidel Castro) was giving money to George McGovern's presidential campaign, something that Cuban refugees knew.

However, McGovern was the favorite of the U.S. liberal media to defeat Nixon in 1972. So they didn't mind that he was known to be a friend of criminal dictator Fidel Castro.  

There are photos and videos of them walking on Cuban beaches.  McGovern's visit there in 1975 was reported in Rolling Stone (see:

Don't be naive.  Interfering in U.S. elections is nothing new. Cuban-Americans know that Communist regimes always interfere in the internal affairs of capitalist countries.   

That's why Cuban exiles were involved in the break-in.  Many have forgotten this detail about the under-the-table money to the Democrat candidate for president favored by the liberal media, but I didn't.

Nixon's attempted coverup of the Watergate scandal was not the first in history.  Before and after Nixon other presidents have done similar things, including his immediate predecessor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who bugged Rev. Martin Luther King.

Being anti-communists is a major reason why the liberal media hates Cuban exiles -- as well as other exiles from communist countries. 

The media don't like it when refugees from Communism reveal first-hand experiences with Communist terror or oppression.

Which means the media are themselves practitioners of coverups, as well as collaborators in coverups--of crimes against humanity up to and including mass-murder and genocide.

The break-in at the Watergate Hotel helped to generate increased hatred and disdain from the U.S. media for Cuban American exiles, which finally culminated in the Elian Gonzalez affair of 1999-2000.  

Then the U.S. liberal media removed their masks, openly insulting Cuban exiles with epithets like, “Miami Mafia,” “fanatics,” “vociferous,” “right wing,” “shameful,” “reactionaries,” “Republicans,” etc. (see:

It reached the point where Cuban exiles could not express their political opinions in public places without being insulted by Americans...just like the way people who support Trump are treated with disrespect today by CNN, MSNBC, UNIVISION,  TELEMUNDO, The Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald in Miami.

Incredibly by 2020, academia had been almost totally taken over by Marxist professors in the U.S. and most Western countries.  

What a contradiction!

The new generations of millenials, students of Marxist professors, have been hired by media, academia, politicians and in other fields.

They are beginning to take charge now, and they love to censor information and limit speech.  

They are in clash with aging baby boomers who still feel a certain fondness for the First Amendment.

Most boomers are used to open discussion, and were not fans of the atmosphere of PC and unbending dogmas resulting from a pure Marxist education.  

They are still for the free flow of ideas and open discussion.  But none of that is allowed by Marxist dogma.

Thus, the new generation of news media reporting is taking the tenor today of mass indoctrination with the goal of mass obedience appealing to emotion, fabrication of fake news to scare the audience (being used now by CNN, MSNBC the big three and PBS which should not be funded by taxpayers).

In other words, they are treating ordinary Americans the way they have treated Cuban-Americans for generations.

Marxism was the inspiration for Hitler's National Socialism, Russian Socialism and Communism, all ending up in totalitarian forms of government with a mighty power elite and the workers who cannot have what the elite have.  

But property and the means of production are not actually held in common.  They are owned and controlled by an elite.  This is known as the “have and have-not paradise”.  That's always the end result of such revolutions.

The news media and the Marxists managed to get an Alinskyite community organizer, President Barack Obama, into the White House,  and so begin the still unexplained “Fundamental Transformation” of the United States, as he so famously declared (see: 

But he suffered a big defeat in 2016, when his anointed follower, fellow-Alinskyite Hillary Clinton, lost the election to Donald Trump (see:

Even before Donald Trump became President, the liberal media declared the war against him and his family.  They unleashed all the power they have in their campaign to destroy his presidency, and the country.

In this, the U.S. media is acting in accordance with the Communist motto, “The end justifies the means.”  

Just like in China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela and other communist hellholes.  The same manipulations, deceptions, misinformation and propaganda as in all of those countries.

Now with the emergence of China's Coronavirus, they see a golden opportunity to ruin his economy and to put a corrupt and apparently senile puppet candidate in the Presidency... via massive vote fraud through mailed ballots, no voter ID, people voting multiple times, illegal and dead-people votes and new schemes which concocted by Pelosi-Schumer and other House and Senate Democrats—or should I call them “Demonrats?”

Sadly, I was right some decades ago when I declared that the U.S. liberal media--by using Communist techniques--had become enemies of Liberty and the American people (see:

Filmmaker Agustin Blazquez produced and directed the 2017 feature documentary film THE TRUMP EFFECT: Deprogramming the American Mind.

Monday, April 20, 2020

Coronavirus Crisis: The Future is Now

How do we wish to live after this pandemic is over? To go back to the routines of 2019...or to chart a new course for a changed world, to find new ways of living post-Coronavirus?

Read the whole thing at