President Trump's Coronavirus Diagnosis Overshadows Compelling Presidential Debate

President Trump's positive Coronavirus test may prove to be this election year's "October Surprise."

Read the whole thing at TheLatest.com: https://thelatest.com/tlt/president-trump-coronavirus-diagnosis-overshadows-compelling-presidential-debate-trump-biden-debate-1601644707

Michael Anton: Paul Revere of the Trump Administration

As in the 1860s, America cannot continue half-slave and half-free. Either we must become fully enslaved under Chinese-style Communism, or preserved as a free society under the U.S. Constitution ...

Read the whole thing at TheLatest.com: https://thelatest.com/tlt/michael-anton-paul-revere-trump-administration-president-trump-color-revoluti-1601233034

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 TheLatest.com: https://thelatest.com/tlt/scientific-american-scientifically-indefensible-biden-endorsement-scientific-american-joe-biden--1600719011

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: https://thelatest.com/tlt/diana-rigg-died-with-her-go-go-boots-on-diana-rigg-bbc-mystery-1599765233

Nice preview for my LATEST Podcast...

 

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 TheLatest.com 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: TheLatest.com

Send us feedback: podcast@thelatest.com

Listen here: https://thelatestpodcast.com/32-rnc-recap-are-you-better-off-now-than-you-were-4-years-ago-hidden-meanings-behind-trumps-set-design

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 TheLatest.com: https://thelatest.com/tlt/the-republican-convention-president-donald-trump-really-big-show-donald-trump-republican-conven-1598710610

My LATEST podcast...

 https://thelatestpodcast.com/31-liberal-and-conservative-commentators-square-off-over-the-dnc-kamala-harris-and-race-relations

COMMENTS REGARDING SECTION 230 REFORM by Laurence Jarvik, Blogger

(Posted August 25, 2020 at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108241011213257)

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 The-Idler.com and later with LaurenceJarvikOnline.  

 

I hosted one of the first panels on the Blogsphere, held at the National Press Club in 2002 (see: http://web.archive.org/web/20021012124918/http://www.the-idler.com/IDLER-02/7-15.html  and  

(http://combustible_boy.blogspot.com/2002_06_23_combustible_boy_archive.html#78331956).

 

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 Screen, Masterpiece Theatre and the Politics of Quality, Public 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 TheLatest.com 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. 

 

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.

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 TheLatest.com: https://thelatest.com/tlt/the-audacity-chutzpah-2020-election-trump-us-postal--1597681240.

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:

https://thelatest.com/tlt/antifa-black-lives-matter-democratic-party-could-owe-americans-reparations-reparations-black-lives-matter-1596485365

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
thought-provoking.

Sincerely,

Peter Miller

Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times

by Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton

Originally published by NEWSMAX.com 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."

Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times

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兀 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.