Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us


Mao’s Cultural Revolution Offers Lessons for Obama’s America



I was pleasantly surprised to see the media pause for a moment last week to recall China’s Cultural Revolution on the 50th anniversary of its regrettable birth. Unlike a lot of the media’s silly anniversaries this one is actually worth remembering.

If you aren’t familiar with the Cultural Revolution just think of Stephen King’s “Children of the Corn” being played out in China rather than rural Nebraska. The movement began in 1966 and lasted about ten years. Children rose up against their elders and seized for themselves the reins of power, humiliating their parents and teachers and sometimes even murdering them. The kids, who were known as Red Guards, had been indoctrinated in the mass murderer Mao Zedong’s unique brand of Marxism-Leninism. They learned almost everything they knew from Mao’s “Little Red Book,” a collection of his sayings that became a fetish object among Chinese youth. Mao whipped them into fits of rage then unleashed them like attack dogs on his political opponents.

So, all in all, it was not unlike contemporary America.

Okay, so that may be a slight exaggeration—emphasis on the slight. The difference between China in 1966 and the United States in 2016 is one of degree, not of kind. We aren’t as far down that dark path today as the Chinese were in the 1960s but it’s a common path nonetheless. We’re not likely to turn back until opinion-shapers stop pooh-poohing the warning signs.

CNN’s coverage of the anniversary included a heart-wrenching memoire from a former member of the Red Guards, Yu Xiangzhen, who was just 13 years old when the Cultural Revolution began. “Myself and millions of other middle and high school students started denouncing our teachers, friends, families and raiding homes and destroying other people’s possessions,” she writes. “Textbooks explain the Cultural Revolution — in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed and millions more abused and traumatized — as a political movement started and led by Mao ‘by mistake,’ but in reality it was a massive catastrophe for which we all bear responsibility.”

I disagree with her on this point. She was 13 at the time and I don’t blame her one bit. The guilty parties here are Mao and his allies in the Communist Party.

For those who refuse to see the parallels between Mao’s China and Obama’s America, allow me to examine some common threads.

Religious Persecution

It was not good to be a Christian during the Cultural Revolution—or for that matter a Buddhist, Taoist, or devotee of Confucius. Students defaced religious statues, for example, smashing the faces off of Buddha wherever his image could be found. I don’t find the Buddha-smashing to be all that different from today’s forced removal of anything remotely religious from the public square—and not just from governmental sphere as some on the anti-religious Left would have you believe.

But it wasn’t just statues that suffered. Ms. Yu writes: “I regret most what we did to our homeroom teacher Zhang Jilan. I was one of the most active students — if not the most revolutionary — when the class held a struggle session against Ms. Zhang. I pulled accusations out of nowhere, saying she was a heartless and cold woman, which was entirely false. Others accused her of being a Christian because the character ‘Ji’ in her name could refer to Christianity.”

Her teacher was not in fact a Christian, but what if she had been? What then?

The United States today is saturated with anti-Christian bigotry. Religious freedom, which happens to be the first freedom listed in our Constitution, is now a “cloak for prejudice.” Rather than being revered as the cornerstone of our American ideals, latter-day Maoists mock it as the last refuge of scoundrels.

Consider for a moment the horror that liberal media outlets expressed when the Supreme Court upheld the right of Hobby Lobby, a privately-owned Christian company, not to provide abortion-inducing drugs to its employees. Leftists blamed it on having too many Catholics on the Supreme Court. The Huffington Post shrieked: “The Uncomfortable Question: Should We Have Six Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court?” As if it were the justices’ religion rather than the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—signed by Bill Clinton no less!—that had won the day. The Daily Kos didn’t even try to shroud its bigotry with its headline “Five Catholic Appointees Betray their Oath.” The writer’s vitriol was on full display: “Now all [sic] the Catholic Supreme Court appointees to our Supreme Court—they no longer deserve the name ‘Justice’—have enacted Catholic dogma as the Supreme law of the land.”

No, not really.

An Obsession With Youth

It’s no surprise that Mao recruited an army of children to do his bidding. Besides being passionate, young people are also, to put it bluntly, kind of dumb. I don’t mean that to be cruel; I was a kid once too. Wisdom is nonetheless the result of experience and experience cannot be gained any other way than hanging around planet earth for a while.

Since at least the 1960s, we Americans have not revered our elders, something that I attribute to the rise of pop culture and a feeling that the World War II generation, with all its affection for God and country, led us into the ill-fated Vietnam War. Ironically, the Vietnam generation is now in its golden years and they’re finding out what it feels like to be tossed out like rancid leftovers. Paunchy, gray-haired baby-boomers are now considered a bunch of squares, clueless and outdated, which is basically how they viewed their own parents when they were young.

Our obsession with youth can be seen in the youth-oriented entertainment we consume and in the numerous adults who refuse to act their age. Getting old means getting ugly which means a quiet but humiliating exit from the public eye. The biggest criticism of the Tea Party movement has been that it’s too old and too white. Leaving aside for a moment the blatant racism of that statement, what exactly is wrong with being old? It occurs to me that such accusations are used only when persuasive arguments are lacking.

Old people may be wrong but they aren’t wrong because they’re old. That’s a lazy-minded fallacy.

Change for Change’s Sake

Mao Zedong was the “change” candidate before “change” was cool. It was his goal, never perfectly achieved, to strip China of its cultural underpinnings—namely, Confucianism. He sought to fundamentally transform his nation into something previous generations of Chinese would not have recognized, much the same way that our dear leader pledged to “fundamentally transform” America. Some of us, like me for example, liked our country just fine the way it was.

Mao’s wrath focused on the “four olds”—old ideas, old culture, old customs, old habits. Young Chinese were of course more enthused about demolishing these “vices” than their parents or grandparents who had witnessed their value in action.

Oldness is neither inherently bad nor inherently good. We were right to ditch some old ideas such as slavery but others have served us well. There’s something downright creepy about prying up the foundation of one’s own home for no other reason than because it’s been around a long time. Do these people ever wonder if older ideas are simply the ones that have stood the test of time?

Everywhere I look in contemporary society I see truly awful ideas gaining ground on the basis of their novelty. (Wouldn’t it be great if men could use the women’s locker room?) The flip side of this trend is that some really good ideas are losing ground for no other reason than that they’re old. In days gone by we protected our women but today we send them into combat. Does that make us superior to our ancestors? I say no. The old model of immigration was the melting pot—which served America well for the better part of two centuries. The new model is the patchwork quilt in which no one is obliged to adapt except the people already living here. The result of the new immigration ethos has been chaos and strife. The old conception of fundamental rights was negative—what government couldn’t do to you—and rights were understood to be endowed by God. The new conception is positive—what government must do on your behalf—and rights are granted by that same government.

Among Mao Zedong’s worst transgressions against humanity was his corruption of an entire generation of young Chinese. He taught them to hate on command, for which he should rightly be condemned. He cracked a lot of eggs but didn’t produce a single omelet. Are we any better? A little, I suppose, though I’m less convinced with each passing day.


People SHOCKED At Group Of Protesting Players Yesterday When They See What’s Really Bizarre




If you’re not yet sick and tired of the NFL protesting the National Anthem, just wait, there’s still time. The protest is still in full swing, as it seems to be fueled by every bit of controversy surrounding it. It’s leading many of us to ask ourselves why it’s even still going on after the considerable dent that the subsequent NFL boycott has put in their earnings.

Even though this protest has been the worst thing that could happen to the bottom line of the league and the teams that make it up, they seem to be too afraid of their players to put an end to it. Because if you put an end to something that has been accepted as politically correct, that makes you a racist (or sexist, or bigot or whatever the closest PC accepted slur might be).

So what are these protesting players fighting for? According to conservative pundit Allen B. West, what they’re supposedly fighting for is the very thing that should negate their platform.

“Some players in the NFL are still kneeling to protest ‘inequality’ but the crazy thing is, they go on to play a game which celebrates that very thing! They play to win, to be better than the opposing team. To be unequal. Where’s the justice in that?

Saturday night the Houston Astros defeated the New York Yankees and will go on to play in the baseball World Series, the fall classic. How many teams are there in the MLB? We know one thing for certain: there will only be one who holds up the championship trophy.

We gather for sporting events and cheer for our favorite teams to win, and are seriously discouraged when they don’t. Man, my heart sank when Oklahoma scored a 22-yard touchdown with :07 left to beat my Kansas State Wildcats. The reality is that everyone takes the field of competition but there will always, only, be one champion.

We don’t go to these sporting events to see anyone determine the outcomes except for the players on the field. We certainly don’t go just to see everyone have a great time participating and no one keeping score. We love the competition. And we love to play Queen’s song, ‘We are the champions’ — not ‘we are the participators.’

In the game of sports, these teams are free to compete, and each has the opportunity to win. And that means one thing: they are not all equal. If all of these teams in all sports were made to be equal, then they are not free…and they don’t have opportunity, as someone else will be determining their outcomes.

And so it goes — why do we want that to be the means by which our lives are determined? If we are indeed a free people, then we are not equal. We all have our respective talents, abilities, and competencies that in a free society we’re able to develop. I was never intended to be a college-level athlete. Nor was it in the works for me to be a renowned artist, musician or engineer. However, I was free to pursue my happiness and with the grand opportunities this great nation affords have been successful in my own ability. This is the same for us all.

Now, some have the disturbing, distorted and delusional perspective that they can render us all equal to some degree. We are then no longer free as our lives, our outcomes, are determined, regulated, or prescribed by others. Instead of being the officials and referees to ensure theirs is a level playing field of opportunity for us to win…they instead try to create the winners, according to their ideology and agenda.

The poison of social egalitarianism tells us there’s no exceptionalism. That Alabama would have to give up, forfeit points to Tennessee in order to make it a fair game…according to whom? Free throws in basketball are not just given, they’re awarded when someone commits a foul. A walk in baseball doesn’t just happen when you show up with bat in hand…it’s given if you’re skilled enough not to strike out, and the pitcher isn’t skilled enough to throw a strike.

The progressive socialist left will say this is oversimplified; it’s not. Life isn’t about penalizing and taking away from others what they’ve accomplished, what they’ve earned and achieved. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (not guarantee of happiness) is what makes America special, unique and exceptional. It’s the reason why people can come from anywhere in the world with nothing, and with their own drive and determination become winners…champions.

We need to reject this notion of being an equal people…being free means we’re not equal. And that, folks, is a good thing.”

The one thing that every liberal pretends doesn’t exist, and every conservative can’t stop seeing is that when we see players protesting, they’re doing so from an inherently unequal place in life. They don’t step down from their coveted position because they had a better coach than some other kid who maybe had equal talent.

It’s bizarre to even imagine a world where there’s someone going around, tracing their way back through our lives to find out if we’ve had any benefit that someone else hasn’t had, and taking something away from us if we have. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need to work for a greater future for our children, because it wouldn’t matter; if we gave it to them, someone would just take it away, and if we didn’t, someone would just even the score.

Equality is something that can only be obtained in potential; you still have the potential in this country to make anything you want out of yourself, the outcome is up to you.

[H/T: Allen B.West]

Join the “Support our Vets – Boycott the NFL & their Sponsors” Facebook page by liking it, and Share if you’re boycotting the NFL and the companies that support them! 

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading


Patriots QB Just Pissed Off His Entire Team With What He Did Before Game While Players Were Protesting

This will make you cheer!



Just days after NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell stated that he would prefer NFL players to stand during the national anthem, many players continued their sick protest during week 7. The entire New Orleans Saints team knelt in unison before the anthem started while Green Bay Packers players stood arm in arm while the ‘Star Spangled Banner’ played. In another game, three Miami Dolphin players stayed in their locker room while the anthem was sung, and in a different matchup across the country, Los Angeles Chargers offensive tackle Russell Okung reportedly raised his fist in the air as the anthem played.

Though while there are plenty of reports of these NFL players disrespecting our nation’s heroes, there are some players that won’t be apart of this nasty protest. New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady is one of them and what he was caught doing yesterday before the game has angered all the race-baiting players who protested that day.

The NFL protests have been going on for over a year now, and there seems to be no end in sight. These anti-American NFL players continue to claim that they are protesting racial inequality all while cashing million dollar checks and equating NFL team owners to slave owners.

After months of fans voicing their frustration over these disgusting protests, President Trump entered the fray by stating that players who kneel during the national anthem should be fired, which in turn ignited the controversy swirling around the players. Instead, of these racist NFL players ending their obvious publicity stunt to appear politically relevant, they only ramped up their efforts. Week after week, more players continue to kneel or raise a single fist in the “Black Power” salute while the national anthem was played. But, unlike all those ungrateful players, quarterback Tom Brady is trying to make a difference by doing the exact opposite.

Yesterday, the New England Patriots played against the Atlanta Falcons, but before the game began fans in the stand were able to witness what humility looks like. Tom Brady opted out of his normal pre-game routine and took the time to recognize roughly 200 military men and women that were in attendance with wide receiver Chris Hogan.

Here is more from Independent Journal Review:

The plan to invite the members of the military to the game was reportedly initiated by Patriots long snapper Joe Cardona, who is also an active member of the U.S. Navy, and special teams player Matthew Slater, according to 247 Sports.

It was a small gesture, but the message from Brady was clear.

The display is getting some extra attention as it stands in contrast to some NFL players who continue to kneel or sit during the national anthem in protest of racial injustice. Polls have shown many Americans find it offensive to use the national anthem as a platform for any protest.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell recently made it clear that the league wants players to stand for the national anthem, saying in a statement:

“Like many of our fans, we believe that everyone should stand for the National Anthem. It is an important moment in our game. We want to honor our flag and our country, and our fans expect that of us. We also care deeply about our players and respect their opinions and concerns about critical social issues. The controversy over the Anthem is a barrier to having honest conversations and making real progress on the underlying issues. We need to move past this controversy, and we want to do that together with our players.”

However, he later clarified the NFL would not punish players who continued to kneel.

Tom Brady’s act of kindness and respect is incredibly refreshing after watching months of constant disrespect from arrogant NFL players. It is entirely possible that the players that are still carrying on with their nasty protest may quit it after seeing that their actions are disgraceful and not welcome at all.

These NFL players have the right to protest but need to pick a better venue that does not anger the majority of your fan base. The old adage of “know your audience” applies to this exact situation, and if they want to keep their public platform, they better start reassessing their protest. They are more than welcome to kneel, make signs, and lecture people when they are out of uniform, but when they slip that uniform on, they need to adhere to their bosses rules and demands. If they don’t like it, well, there’s the door.

At any rate, hopefully, they will notice all the positive press Tom Brady is receiving and finally, begin to back peddle on their nasty protests! 

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading


Desperate Obama Just Showed Up Where Trump Was And Tried To Take Over As President – Blows Up In His Face

Just go away already!



It’s natural to be a little bit jealous of whoever gets hired to take your old job, especially if you’ve been removed against your will, but former President Obama seems to be taking it to a whole new level. Not only is he refusing to leave D.C. and creeping suspiciously close to the Trump family in his talk as well as his choice of neighborhood, but he’s decided recently to remind the United States what we’re missing with him out of office.

The former Communist in Chief thought it would be a good idea to show up on President Trump’s home turf and throw some shade at the President’s policy in regards to the Paris agreement. Obummer should really know better than to go to the Trump dominated form of social media and try to show him up, but ever the glutton for punishment, that’s exactly what he tried to do.

He was successful in on thing; it does have us reflecting on what we’re missing with the Obama’s out of the White House, but I’m not sure he’ll be thrilled with the result.

Via Daily Wire:

“We just checked the U.S. Constitution and, we were right: There’s only one president at a time.

But Barack Obama, who moved out of the White House on January 20 and, we all hoped, into obscurity, is trying to be the shadow president, refusing to duck out of the spotlight as he tries to discredit President Trump at every turn.

On Thursday, when Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord — one of Obama’s signature policies — the former president went bat crazy.

Speaking as a private American citizen, Obama said: ‘The nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs and industries created. But even in the absence of American leadership; even as this Administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future; I’m confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way.’

Remember that Obama signed the agreement without the consent of the U.S. Congress, an executive overreach of extraordinary magnitude. But when Trump decided that the accord was just too costly ($1 billion-plus already in taxpayer money) for a measly return (two-tenths of one degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100), Obama spoke as if he is still president.

And, of course, he praised his own bold vision.

‘A year and a half ago, the world came together in Paris around the first-ever global agreement to set the world on a low-carbon course and protect the world we leave to our children,” he said.

‘It was steady, principled American leadership on the world stage that made that achievement possible. It was bold American ambition that encouraged dozens of other nations to set their sights higher as well. And what made that leadership and ambition possible was America’s private innovation and public investment in growing industries like wind and solar — industries that created some of the fastest new streams of good-paying jobs in recent years, and contributed to the longest streak of job creation in our history.’

Now, Trump is less than 150 days into his (first) term as president. He’s just getting started. But here are few things Obama left behind when his time in the White House was over. A crumbling health care system that is on the verge of implosion; $9,334,590,089,060.56 (that’s trillion) in new debt; a Middle East in absolute shambles; the terror group ISIS stronger than ever and growing fast; the U.S. border so porous some American cities are overrun with illegal aliens; and the list goes on and on.

I don’t think it’s any great shock to any of us that the Democrat who left office might disagree on some policy with his Republican replacement. The surprise is that Obama thinks people might still want to listen to what he has to say on the matter. Obama was the world’s worst about unilateral decision making that bordered on the illegal. He made decisions on a daily basis that were questioned by scholars the world over as to their legality, so his disapproval of the sitting President’s completely legal, though liberally frowned upon policy, doesn’t hold much weight.

If Obama wants to tell us what he’s actually upset about, i.e. that he’s not still in the White House, then that’s an issue for a different day. But for today, we don’t give a rip what you think about the Paris agreement, Mr. Former President, because (thankfully) you’re not in office anymore, and America can actually do what’s good for us for a chance, instead of what lines the DNC pockets.

Thank you, and good night.

(Source: Daily Wire)

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Latest Articles