An old story tells of a big, successful store with a plaque in the employees’ lounge which read: “Rule #1. The customer’s always right. Rule #2. If you ever think the customer is wrong, reread Rule #1.”

I bring this up because the public school education establishment (to be distinguished from the rank and file teachers, many of whom are dedicated public servants), often treat their customers as if they’re wrong and as if the education elites know better than the dumb parents.

School choice is the ultimate answer to America’s education crisis, and there ought to be bipartisan agreement on it. School competition makes education better and gives all parents more options for their children. But the Left opposes it adamantly, though even a liberal newspaper surprisingly spoke out recently in favor of school choice.

Foxnews.com reports (7/9/2021):

“The liberal Washington Post editorial board on Thursday broke rank with the left and pondered why Democrats are so opposed to giving poor children a choice in schooling.”

The Washington Post opined,

“For 17 years, a federally funded K-12 scholarship program has given thousands of poor children in D.C. the opportunity to attend private schools and the chance to go on to college. And for many of those 17 years, the program has been in the crosshairs of unions and other opponents of private school vouchers…Their relentless efforts unfortunately may now finally succeed with House Democrats and the Biden administration quietly laying the groundwork to kill off this worthy program.”

What a tragedy. And who will suffer the most? Inner-city families.

The Left is all about power. But true public service is always about empowerment – empowering others, regardless of their socio-economic background – so that people can fulfill their God-given destiny.

The pandemic over the past year-and-a-half showed how the teacher’s unions held hostage many schools from re-opening in person.

During the shutdown, many parents discovered the option of homeschooling. In an interview for Christian television, Mike Donnelly of the Home School Legal Defense Association told me, “The U. S. census bureau issued a report recently that showed that homeschooling households doubled from about five and a half percent, before the virus, to over almost 12%.”

Homeschooling is not as radical as it sounds. Many of our founding fathers and key American leaders, like Abraham Lincoln, were home-taught.

In August 2020, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, observed,

“If there was one positive outcome I could point to from the Coronavirus Pandemic…was the fact that public schools were shut down and kids were at home. Parents were to a larger degree, involved in what their kids were learning… And I’ve heard from a number of parents, who are now rethinking education in terms of how they’re going to go about it post Coronavirus Pandemic.”

Fast forward to the present time and we see many parents revolting against some of what the education establishment is trying to cram down their throats, such as Critical Race Theory (CRT), a racist set of doctrines disguised in anti-racist garb.

CRT is a Marxist attempt to destroy America from within by teaching that white people always oppress minorities. Always.

When parents learn about CRT-type curricula in their schools, they have spoken out against it. Even many minority parents and parents in heavily Democratic areas have opposed it. It certainly flies in the face of the goals of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., that America become color-blind and judge people according to the content of their character not the color of their skin.

But the major teachers’ unions have not backed down from the teaching of CRT. With the unions’ blessing, about 5000 teachers recently pledged to teach CRT, even if it’s illegal.

For example, President Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, promises to “legally defend” members of their union who teach CRT, even if in that particular school district it is illegal.

CRT has different manifestations in our schools. Gary Bauer notes in his End of Day (7/9/2021):

“For example, at least 25 school districts around the country are using a book called ‘Not My Idea.’ Here’s how Amazon describes the book: ‘Not My Idea’ is the only children’s picture book that roots the problem of racism in whiteness and empowers white children and families to see and dismantle white supremacy.”

School choice seems to be the best answer to our education crisis, of which CRT is just the latest manifestation. And yet the Democrats are trying to shut it down, as in the poor sections of the District of Columbia.

Ironically, those who claim to champion “choice,” by which they mean killing preborn babies, want a one-size-fits-all approach to education in a diverse country like America.

I think the teacher’s unions need to re-read Rule #1.

This article was originally published at

With our nation on a razor’s edge, the days are getting shorter — and darker.

In fact, the winter solstice is coming in a couple of weeks on Dec. 21, marking the shortest day on the calendar and thus the darkest time of the year.

More than ever, it’s better to look to the heavenly light of Bethlehem instead of, say, the gaslight emanating from the pixels of a profoundly corrupt media.

A random sampling of news every day can inflict whiplash. Conservative outlets report, in detail, numerous documented allegations of vote fraud that should invalidate Joe Biden’s reported victory in most of the battleground states.

During the same news cycle, the major networks and papers like The Washington Post and The New York Times assure us over and over that there is “no evidence.” Because the evidence is piling up, some have taken to adding an adjective, saying there’s no evidence of “systemic fraud.”

In other words, don’t believe your lying eyes. Their intention is to ensure that even if compelling evidence is revealed, the sheer weight of nonstop propaganda will frighten legislators and judges to head for the tall grass and decline to do their duty — even the U.S. Supreme Court.

More than ever, we need to pray that truth will prevail, that justice will be done and that God will have undeserved mercy upon us and our troubled country.

On the bright side, the dark days of December are a perfect time to celebrate the Lord arriving in the form of a baby 2,000 years ago as the greatest gift to humanity ever given. Jesus brought light, life and love and the promise of eternal salvation to a very dark world.

It’s why we celebrate by putting up Christmas lights, giving gifts and singing carols.

The most significant event in history evokes different feelings depending on one’s heart condition. In 1868, Phillips Brooks wrote the lyrics of a beloved carol that resound to this day.

The last two lines of the first verse indicate that not everyone would be happy that the Lord would engage His creation so personally:

O little town of Bethlehem,
How still we see thee lie!
Above thy deep and dreamless sleep
The silent stars go by;
Yet in the dark street shineth
The everlasting Light;
The hopes and fears of all the years
Are met in thee tonight.

Fears? Yes. If Christ is Who He says He is, then those who reject Him are choosing misery over hope, consciously or not. They brush away evidence of God’s love, relegating stories of redemption to delusion, coincidence or even ultimate self-interest.

Theologian A.W. Tozer challenged the idea of God as an absentee creator, a “Blind Watchmaker,” as prominent atheist Richard Dawkins titled his 1986 book:

Be assured that God did not create life and toss it from Him like some petulant artist disappointed with His work. All life is in Him and out of Him, flowing from Him and returning to Him again, a moving indivisible sea of which He is the fountainhead.

It may sound a lot like The Force in “Star Wars,” but the difference is stark. There is no “dark side” in God, Who is indivisible, omnipotent and all loving. We’ll never know this side of eternity why evil exists. Or why God’s love is so deep that He sent His only Son to die on our behalf. But nothing should stop us from being grateful for the gift of life itself and all that sustains it.

For Christ is born of Mary,
And fathered all above,
While mortals sleep, the angels keep
Their watch of wondering love.
O morning stars, together
Proclaim the holy birth
And praises sing to God, the King,
And peace to men on earth.

The reason for the season speaks to all people, even unbelievers. The beauty of Christmas transcends doubts and calms hearts. It’s hard to be callous toward Salvation Army bellringers tending their red kettles or to shut off one’s heart upon hearing the melodies of carols that pierce the soul and offer hope. Timeless, classic movies like “It’s a Wonderful Life” can elicit tears from even the crustiest viewers.

How silently, how silently,
The wondrous Gift is given!
So God imparts to human hearts
The blessings of His heaven.
No ear may hear His coming,
But in this world of sin,
Where meek souls will receive Him still,
The dear Christ enters in.

In our culture, we’re told, over and over, that meekness is weakness; that looking out for No. 1 is the smartest way to live and that only fools bend their knee to an invisible God. But God-inspired goodness and truth are the most disarming forces on Earth.

In 1994, Mother Teresa spoke at a prayer breakfast, flanked by President Bill and Hillary Clinton and Vice President Al and Tipper Gore.  The two couples sat stone-faced as she proposed a “culture of life” and called abortion evil. At one point, Mr. Clinton’s hand was shaking nervously, apparently in reaction to the spiritual strength in this tiny, fearless woman.

Whatever happens with the election, we need to keep our eyes on the God Who promises not only salvation and mercy but courage to face the future and act accordingly.

Robert Knight is a contributor to The Washington Times, where this article was originally published. His website is roberthknight.com. 

Written by L. Brent Bozell III

The “gender reveal” has become a growing phenomenon in the world of social media. When expectant parents discover the gender of their unborn baby, they make a big announcement revealing the baby’s sex, with cakes and balloons and even pyrotechnics.

It’s a celebration of life, a desire to share the joyous news of the little boy or girl. Ah, but there’s the rub. A boy or a girl. In today’s perverted culture, this is wrong — very wrong.

It’s not surprising that in today’s war on the “gender binary,” major newspaper columnists appointed to write on “gender issues” (can you believe it) have written jeremiads attacking the very idea. Enter Monica Hesse of The Washington Post, whose July 31 article was headlined “Let’s have a gender-reveal party that reveals gender is a construct.”

In other words, stop doing “gender reveals,” because gender isn’t “assigned at birth.” It’s something for the child to decide later.

Hesse began by telling the tale of a mother named Jenna Karvunidis, who first made this trend viral by having a gender-reveal party with a pink cake. Now she regrets the whole thing. Karvunidis recently composed a follow-up post about her daughter Bianca — now just “Bee” — whose female gender she’d celebrated. “PLOT TWIST,” she wrote on Facebook. “The world’s first gender-reveal party baby is a girl who wears suits!”

Karvunidis included a family photo of “Bee,” now wearing a white suit and an androgynous haircut. This regretful mother declared her fealty to the gender-crushing revolution: “Who cares what gender the baby is? I did at the time because we didn’t live in 2019 and didn’t know what we know now — that assigning focus on gender at birth leaves out so much of their potential and talents that have nothing to do with what’s between their legs.”

Hesse was delighted by this confession, since she “was already buried in gender-reveal footage, planning to write a column about the perverse pleasure of watching the ones that fail.”

She hates the gender-reveal people.

Hesse began the article by admitting she gleefully watched four times the video of a couple in Australia celebrating with blue exhaust fumes, but then the car burst into flames and was destroyed. She also enjoyed another video “in which a man attempts to hit a pink-powder-filled balloon off a golf tee, and instead thwacks his buddy in the groin. Or another, of a guy accidentally hitting a softball into his wife’s face.”

At The Washington Post, civility dies in schadenfreude.

Hesse hates how these parties are often “hypermasculine” events, with axes and chainsaws and footballs. Or there was the off-duty Border Patrol agent who caused a 47,000-acre forest fire after he “shot a blue-dust-filled target that exploded more thoroughly than planned.”

The Post columnist angrily claimed that “the entire event is based on remarkable hubris: Parents try to concoct a memorable moment out of exhaust pipes, only to have nature inform them that there are no carefully concocted moments when it comes to raising children.” Parents must learn today’s lesson on “the limits of binary color choices.” Your child may “choose” their gender as they grow, and parents must be expected to promote that choice, and whatever mind-numbing terminology follows.

The cultural deconstructionist left is always reminding us that yesterday’s religiously informed “patriarchy” isn’t the only orthodoxy that pushes a set of manners and expectations on the culture. They have toppled God, and put the solipsistic anarchy of gender politics in His place.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

The U.S. Supreme Court of the United States has consistently upheld the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children within the guarantee of liberty found in the U.S. Constitution. A subversive movement emanating from the United Nations, however, is seeking to undermine parental authority by, in effect, making children wards of the State. Under the guise of protecting children, globalists are pushing a draconian agenda known as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which if ratified will overrule the authority of parents to act in the best interests of their children.

Standing between American families and the all-consuming power of the State is the Parental Rights Amendment to the United States constitution. This constitutional amendment will protect parents and their offspring from an overreaching bureaucracy that promotes unbiblical practices that harm children and also punishes households that seek to maintain Christian values.

Only two countries, the United States and Somalia, have not approved the UNCRC. According to Article VI of the United States Constitution, all treaties entered into by America “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Ratification of the UNCRC would, therefore, limit American sovereignty and supersede all federal or state laws. But the endorsement of any treaty requires a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to pass, which the Senate has thus far failed to achieve.

At first glance the UNCRC sounds both appropriate and needed. After all, few would disagree that children should have human rights as well as adults. But, as they say, the devil is in the details, and the UNCRC truly emanates from the Pit. It would sweep aside all restrictions on abortion and contraception under the rubric of providing “health care services” to children–without the consent of their parents.

Moreover, children will be indoctrinated with values and views that many parents will find objectionable. The UNCRC mandates that underaged youth be exposed to “information and material from a diversity of national and international sources,” including a variety of viewpoints related to their “spiritual and moral well-being,”–once again, values and views that many parents will find offensive.

Relegating the instruction of moral and religious beliefs to a host of questionable sources will have predictably  deleterious consequences. The United Kingdom is a prime example of what happens when the State becomes the instructor of ethics. A government-issued pamphlet entitled “Talking to Your Teenager about Sex and Relationships” advises children to choose their own morals regarding sexuality and instructs parents to keep silent lest they discourage their children from exploring any and all views on sexuality and relationships.

The World Policy Analysis Center at UCLA’s Fielding School of Public Health noted a number of areas of progress regarding children’s rights since the introduction of the UNCRC. However, the Center also noted that “Global challenges still remain in the area of child marriage.” Despite all the rhetoric about “children’s rights,” the proponents of the UNCRC still cannot face up to the massive inconsistencies of their position.  If they are fighting for “children’s rights,” should that not include the right to marry?

Far from evincing concern about this worldwide scourge, the UNCRC apparently approves of the “right” of children to be forcibly married at young ages.  Michael P. Farris, is a constitutional lawyer and president of ParentalRights.org, an organization that has been campaigning against U.S. ratification of “dangerous U.N conventions that “threaten parental rights” such as the UNCRC.   Farris notes:

“The United States demonstrates its commitment to human rights whenever it follows and enforces the Constitution of the United States, which is the greatest human rights instrument in all history.”

The Washington Post predictably rails against Farris and ParentalRights.org, claiming:

The group fears that ratifying the treaty would mean children could choose their own religion, that children would have a legally enforceable right to leisure, that nations would have to spend more on children’s welfare than national defense, and that a child’s ‘right to be heard’ could trigger a governmental review of any decision a parent made that a child didn’t like.  

The Post is apparently oblivious to the fact that children have few if any of these “rights” in the vast majority of countries that so eagerly climbed aboard the bandwagon of the UNCRC. According to The Post,

The United States can learn from other member nations on how to reduce poverty, ensure women’s rights, improve education and educational access, and healthy living conditions, for starters.  

Such facetious claims are the epitome of hypocrisy when hundreds of thousands of migrants from Central America have either arrived or are at this very moment making the arduous thousand-mile journey on foot to have the opportunity to cross the border and enjoy lavish government benefits that are unknown in much of the world.

The Migrant Policy Institute confirms that the United States is by far the preeminent destination country for migrants seeking a better life–with more than four times the number of immigrants seeking asylum than in the second-place country: Saudi Arabia. Accounts of the horrific abuse suffered by those who are forced out of necessity to work in the desert kingdom are well-known, but lie beyond the scope of this article.

Contradicting the implications of the UNCRC charter, another United Nations organization, UNICEF, states unambiguously:

Marriage before the age of 18 is a fundamental violation of human rights…. Child marriage often compromises a girl’s development by resulting in early pregnancy and social isolation, interrupting her schooling, limiting her opportunities for career and vocational advancement and placing her at increased risk of domestic violence. Child marriage also affects boys, but to a lesser degree than girls.

Yet today dozens of countries openly allow child marriages below the age of fifteen. While the United Nations is quick to condemn the United States for its alleged failures, nary a peep is heard concerning the travesty of child marriages primarily in South America and the Arab world, which have the highest rates of child marriages.

Hope is on the way: the Parental Rights Amendment to the United States constitution is gaining momentum.  Introduced this week by U.S. Representative Jim Banks (R-IN).  The Amendment already has fifteen cosponsors, six more than when it was introduced last year.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Congressional representative to urge him/her to become a cosponsor of the Parental Rights Amendment (H.J. Res. 36).  The Parental Rights Amendment will ensure that the next generation of children will be raised and guided by their loving parents, not by an impersonal government bureaucracy pushing an agenda inimical to the values of American families.

Christian Life in Exile
On February 22^nd, IFI is hosting a special forum with Dr. Erwin Lutzer as he teaches from his latest book, “The Church in Babylon,” answering the question, “How do we live faithfully in a culture that perceives our light as darkness?” This event is free and open to the public, and will be held at Jubilee Church in Medinah, Illinois.

Click HERE for more info…

Hugh Hefner, the bachelor hedonist who brought us female exploitation and sex clubs, passed away Wednesday at the age of 91. The media has erupted in praise for his alleged championing of “free speech” through the pornographic magazine, Playboy, which was founded in Chicago in 1953. Hefner’s Playboy Club featured bow-tied women in bunny costumes, as “pets” of deviant and perverted men. In an article in The Washington Post, columnist Derek Hawkins points out:

He portrayed himself and his magazine as defenders of women’s rights, but his critics have called him anything but, pointing to his rotating cast of girlfriends, multiple divorces and general objectification of women in the pages of Playboy (“They are objects,” he once told Vanity Fair).

Christian pro-family groups have long believed pornography is not only degrading to women, but it reduces them to mere sex objects solely for the pleasure of men. And it should not be surprising that the “progressive” agenda for sexual “rights” was among Playboy’s themes.  In multiple ways, Hefner worked hard to advance the antithesis of Biblical morality, by helping to change the cultural understanding of God’s plan for human sexuality.  Hefner and other porn pushers were on the front lines of the culture wars for decades, even promoting the LGBTQ agenda before the media, academia and Hollywood became advocates for sexual amorality.

“Hugh Hefner leaves behind a legacy of sexual exploitation and public health harms,” says Patrick Trueman, President of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. “Playboy popularized the commodification of the female body in soft-core pornographic magazines in the 1960s, and it laid the groundwork for the public health crisis of Internet pornography that America is experiencing today. Reams of research show that Internet pornography is linked to neurological harms, sexual dysfunctions, and increases in rates of sexual violence.”

“Hugh Hefner was not a champion of free speech. He was a pioneer in the sexual objectification and use of women,” Trueman continued. “Research shows that Playboy historically portrays female sexuality as subordination and universal availability to the male gaze. How can our society accept, let alone applaud, these messages about the value of women when we are simultaneously struggling with campus sexual assault, military sexual assault, and the culture of sexual harassment in Silicon Valley?”

Kimberly Drake, a former stripper in a topless club couldn’t agree more, pointing out that pornography dehumanizes women.  She depicts it well:

In Playboy, the centerfold is called a playmate. That makes her a toy. There are playboy bunnies and penthouse beavers, that makes her an animal. The problem here is that if she is seen as an object she can be used, abused and thrown away. If I wreck my car I might be sad I wrecked my car, but I can go out and get another one. This is just another lie it tells us about women. How then do we view ourselves? How does our spouse or significant other view women if he has been caught up in this lie? This attitude is a key factor in violence towards women.

To this point, Trueman stresses that it’s  “time to acknowledge the reality that Playboy is actually just another brand for old-fashioned misogyny.”

A terrible consequence of pornography is its affect on men, women, and children. The regular viewing of porn changes our attitudes about relationships. It even affects how we view ourselves. It touches every level and every relationship we have.  Even Psychology Today acknowledges that porn affects relationships.  However, a Biblical understanding of the purpose of sex within marriage is a great blessing.

“I will set nothing wicked before my eyes…”
Psalm 101:3a

See also Proverbs 6:27-33; Matthew 5:27-28; James 1:14-15; Matthew 5:28; 1 Corinthians 6:18-20; Job 31:1; Psalm 119:37; Hebrews 13:4; Galatians 5:19 and Proverbs 6:32-33.

Read more:

The Human Costs of the World Hugh Hefner Created

Playboy Was Dedicated to Replacing the Faithful, Married Man With a Rakish Figure

The Death of Hugh Hefner and the End of the Sexual Revolution

Hugh Hefner Isn’t Dead. He Lives Rent Free Inside Our Heads

Hugh Hefner Did Not Live the Good Life

Hugh Hefner’s Legacy Is About More Than Sex

Hugh Hefner’s Legacy of Despair

Hugh Hefner and the Sexual Revolution

Learn more about the public health harms of pornography: The National Center on Sexual Exploitation, Concerned Women for America and Focus on the Family.

IFI depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

-and, please-

With the war on Islamic terrorism being portrayed as a righteous cause in “American Sniper,” the Clint Eastwood film breaking box office records, a book which documents the days when Hollywood was a mouthpiece for communist propaganda might seem out of date. But Allan H. Ryskind’s book, Hollywood Traitors, is a reminder that Hollywood can’t always be counted on to take America’s side in a war, even a World War when the United States faced dictators by the names of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

The Ryskind book, published by Regnery, documents how the much-maligned House Committee on Un-American Activities, known as HUAC, uncovered dramatic communist infiltration of Hollywood and forced the studios to clean house.

Ryskind calls HUAC’s investigation of Hollywood in 1947 and 1950 “one of the most effective, albeit controversial, probes ever carried out by any committee of Congress.” He adds, “HUAC had revealed that Hollywood was packed with Communists and fellow travelers, that the guilds and the unions had been heavily penetrated, and that wartime films, at least, had been saturated with Stalinist propaganda. Red writers were an elite and powerful group in Hollywood—many of them working for major studios.”

He writes that, “HUAC, though bruised by elite opinion, had won the support of the American people and a victory over Hollywood Communists, fellow travelers, and the important liberals who supported them.” Members of Congress involved in HUAC did their jobs, in the face of opposition from “the East coast establishment newspapers” like The New York Times and The Washington Post.

The book reminds us that the Hollywood agents of Stalin had also been “Allies of Hitler,” a threat symbolized on the book cover by a Hollywood director’s chair featuring a Nazi swastika. The Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939-1941 had paved the way for World War II.

As a result of the purging of communists from Hollywood, the so-called “blacklist,” we entered a time, from about 1947 to 1960, when the communists lost control of the major Hollywood unions and “the studios were actually creating anti-Communist pictures,” Ryskind writes. It was a remarkable turnaround.

But while Hollywood did turn anti-communist, at least for a while, the communists scored their own ultimate victory, succeeding in forcing Congress to abolish HUAC. The committee, which had been renamed as the House Internal Security Committee, was the target of what HUAC called the Communist Party’s “Cold War against congressional investigation of subversion.”

For many years, there was a comparable body in the Senate, which went by different names but tackled such matters as “Castro’s Network in the United States,” a 1963 investigation into the “Fair Play for Cuba Committee” that we later learned included JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.

To those insisting it was somehow inappropriate to ask Hollywood figures about their “political beliefs,” Ryskind counters that “Few questions could have been more important for a congressional committee to ask than whether American citizens were actually serving as agents of a hostile foreign government.” He said HUAC was engaging in hearings designed to accurately disclose membership in the Communist Party, “a subversive organization controlled by an enemy nation and designed to turn America into a Communist country…”

In its battle against communism, HUAC had subpoena power and was not afraid to use it. HUAC also issued contempt citations against those who refused to testify completely and truthfully. All of the members of the so-called “Hollywood Ten,” who refused to testify about their involvement in the Communist Party, eventually went to prison.

Ryskind cites estimates that over 200 Hollywood Communists were named in this process. His book provides the Communist Party card numbers of the Hollywood Ten as well as the names of other “well-known radicals,” many of them overt Communists, who were active in the movie industry.

Bring Back HUAC?

Today, with dozens of leading conservatives now clamoring for congressional action to “Stop the Fundamental Transformation of America,” the Ryskind book may add to the impetus for Congress to reestablish a HUAC-style panel. The George Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP) acted frightened and alarmed in 2010 when Rep. Steve King (R-IA) expressed agreement with my suggestion at that time that re-establishment of such a committee would be a good idea. “I think that is a good process and I would support it,” he said.

The oath of office for members of Congress requires that they support and defend the Constitution of the United States “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” HUAC is a model for how such a problem can be identified and confronted.

Donald I. Sweany, Jr., a research analyst for the House Committee on Un-American Activities and its successor, the House Committee on Internal Security, sees the need for such a committee. He has issued this statement:

“The re-creation of the House Committee on Internal Security will provide the Congress of the United States, Executive Branch agencies and the public with essential and actionable information concerning the dangerous and sovereignty-threatening subversive activities currently plaguing America. This subversion emulates from a host of old and new entities of Marxist/Communist revolutionary organizations and allied militant and radical groups, some of which have foreign connections. A new mandated House Committee on Internal Security is of great importance because it would once again recommend to Congress remedial legislative action to crack down on any un-American forces whose goals are to weaken and destroy the freedoms which America enjoys under the Constitution. In addition, this legislative process will provide public exposure of such subversives.”

Ryskind’s father, Marx Brothers screenwriter Morrie Ryskind, testified before HUAC about communist penetration of Hollywood that he had learned about first-hand through his involvement with the Screen Writers Guild. Morrie Ryskind had attended the Columbia School of Journalism in New York and written for Joseph Pulitzer’s newspaper World. But he underwent a political transformation, from an anti-war socialist who became disillusioned with FDR to a Republican determined to stop the communist advance. He wrote for conservative publications such as Human Events and National Review, which he helped William F. Buckley Jr. launch.

Morrie Ryskind helped found the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals to counteract the work of the communists and educate the American people about what was at stake. The Ryskind book also notes how the American Legion and various Catholic organizations were focusing attention on Hollywood’s far-left elements and making the public aware of this problem.

The book includes Allan Ryskind’s memories of his Hollywood upbringing, including meeting famous people such as top Communist Party leader Benjamin Gitlow. He spent decades as editor of Human Events, which was President Ronald Reagan’s favorite paper. It also became known for its aggressive reporting on the communist and socialist threats. Reagan so appreciated the weekly paper that he had arranged for copies to be sent to him personally at the White House residence.

Ryskind, who still serves as Human Events editor-at-large, documents the development of Reagan’s anti-communism in Hollywood Traitors. Reagan began his acting career as a liberal who got involved in Communist-front activities, later realizing that the “nice-sounding” groups he was supporting were secretly controlled by members of the Communist Party. He carried this understanding and analysis of the communist threat into his presidency and talked openly about the growing Marxist influence in Congress as he battled with congressional liberals and tried to stop the Soviet advance in Latin America.

In fact, as President, he told journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave in a 1987 interviewthat “I’ve been a student of the communist movement for a long time, having been a victim of it some years ago in Hollywood.” He said that he regarded some two dozen Marxists in Congress as “a problem we have to face.”

The problem is far worse today. Analyst Trevor Loudon now counts the number of Marxists in Congress at more than 60, a fact that would seem to make it more of a controversy to re-establish HUAC, but even more of a reason to do so. All it would take is more courageous members like Rep. King, backed by the House Leadership. Such a committee would be able to seriously analyze an area that remains off-limits to the House Homeland Security Committee, the House Intelligence Committee, and the Select Committee on Benghazi—subversive infiltration of the highest levels of the U.S. government, including the White House and Congress.

One key to HUAC’s success was finding those in Hollywood, including in the unions, willing to name names and identify the subversives. Reagan testified before HUAC and took a leadership role in defeating communist influence in the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), later becoming the union’s president. Labor leader Roy Brewer was another effective anti-communist in Hollywood highlighted in Ryskind’s book.

Although the 506-page book is based on HUAC hearings, Ryskind conducted independent research that adds to his case against the Hollywood traitors. For example, he combed through the historical papers of one major Hollywood-Ten figure, the Hollywood screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, who refused to cooperate with HUAC and expose his comrades. Ryskind reports on an unpublished script Trumbo wrote that treated the invasion of South Korea as a “fight for independence” for the communist north.

Trumbo wrote many excellent film scripts, including Roman Holiday, but was “a hard-core Party member, a fervent supporter of Stalinist Russia and Kim Il-sung’s North Korea, and an apologist for Nazi Germany until Hitler double-crossed Stalin and invaded the Soviet union,” Ryskind notes. “Yet to this day he is regarded as a hero in Hollywood.”

Almost on cue, as Ryskind’s book was being published, it was reported that Hollywood is planning a new film which glorifies Trumbo, starring Bryan Cranston of “Breaking Bad” fame as the screenwriter. The battle over communist influence is slated to return for another act.

Love for Cuban Communism

The book’s chapter, “Hollywood Today,” tries to bring the communism problem up to date by examining Hollywood’s love affair with the longtime Stalinist ruler of Cuba, Fidel Castro. He writes that much of Hollywood “is still lured by the romance of Marxism, and its films are still filled with heavy doses of anti-American propaganda.”

More details are provided in Humberto Fontova’s excellent books, Fidel: Hollywood ‘s Favorite Tyrant and The Longest Romance: The Mainstream Media and Fidel Castro.

I recently asked Fontova why a Stalinist like Castro gets fawning treatment, while the Stalinist North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, is ridiculed in the movie The Interview. “My best guess is that it’s a generational thing, nostalgia mostly,” he told this writer. The Castros and Che Guevara, he said, are perceived as “the first hippies” or beatniks.

Indeed, The Longest Romance quotes The New York Times reporter who helped bring Castro to power, Herbert Matthews, as saying, “Castro’s is a revolution of youth.” Fontova adds, “The notion of Castro’s Cuba as a stiflingly Stalinist nation never quite caught on among the enlightened. Instead the island often inspires hazy visions of a vast commune, rock-fest or Occupy encampment, studded with free health care clinics and with [the hippie icon] Wavy Gravy handing out love-beads at the entrance.”

Perhaps the pro-Castro influence in Hollywood is something that a new HUAC might want to tackle.

Another issue worth investigating is how Hollywood has also come under the influence of radical Islam. For example, the 2002 film, “The Sum of All Fears,” which was the movie version of the Tom Clancy book of the same name, replaced the Arab terrorist villains with neo-Nazis so as not to offend the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate. The Fox network responded to complaints about its popular series “24” depicting Muslims in America secretly plotting terrorism by running public service announcements from CAIR portraying American Muslims as moderate and peaceful.

The book, Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation, has an entire chapter on how CAIR attempts to silence its critics in radio, television, and the film industry.

There will be those in Congress and the media who will argue against the return of anything resembling the old HUAC, contending that “McCarthyism,” or the anti-communist “witchhunt,” is the greater danger. The truth about McCarthy’s investigations is provided in the M. Stanton Evans book, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight against America’s Enemies.

It bears repeating that Senator McCarthy never had anything to do with the House committee or its investigation of Hollywood.

This book is a valuable contribution to understanding a dangerous time in American history when America’s elected representatives and the people themselves rallied to the defense of their homeland against these foreign and domestic enemies.

While it is worth noting that the veteran Hollywood actor and director Clint Eastwood has bypassed the censors at CAIR with “American Sniper,” this kind of film is the exception and not the rule. The film portrays the great sacrifices being made by U.S. military personnel in the Middle East as they combat an enemy that is depicted as savage and barbaric. It is based on the life of Chris Kyle, an Iraq War veteran and Navy SEAL who joined the Armed Forces to defend his country from Islamic terrorism.

Zaid Jilani, a “progressive” writer who left the Center for American Progress after being charged with anti-Semitism, has emerged as one of the film’s most vocal critics. A regular on the Kremlin channel Russia Today (RT) and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Al Jazeera, he insists the film about the “remorseless” sharpshooter has sparked “anti-Muslim bigotry,” and he complains about it becoming “a rallying point for the political right.”

However, he admits that Eastwood’s skill as a filmmaker could result in a “Best Picture” award for “American Sniper” and “Best Actor in a Leading Role” award for Bradley Cooper, who plays Kyle. He just can’t bring himself to admit that the pro-military and anti-terrorist message is also a major factor in its success. TheAcademy Awards take place on February 22.

Indeed, this is the fear from the modern-day “progressives”—that Hollywood will rediscover the box office appeal of American patriotism.

But according to the annual Reuters/Ipsos Oscars poll, if ordinary Americans voted for the Academy Awards, “American Sniper” would be the Best Picture winner. Those who wonder why we don’t get more pro-military and pro-American movies out of Hollywood should read Ryskind’s new book.

This article was originally posted at the Accuracy in Media website.