Some see, few know, many choose to wander aimlessly in a fog, devoid of sunlight. I seek the light of day and leave the others to their chosen realm of ignorance. They are the ones who have brought this great nation down. I write only for the benefit of those who possess the courage required to restore our birthright.

Monday, March 17, 2014


... Then you are part of the problem.

Few who read my essays doubt the fact that we, as a free people, are in serious danger. Most of the people in the great variety of conservative groups on Facebook are convinced that they are doing their part to defend America and stand up for liberty by reposting various items that are 'shared' to their FB page. The problem with that is they seldom bother to check to see if those items are factual. Disinformation is one of the most effective tactics of the left, and any conservative who propagates that disinformation becomes a de facto agent of those who plan our destruction. Most people have done this but they need not continue the practice.

Glenn Beck, Allen West, a great many others, and I have long advocated to all "Do your research!", and yet very few do. The enemies of reason and liberty are flooding the internet with mass confusion, lies, hoaxes, and sensationalism. Anyone who spreads this disinformation, whether knowingly or otherwise, is harming America and aiding the Progressive left.

There are a variety of people involved in creating this rubbish and their motives vary. Some seek fifteen minutes of fame. Others simply want to have a good laugh on the public. With some there is a profit motive involved, and you will find massive amounts of advertising on their sites. (They get paid for every pageview) Some are the genuine crackpots that are still convinced that Elvis is alive and that we never really landed on the Moon, and then there are the professionals of the left, who gain political mileage from spreading mass confusion.

In regards to the nut job that produces a video in his Mom's basement about Sandy Hook and the Aurora massacre I can do nothing. But, I have compiled a list of hoax, sensationalist, and conspiracy web sites in the effort to rein in some of this mass confusion. You will find that link below in Suggested Reading. If you want to understand what is really going on you will also find a link of 100% reliable websites, a self updating link to a variety of news sources, as well as a link that will teach you how to be a hoax buster. 

I have spent most of the last five years writing on the internet and while admittedly there are those who disagree with my opinions and projections of future events, to date not one has disputed anything that I have put forth as a truth. That is due to the fact that, unlike most bloggers, I seek the truth and avoid sensationalism. My essays are hard hitting, to the point, and due to the fact that I do extensive research, factual.

In spite of the fact that some have referred to my writings as 'doom and gloom' my two primary sites Freedom Rings 1776 and Fix Bayonets have accumulated in excess of a quarter of a million hits. That would seem to indicate that there are a lot of gloom and doom people out there who are also well aware of the dangers we face and seek a better understanding of those dangers.

Recently a friend suggested that I am perhaps too critical of those who keep up this endless flow of distorted news and added the possibility that maybe many did not know how to disprove the half truths put before them. I pondered that possibility and agreed, and that thought has led me onto a new quest. Part of it you see before you, and part is in the works. I am in the process of creating an extensive internet library that you can access to research a great variety of topics.

Over recent years I have collected vast volumes of data and my library, when complete, will make all of that data available to you with but a few key strokes. Parts of it you will see below in Suggested Reading but that is only a very small tip of the iceberg. Within the next few weeks I shall put before you a great tool of learning; whether or not you choose to avail yourself of the opportunity is purely up to you.

Three percent! We have all heard the figure that only three percent of the colonists were actually involved in the American Revolution. To that end, many patriots today refer to themselves as 'Three Percenters'. Do you ... and if so will you willingly put more effort into learning instead of simply reposting the thoughts of those who are far more interested in deception than truth?

Another facet of that three percent concept: Are you willing to put forth three percent of the effort that I do? I am retired with few constraints on my time. Others cannot say that, and there is no way that they could hope to equal my effort, but I am asking each and all for a mere three percent. Put a little more into the endeavor, go that extra mile for liberty, the liberty your grandchildren deserve to inherit, and give America just three percent of your devotion.

We can all see what is coming, and no election, no politician, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to alter the course of history. The greatest weapon that liberty has is its patriots, and the greatest weapon that they have is knowledge. Seek it, find it, pass it on. During the Civil War it was a grand tradition to never let our flag touch the ground. If fifty men died keeping it aloft during a battle it was regarded as a price worth paying. Let the same be said about truth. Never, ever, let it fall.

Suggested Reading...
How To Research An Internet Topic
Hoax, Sensationalists, And Satire Sites...Disinformation
The Latest News (Newsreels)
Reliable Internet Sources
Do Your Research


  1. Thank-you Danny for all you do. Since I've been reading your blogs I read more, I go to legislative hearings in my state, I go to town meetings. My writing has improved and I'm able to send my research onto others. The USA has never been under attack like it is today, it's not one issue its a 100 issues. I am working on the school issue, I keep your work as an overall picture of the ultimate goal to destroy the West. I refuse to sit and do nothing, knowledge is power.

    1. Well...I surely cannot cure all of the problems we face, but as to your closing thought that knowledge is power. That is a fact. I have done an enormous amount of research in the last four years and am in the process of compiling it all into a library with each topic easily accessed and demonstrating how others can, if they so choose, embark on that same quest for knowledge that you and I are engaged in.

  2. This is off topic, but I didn't know where else to put it for your comment. Feel free to delete.

    I’m 76, ex-Navy long time ago, not a historian wasn’t even interested history until Benghazi. I didn’t like the direction our country was going. So I got involved on twitter, did a few posts on my blog and along the way saw a round-table discussion on Gaffney’s that included Diana West. She caught my attention and I read her book American Betrayal. I thought she put forward very good arguments that we have been misled about our WWII history and more.

    Shortly after the book came out there was a very positive review on FrontPageMag. I’ve always liked their posts…..Until now. A day after FrontPageMag posted this review, they yanked it and started a very bitter campaign to dis-credit her. They enlisted Conrad Black, Claire Feldman of AT, and even Horowitz slammed her and most claimed (unbelievable to me) that they hadn’t even read the book. Horowitz at the time had a book coming out and I don’t know if this shot his book down or not.

    It was during this time I started reading and studying you. You encapsulate most everything I believe. A lot of what you write I don’t want to accept except with your research and logic, you lay out very good background for your conclusions.

    So the purpose of this long winded comment is to enlist your help. Please help me understand how Horowitz and FrontPageMag could do this to Diana West. She has been backed up by some very solid, respected authors and even Frank Gaffney.

    And thanks for all the hard work you are putting in. I’m constantly posting your articles for others to read. I’m old but I’m not too old to learn. Take care.


    1. Stan, due to the length of my reply I had to do a part one and two to meet Googles guidelines. I thank you for your kind words, especially liking your comment "A lot of what you write I don’t want to accept except with your research and logic, you lay out very good background for your conclusions." The fact of the matter is that I do not want to accept my conclusions either, but must go where facts and logic take me.

      As for the Diana West controversy, I must admit that I have not had time to read her book, and yes many praise it, including one of the men that I admire most, Frank Gaffney. I have an equal admiration for David Horowitz, and like everyone else was shocked when he withdrew his support for Ms. West's book. I read a few of the back and forth comments on the disagreement.

      Having not read her book I do not feel qualified to decide whether she is right or wrong but, due to your interest, I have done a little background check on the issue. Horowitx initially endorsed Ms. West's book and withdrew that endorsement after being approached by Ronald Radosh, history professor, who provided an extensive essay that convinced Horowitz that Diana West was indeed incorrect.

      Front Page Mag published that essay and offered the same amount of space to her for a rebuttal, which she declined to accept. I have just read that Radosh essay, linked below, and must admit that he puts forth some very challenging views. One prime example was the shipment of Uranium ore that we sent to Russia under the lend lease program. It was extremely low grade ore, primarialy U238 as opposed to the U235 that is necessary for use in a nuclear weapon, and Russia lacked the ability to refine it. Even had they been able to refine it the resulting U235 would have fallen far short of the amount needed for a nuclear weapon that they did not know how to build.

      Whether she is correct in the rest of her thoughts I do not know but after reading Radosh's essay I now know why Horowitz withdrew his support. He was a man convinced by hard core evidence that he could not dispute. This evening I have read several essays that support Ms. West's position and everything that I have encountered says that her view was that Washington/FDR were 'controlled' by the communists. Had she used the word 'influenced' her point would set far better with me.

    2. Part Two...
      I have long known of communist elements within the FDR circle and he was quoted as saying that there is nothing wrong with communism and that some of his best friends were communists; but 'controlled'...No. Joe Stalin was pushing extremely hard for a second front in 1942 to take some of the pressure off of him, and Roosevelt hoped to do just that. Providing the bulk of the men and nearly all of the material, we gained the upper hand over England and it was up to us to call the date and place for the invasion. Churchill convinced both Roosevelt and Eisenhower that it was best to delay until we were more prepared.

      Stalin, losing millions of men pushed hard again for 1943 and again Churchill prevailed. That does not sound like FDR was controlled by the Kremlin.

      After we routed Rommel from North Africa, took Siciliy and Italy many were in favor of a push northward into Eastern Europe, but had we done so Hitler could have thrown many divisions in our way that were stationed in Western Europe, as well as withdrawing part of his Army from Stalingrad. Our losses would have been staggering, and so in spite of Stalin's insistence, we held off and attacked at Normandy in 1944. Even then the death toll was horrendous.

      The sad thing was the West/Horowitz debacle could have been handled in a much more mature manner. No one had to resort to name calling and a smear campaign. The very last thing we need is to divide our forces. Academics often disagree and usually do so in a civilized manner, each putting forth their viewpoints over a period of months. Time and research will generally reveal who was right and who was wrong.

      This is the Radosh link I mentioned above.

      And if you have an extra hour this Victor David Hanson video is quite enlightening. It is so refreshing to watch a man who knows more about history than I do.

      I also liked your closing line about being old but not too old to learn. Just hoping that you are not too old to shoot straight.

  3. Dear Danny,

    Thank you for your good-faith attempts to add light to the "disinformation campaign" (Jed Babbin's phrase) against me and my book American Betrayal. However, simply restating Horowitz's and Radosh's smears, distortions and fabrications doesn't enlarge anyone's understanding of their disgraceful campaign.

    I do not use any of these words lightly; indeed, I wrote a 22,000 word rebuttal to document each and every one of them (which includes why I decided not to respond at FP, which they have willfully distorted into me declining to respond, period; and the Uranium nonsense). It is called The Rebuttal: Defending American Betrayal from the Book-Burners and is available here:

    It also in available for free here:

    In book form, the work also includes essays written in my defense by others including such lights as M. Stanton Evans and the great Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who, with his associate Pavel Stroilov, even wrote a second essay.

    Here are Bukovsky & Stroilov's two essays:

    1) "Why Academics Hate Diana West" by Vladimir Bukovsky and Pavel Stroilov

    2) "West's `American Betrayal' Will Make History" by Vladimir Bukovsky and Pavel Stroilov

    Here also is an essay by M. Stanton Evans: "In Defense of Diana West"

    I cannot speak to why Frontpage engaged in this assault (M. Stanton Evans described it as a "mugging"), but I can attest to its mendacity, as documented in the rebuttal noted above. Writing such a rebuttal, I submit, was surely the "mature" response. Since I know you are not too old to learn plus a straight-shooter, I am certain that you will want to examine this material for yourself -- maybe even read the book & its 900-plus endnotes! -- before weighing in again.

    Here is the Amazon page, where I find that as of today, I received my 151st 5-star review.

    Best wishes,

    Diana West

    1. Dear Diana,

      I am delighted to hear from you, just wishing that it were under better circumstances, but before I proceed, congratulations on that additional five star award.

      As I mentioned to Stan, I am at a loss about why this whole thing got so out of hand. We are in such a desperate battle for our liberties the very last thing we need is hostilities among our most cherished supporters. My first exposure to you was as a member of the team that put together 'Shariah Threat To America', and have noted Frank Gaffney's unwavering support for you.

      I have watched many speeches and read still more essays from Team B II, and have long relied on them for factual reporting, integrity and common sense. By the same token I can say the same about David Horowitz. He has always seemed a dedicated activist in our ongoing struggle with the left. That is why I brought up the topic of Radosh's part in this scenario. Everything that I have encountered thus far tells me that he was the trigger. Horowitz initially endorsed your efforts and it was Radosh who turned the tables and he must have expended a great deal of effort in the process. Academics do disagree from time to time; it is simply sad that this disagreement turned vicious.

      I know that communism was rampant in DC during the war and am convinced that had WWII not occurred, FDR would have led us into another communist utopia. Many years ago I read a book entitled 'Is Paris Burning?'. It told how Roosevelt planned to hand Paris over to the communist contingent of France, but the plan was thwarted by Charles de Gaulle outmaneuvering the allies and leading the parade into Paris, thus becoming the hero and FDR lost that bid.

      I have no doubt that Roosevelt was greatly influenced by the Kremlin and chose to disregard the danger that Churchill warned about in Stalin. We knew full well the methods of Stalin from the Holodomor episode and FDR still thought that he could trust such a man; perhaps because they had so much in common. As Truman once said "He was the coldest man I ever knew."

      As I related to Stan I have not had the time to read your book as since Obama has been in office I have spent ten or twelve hours a day at this keyboard. Everything that I absorb comes from the Internet. Right now I have been awake for almost twenty four hours and promise that tomorrow I shall read the links you provided. This last month has been dedicated to building a library, trying to shake some sense into people before it all comes down about our heads.

      My latest effort...

      Best Regards,

      PS...Sorry about not having replied sooner. I have been so busy that I have not checked my comments for several days.

    2. Dear Diana,

      I have read your rebuttal and am quite impressed. There are many words/phrases that I like, and equally as many that I dislike. One, in the latter category, is 'The Narrative'. I have no idea of Radosh's personal opinion of you, but am convinced that you crossed that forbidden line and walked all over his narrative. Religion, science, and yes history, all have their own narrative and their adherents protect it with a dogmatic, and often ruthless devotion.

      A few months ago I took the liberty of redefining 'Expert'; describing such a person as one who knows it all ... right up until someone younger comes along and proves the 'Expert' to be in error. I do believe that you have done just that to the good Mr. Radosh.

      Semantics is such a fascinating field as words have meaning, words wield power, and sadly words can be abused. One such example is 'Racist'. We all see that word abused and turned into a powerful weapon to silence oppostion. Another such term is 'Conspiracy Theorist'. We all know that conspiracies are part and parcel of the human condition, and yet today anyone who attempts to identify an existing conspiracy is automatically relegated to the lunatic fringe. How was it that Radosh put it? Oh yes, "Unhinged".

      I have a friend in London who took great umbrage as I once wrote of FDR in less than flattering tones in one of my essays, as it seems that most of the Brits hold that man in high esteem. Later I sent him a link to a paper that some economists in UCLA wrote about FDR's efforts to prolong the Great Depression.

      Alan promptly recanted his views.

      You and I both know that Roosevelt was quite involved in the world of communism. Exactly how involved, we shall probably never know for certain, but that probability does not preclude an honest investigation into it even at this late date. And that thought brings me to David Horowitz. As I have stated before I have nothing less than a great admiration for his many contributions, but am at a loss to explain his viewpoint that you should not have written that book.

      There are none alive who are beyond an occasional lapse in judgement. I cannot help but feel that in listening to the Radosh saga David erred on the side of traditional and accepted views. I wish that instead of acting as he did he would have called an all day debate with you on one side of the table and Radosh on the other, with him acting as an impartial moderator.

      Recent years have led me into the nether world of the Progressive mindset and I have studied the tactics of the followers of Alinsky. They have learned well. I cannot help but see a similarity in the attack on Michelle Bachmann and the one that Radosh aimed at you. She did her research based on the Center For Security Policy's video course about the Islamic infiltration of our government. You did your research into the communist element in the U.S. during the war, and just like Ms Bachmann, were viciously attacked.

      Still on the Horowitz role: Anytime that I write I always read what is in a link that I reference and endorse or decry. I naturally assumed that David does the same, but (again on semantics) two words of contention ring out: 'Influence' and 'Control'. Radosh's critique of your work stated that you expressed the view that Stalin controlled FDR. For David to readily publish Radosh's thoughts I assumed that he had read both your words and the words of Radosh, thus validating your supposed use of the word 'Control'.

      The one nice thing to come out of all of this is that you have rallied a great deal of support, and while the attack is quite ruthless your assailants are few. I have no doubt that you will prevail.

      Best regards,



Please stay on topic. Be polite.