In part one of this article (CLICK HERE for part one), I noted "the disproportionate and distorted influence of the liberal left in certain fields and in certain industries."

I pointed to the corruption of journalism, the media, and the judiciary, and stated that "we see the liberal elite wield its power through the ACLU, and through the Hollywood establishment, and through the National Council of Churches, and through leftist professors...."

Professors with a left agenda pose a particular danger.  They aim to influence young people entering every field.  The leftist bias on our nation's campuses, one-sided and dominant, seeks to further expand its power beyond the judiciary and the media.

This effort poses a challenge to our very future.  The aim is to monopolize the ideas presented to our youth, affecting the future of every field.  We must meet this challenge, by working against this monopoly on our nation's campuses.

I LEARNED FROM MY YOUTH

In the summer of 1968, at the age of 16, I graduated high school and was weeks away from my freshman year at CCNY.  Afraid that the Vietnam war would escalate into a World War, I had started attending radical meetings and demonstrations against the war in Vietnam.

I attended a particular antiwar demonstration in downtown New York City in August 1968.  This demonstration, billed as a "send off" for demonstrators going to the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, was particularly confrontational in nature, and ended in a flurry of violence against the police.

At this demonstration, I bought my first copy of "The Militant," an openly communist, pro-Castro newspaper published in New York.  The headlines blared: "Seattle Panthers framed by cops" and "Che's Bolivia guerillas continue the struggle" and "Mexican students battle police" and "Free Huey Newton!"

The following week, the world and nation were stunned by the violence in Chicago.  But I was not surprised.

A lot of the "shock value" of the violence at the 1968 Democratic National Convention was that the public never expected it.  Yet even as an inexperienced 16-year-old radical leftist antiwar protestor, I knew (from my discussions and interactions at the New York "send off" event) that some groups - such as Youth Against War and Fascism and some factions of Students for a Democratic Society - were deliberately planning a confrontation weeks in advance.

With misguided idealism, and caught up in the excitement of confrontation, I joined the communist movement in November 1968.  I remained an activist and supporter of the movement until 1990.  Eventually, after resigning from the movement, I gradually came to terms with my past, and I became a Christian in 1995.  Today I love my country, and today I wouldn't wish upon any young person the same mistakes I made.

TRUE MOTIVES OF THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT

Today's antiwar movement shares some important characteristics with the Vietnam era antiwar movement, but there are also some important differences.

Among the similarities:

(1)  Despite starting out small in numbers, both movements grew to the point where they could - potentially - interfere with the military effort of the United States.  They were successful in the Vietnam era - we cannot allow this to happen again.

(2)  Communist, anarchist, and other far left groups are heavily involved in today's movement, as they were in the past.  Today, the leftists are joined by militant extremist supporters of Arab nationalism.

(3)  Dishonesty and exaggeration about U.S. aims and policies are promoted by today's movement, as in the Vietnam antiwar movement.

There are also some key differences:

(1)  The antiwar movement of the 1960s and the 1970s tended to be opposed to both the Democrats (personified by President Lyndon Johnson) and the Republicans (personified by President Richard Nixon), but the current antiwar movement is highly partisan - and heavily in favor of the Democrats.

(2)  Both Johnson and Nixon were usually on the defensive politically in relation to the protest movement - always trying to frame their views as "the best way to achieve peace."  Today, however, President George W. Bush is unwavering and firm in his resolve.  It was the antiwar candidate, Senator Kerry, who was forced to (falsely) frame his opposition as "the best way win the war."

Even opponents of the war feel constrained to give lip service to "supporting our troops," because patriotism is growing, and the U.S. is not on the defensive as it was during the Vietnam period. 

Today's antiwar movement said we could not win a war in the mountains of Afghanistan, and they said we could not win a war in the desert of Iraq. 

They argue that terrorism is a borderless, nebulous concept; that it has always been a part of human history; that it will always exist; that it can never be defeated.  They therefore feel that the war against Islamic fascist terrorism is a hopeless enterprise, "a war without end," a futile quagmire.

Their approach - pessimism, negativity, and anti-Americanism - brings us back to the true agenda of the radicals and extremists and anarchists involved in the antiwar movement: actual interference with the military effort of the United States.

WE ARE NO LONGER LIVING IN THE 1960s!

The danger posed by the power of the far left and liberal elite is real, especially because it aims to broadly influence all of our youth, who represent the future of our nation and our world.

However, we are no longer living in the 1960s.  The old tactics just don't work.  With the internet and cable TV and talk radio, it is very realistic and very possible to challenge the left.  They want a monopoly, they want to avoid debate, they lack tolerance of disagreement, and they wish to block youth from hearing opposing views - but in today's world they won't succeed.

Through debate, through open discussion, an atmosphere can be created where the extremists won't be able to achieve the results they crave.  Rather, over time, they will become more and more isolated, and their true motives will be clear to the public.

The 2004 presidential and congressional elections showed that today's leftists do not represent the American people.  They are angry, frustrated, bitter, irrational - and increasingly separated from the mainstream.  Today's antiwar movement tried to defeat President Bush, but the tactic backfired on them and discredited the Kerry campaign, which fell in defeat.

From my own first hand past experience as a leftist protestor during the Vietnam era, I know the damage that can be done by communists and other radicals.  But I also know that the extremists are not invincible.  They can be defeated, and on a historical scale, the trend is against them.

However, victory against forces such as Nazism, communism, or today's Islamic fascism never comes easy.  It takes courage, knowledge, and persistent effort.

It is with that spirit in mind that we should look at the current political situation on our nation's campuses.  The aim of the left is to not just to maintain their domination, but to keep other ideas out of the arena.  We must meet this challenge, and must combat the leftist monopoly on our nation's campuses.

FALL 2007: CHALLENGE LEFTIST DOMINATION OF THE CAMPUSES!

There is a great opportunity for young patriots, young conservatives, and young supporters of the U.S.-led war against terrorism to network, coordinate, plan, and organize during the 2007-08 school year.  The left seeks to dominate and monopolize politics on our campuses, avoiding direct debate and open discussion of the issues.  The most important of these issues is the U.S.-led effort to spread freedom and defeat Islamic fascist terrorism.

University students have a key role to play in the future of our nation, both in the long run and in the short run.  There is a great opportunity to plan "Conservative Awareness Week" events and "Support Our Troops" rallies on our nation's campuses in the fall of 2007. 

We can't let the anti-Americans go unchallenged.  We can't let people like Michael Moore and Ward Churchill and Noam Chomsky and Robert Jensen dominate the debate and give aid and comfort to our terrorist enemies.