Category Archives: Communist Connections

U.S. State Department And U.S. Government Officials Created Present Day Communist China By Backing Mao Tse-Tung With Funding And Weapons.

Mapjpg.

China Betrayed Into Communism

thenewamerican.com

Written by James Perloff

Friday July 24, 2009

Although the mass media present China today as “progressive,” especially after the 2008 Olympics fanfare, it remains among the world’s cruelest regimes.

The term “Red China” is not anachronistic. Though certainly less oppressive than during the Cultural Revolution, when it executed millions, China is still governed by a single regime, the Communist Party, which requires members to be atheists. It imprisons dissidents without due process, oppresses Tibet, and enforces a policy, backed by compulsory abortion, restricting most families to one child. (Since Chinese traditionally prefer male offspring, this has led to disproportionate abortion — even infanticide — of female babies, creating an artificial majority of males in China.) The government directly controls most media, blocking criticisms of itself on the Internet.

Perhaps worst is suppression of religious freedom. Christian churches, though permitted, must submit to government control and censorship — either as part of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement or Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. Independent house churches, comprising some 90 percent of China’s Christians, face persecution. The Voice of the Martyrs reports:

The human rights record in China is one of the worst in the world. Its system of “re-education through labor” detains hundreds of thousands each year in work camps without even a court hearing…. The house church movement (unregistered churches) endures unimaginable persecution, yet stands on its commitment to preach the gospel, no matter the cost. China continued its crackdown against Christians and missionaries in 2008, as they sought to purge the country of religion before hosting the Olympic games…. Church property and Bibles were confiscated. Christians were harassed, questioned, arrested and imprisoned. Christians in prisons are routinely beaten and abused.

Japan and Manchuria

What surprises many Americans: the regime ruling China was largely put there by the United States. In the 1930s, Japan, then militarily powerful, was the main barrier to Soviet ambitions to communize Asia. Benjamin Gitlow, founding member of the U.S. Communist Party, wrote in I Confess (1940):

When I was in Moscow, the attitude toward the United States in the event of war was discussed. Privately, it was the opinion of all the Russian leaders to whom I spoke that the rivalry between the United States and Japan must actually break out into war between these two.

The Russians were hopeful that the war would break out soon, because that would greatly secure the safety of Russia’s Siberian borders and would so weaken Japan that Russia would no longer have to fear an attack from her in the East…. Stalin is perfectly willing to let Americans die in defense of the Soviet Union.

In 1935, U.S. Ambassador to Moscow William C. Bullitt sent a dispatch to Secretary of State Cordell Hull:

It is … the heartiest hope of the Soviet Government that the United States will become involved in war with Japan…. To think of the Soviet Union as a possible ally of the United States in case of war with Japan is to allow the wish to be father to the thought. The Soviet Union would certainly attempt to avoid becoming an ally until Japan had been thoroughly defeated and would then merely use the opportunity to acquire Manchuria and Sovietize China.

In the 1930s Japan moved troops into Manchuria (northern China). U.S. history books routinely call this an imperialistic invasion. While there is certainly truth in this interpretation, the books rarely mention that Japan was largely reacting, in its own version of the Monroe Doctrine, to the Soviets’ incursions into Asia — namely their seizure of Sinkiang and Outer Mongolia. Anthony Kubek, Chairman of Political Science at the University of Dallas, wrote in How the Far East Was Lost:

It was apparent to Japanese statesmen that unless bastions of defense were built in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia, Communism would spread through all of North China and seriously threaten the security of Japan. To the Japanese, expansion in Manchuria was a national imperative…. But the Department of State seemed not to regard Japan as a bulwark against Soviet expansion in North China. As a matter of fact, not one word of protest was sent by the Department of State to the Soviet Union, despite her absorption of Sinkiang and Outer Mongolia, while at the same time Japan was censured for stationing troops in China.

The Chinese Republic

China had been ruled by emperors until 1911, when the Qing Dynasty was overthrown. The revolution is largely attributed to Sun Yat-sen, who sought to make China a constitutional republic, led by the Kuomintang, or Nationalist Party of China. However, Sun encountered extreme difficulties in unifying the enormous nation under his idealistic principles. After the emperors’ fall, China was largely ruled by local warlords, and following Dr. Sun’s 1925 death, the task of unifying China fell to Chiang Kai-shek, a Christian and Kuomintang leader.

The Soviets tried infiltrating the Kuomintang, but Chiang Kai-shek eventually saw through their schemes, and by 1928 had deported many USSR agents. That same year, 1928, Foreign Affairs, American’s most powerful foreign policy journal, published its first article criticizing Chiang. From then on, he became the enemy of both the Soviet Union and the American establishment — which had ironically sought to support communism since the 1917 Russian Revolution.

Chinese Reds: Soviet Puppets

The Chinese Communist Party was little more than a puppet of the Soviet Union, which recognized the value for communism’s future in China’s massive manpower. In 1933, the Chinese Communist Party sent this message to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin: “Lead us on, O our pilot, from victory to victory!”

Stalin encouraged the overthrow of Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist government. However, with Japanese troops’ arrival in Manchuria in 1937, Stalin ordered Chinese communists to ease their attacks on the Nationalists because the latter were repelling the Japanese, whom Stalin considered a barrier to his own ambitions in Asia.

This order was amplified after June 22, 1941, when Germany and its European allies invaded the Soviet Union, and began decimating the Red Army. Stalin feared that Japan — Germany’s ally — would invade Russia from the East, destroying himself and world communism’s center. One may reasonably conclude that proven Soviet agents within the U.S. government — such as Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; and Alger Hiss, a leading State Department figure — shared this concern.

This author has documented in The New American that Washington had full foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, but did not warn our military commanders; and also that Washington sought to provoke the attack through such measures as a freeze on Japan’s U.S. assets; a steel and oil embargo; closure of the Panama Canal to Japan’s shipping; and humiliating ultimatums to the Japanese government (see, for example, Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not).

The U.S. war with Japan fulfilled the Gitlow and Bullitt warnings. Since Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists were also fighting the Japanese, official U.S. policy was to support them, especially after President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Chiang at the 1943 Cairo Conference. Stalin ordered the Chinese communists to help against the Japanese too — but in a very limited capacity. Chinese communist leader Mao Tse-tung told followers: “Our determined policy is 70 percent self-development, 20 percent compromise, and 10 percent fight the Japanese.” The Reds spent little energy against the Japanese, mostly attacking the Nationalists, whom they planned to overthrow at the war’s conclusion. This emphasis increased as Japan’s defeat, from U.S. advances in the Pacific, became imminent. Robert Welch, in his study of China’s downfall, Again, May God Forgive Us, wrote: “In Shantung in 1943, just for one illustration, they [the communists] attacked from the south an army of twenty thousand Nationalists, simultaneously with a Japanese attack from the north, and helped to slaughter the whole force.”

Roosevelt’s Betrayal

But China’s destruction came not only from communists. Fateful decisions resulted when Roosevelt met with Stalin at the Teheran Conference (late 1943) and Yalta Conference (February 1945). Stalin, though our ally against Germany during World War II, maintained a nonaggression pact with Japan. This suited Stalin, as he wished the Japanese to wear down China’s Nationalist forces.

At the Teheran and Yalta wartime conferences, however, Roosevelt asked Stalin if he would break his pact with Japan and enter the Far East war. Stalin agreed, but attached conditions. He demanded that America completely equip his Far Eastern Army for the expedition, with 3,000 tanks, 5,000 planes, plus all the other munitions, food, and fuel required for a 1,250,000-man army. Roosevelt accepted this demand, and 600 shiploads of Lend-Lease material were convoyed to the USSR for the venture. Stalin’s Far Eastern Army swiftly received more than twice the supplies we gave Chiang Kai-shek during four years as our ally.

General Douglas MacArthur protested after discovering that ships designated to supply his Pacific forces were being diverted to Russia. Major General Courtney Whitney wrote: “One hundred of his transport ships were to be withdrawn immediately, to be used to carry munitions and supplies across the North Pacific to the Soviet forces in Vladivostok…. Later, of course, they were the basis of Soviet military support of North Korea and Red China.”

But Stalin didn’t just want materiel in return for entering the Asian war. He also demanded control of the Manchurian seaports of Dairen and Port Arthur — which a glance at the map shows would give him an unbreakable foothold in China — as well as joint control, with the Chinese, of Manchuria’s railroads. Roosevelt made these concessions without consulting the Chinese. Thus, without authority, he ceded to Stalin another nation’s sovereign territory. The president made these pledges without the knowledge or consent of Congress or the American people.

The State Department official representing the United States in drawing up the Yalta agreement was Alger Hiss — subsequently exposed as a Soviet spy. General Patrick Hurley, U.S. Ambassador to China, wrote: “American diplomats surrendered the territorial integrity and the political independence of China … and wrote the blueprint for the Communist conquest of China in secret agreement at Yalta.”

The decision to invite and equip Stalin — a known aggressor — into the Far East must go down among the worst acts of U.S. foreign policy. Stalin’s divisions entered China to fight the already-beaten Japanese on August 9, 1945 — five days before Japan’s surrender. The atom bomb had already pounded Hiroshima.

After barely firing a shot, the Soviets received surrender of Japan’s huge arsenals in Manchuria. These, with their American Lend-Lease supplies, they handed over to Mao Tse-tung’s communists to overthrow the Nationalist government.

Vinegar Joe

Another means of destroying the Nationalists: U.S. personnel assigned to China. Among the worst was Army General “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell. Though generally respected as a strategist, Stilwell became notorious for hatred of Chiang Kai-shek — whom he nicknamed “the peanut” — and admiration for the communists. Stilwell wrote in a letter: “It makes me itch to throw down my shovel and get over there and shoulder a rifle with Chu Teh.” (Chu was commander-in-chief of the Chinese communist armies — as he was later in the Korean War, overseeing the killing of GIs.)

Because Japan controlled China’s ports, the Nationalists had to receive supplies by air lift from India. Stilwell oversaw a campaign of Chinese troops against the Japanese in Burma, attempting to open a land supply route. When the effort failed, Stilwell demanded the operation be tried again, using 30 Nationalist divisions.

At this, Chiang balked: diverting 30 divisions south into Burma would facilitate further conquest of China by both the Japanese and the Chinese communists. General Claire Chennault, commander of the famed “Flying Tigers,” agreed with Chiang. Significantly, Stilwell did not request use of communist forces — whom he so vocally admired — for his envisioned Burma campaign.

Stilwell complained to Washington, and received a message from President Roosevelt directing Chiang to place Stilwell in “unrestricted command” of all Chinese forces, and send troops to Burma. After jubilantly handing this message to Chiang, Stilwell wrote in his diary:

I’ve long waited for vengeance —
At last I’ve had my chance.
I’ve looked the Peanut in the eye
And kicked him in the pants…
The little b*****d shivered
And lost the power of speech.
His face turned green and quivered
And he struggled not to screech.

But Stilwell’s scheme backfired. Chiang refused the directive and asked Roosevelt to replace Stilwell. Otherwise, he said, he would go it alone against the Japanese — as he had for the four years preceding Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was forced to concede. To his chagrin, Stilwell was relieved by General Albert C. Wedemeyer, who saw eye-to-eye with Chiang.

Chiang Kai-shek wrote: “Stilwell was in a conspiracy with the Communists to overthrow the Government” — an opinion shared by General Hurley, who stated: “The record of General Stilwell in China is irrevocably coupled in history with the conspiracy to overthrow the Nationalist Government of China, and to set up in its place a Communist regime — and all this movement was part of, and cannot be separated from, the Communist cell or apparatus that existed at the time in the Government in Washington.”

State Department Junta

What “cell” did Ambassador Hurley refer to? In China, he was surrounded by a State Department clique favoring a Chinese communist takeover. Dean Acheson, who as a young attorney had represented Soviet interests in America, became Assistant Secretary of State in 1941. As such, he ensured the State Department’s Far Eastern Division was dominated by communists and pro-communists, including Alger Hiss (subsequently proven a Soviet spy); John Carter Vincent, director of the Office of Far Eastern Affairs, later identified by Daily Worker editor Louis Budenz as a communist; John Stewart Service, Foreign Service Officer in China who turned State Department information over to the Chinese communists, and was arrested by the FBI in the Amerasia spy case (about which more later); Foreign Service Officer John P. Davies, who consistently lobbied for the communists; Owen Lattimore, appointed U.S. adviser to Chiang Kai-shek but identified as a communist by ex-communists Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley; and several others.

“The Communists relied very strongly on Service and John Carter Vincent,” said Budenz, “in a campaign against Ambassador Hurley.” Hurley, an honest statesman, was shocked by the maneuverings of those under him. “The professional foreign service men,” he reported to President Truman, “sided with the Communists’ armed party.”

Hurley was compelled to dismiss 11 State Department members. Upon return from China, however, they were mysteriously promoted, and some became Hurley’s superiors — after which he resigned. “These professional diplomats,” he wrote, “were returned to Washington and were placed in the Far Eastern and China divisions of the State Department as my supervisors.”

Pro-communist Stratagems

This State Department clique employed several tactics to advance Chinese communism. Among the chief: claiming Mao’s followers weren’t communists, but merely “agrarian reformers.” Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto had commanded: “Workers of the world, unite!” But since China had little industry, Chinese communists made farmers their focus.

Professor Kenneth A. Colgrove testified that Owen Lattimore informed him that “Chinese Communists under Mao Tse-tung were real democrats and that they were really agrarian reformers and had no connection with Soviet Russia.”

The aforementioned John Carter Vincent referred to Mao and his followers as “so-called Communists.”

Raymond Ludden, another in the State Department clique, reported that “the so-called Communists are agrarian reformers of a mild democratic stripe more than anything else.”

In 1943, T. A. Bisson wrote in Far Eastern Survey: “By no stretch of the imagination can this be termed ‘communism’; it is, in fact, the essence of bourgeois democracy applied mainly to agrarian conditions.”

The State Department’s John P. Davies told Washington: “The Communists are in China to stay. And China’s destiny is not Chiang’s but theirs.” An additional tactic: portraying Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalists as “fascists,” “reactionary,” and “corrupt.” General Wedemeyer conveyed this matter’s reality:

Although the Nationalist Government of China was frequently and derisively described as authoritarian or totalitarian, there was a basic difference between it and its Communist enemies, since the Kuomintang’s ultimate aim was the establishment of a constitutional republic, whereas the Communists want to establish a totalitarian dictatorship on the Soviet pattern. In my two years of close contact with Chiang Kai-shek, I had become convinced that he was personally a straightforward, selfless leader, keenly interested in the welfare of his people, and desirous of establishing a constitutional government.

While some corruption undoubtedly existed in the Nationalist regime, Wedemeyer insightfully noted that corruption existed in all governments, including ours. For China, a conspiracy on the U.S. side compounded this. Their government offices displaced by Japan’s invasion, the Nationalists had to rely on paper currency. Runaway inflation threatened China’s economy. To stabilize the situation, Chiang Kai-shek requested a loan of U.S. gold. President Roosevelt approved, but the gold shipments were delayed and withheld by Assistant Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White, long since proven to be a Soviet agent. This collapsed China’s currency. One can understand why some Chinese officials, forced to accept salaries paid in worthless money, turned to corruption.

Walter S. Robertson, Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, informed the
National Press Club in 1959: “We stood by and saw China drift into a state of complete economic collapse. The currency was worthless…. In China, we withheld our funds at the only time, in my opinion, we had a chance to save the situation. To do what? To force the Communists in.”

As a final tactic, State Department leftists demanded the Nationalists form a “coalition government” with the communists.
This was an old communist trick. By forcing the postwar governments of Poland, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia to form coalitions with communists, the Marxists seized control of those nations; Mao Tse-tung envisioned the same strategy for China. In his report “On Coalition Government,” made in April 1945 to the Seventh National Convention of the Chinese Communist Party, Mao predicted that a coalition would destroy both Chiang and “reactionary American imperialism.”

The State Department’s China clique echoed this call. John P. Davies wrote in 1944: “A coalition Chinese Government in which the Communists find a satisfactory place is the solution of this impasse most desirable to us.”

A more realistic assessment of coalition government — which meant combining constitutional freedom with totalitarian gangsterism — was provided by Douglas MacArthur, who said it would have “about as much chance of getting them together as that oil and water will mix.”

In fact, Chiang Kai-shek wanted a postwar government representing all Chinese parties. In November 1946, he convened a National Assembly that met for 40 days, with 2,045 delegates representing diverse views from all over China; it adopted a national constitution. However, despite their clamoring for “coalition government,” Mao’s communists refused to participate: they knew that, lacking popular support in China, they could only take power by violence.

Marshall Mission

At World War II’s close, Mao’s troops, armed by the Russians — both from American Lend-Lease and captured Japanese arsenals — began a full assault on the Nationalist government. Mao’s rebellion would have undoubtedly failed if not for interventions by George Marshall, whom President Truman designated his special representative to China.

Marshall had a remarkable penchant for being in “the wrong place at the wrong time.” President Franklin D. Roosevelt had advanced him over dozens of senior officers to become U.S. Army Chief of Staff. In that capacity, on December 7, 1941, he absented himself from his office on a notoriously long “horseback ride,” while junior officers sought his permission to warn Pearl Harbor of the impending attack. During the Korean War, he was conveniently named Secretary of Defense; as such he overruled General MacArthur, saving the Yalu River’s bridges from destruction by the U.S. Air Force, and thus permitting Communist Chinese soldiers to invade Korea, which precluded victory by MacArthur, guaranteeing the stalemate that ultimately occurred. Regardless of where Marshall served, his actions fortified communism and defeated American interests — a record summarized by the wrongfully maligned Senator Joseph McCarthy in his book America’s Retreat from Victory: The Story of George Catlett Marshall.

Before leaving for China, Marshall revealed he already accepted the communist propaganda line. Five-star Fleet Admiral William Leahy reported: “I was present when Marshall was going to China. He said he was going to tell Chiang that he had to get on with the Communists or without help from us. He said the same thing when he got back.” And when told Mao Tse-tung and his followers were communists, Marshall remarked: “Don’t be ridiculous. These fellows are just old-fashioned agrarian reformers.”

When Marshall first arrived in China, the Nationalists outnumbered the communists 5-1 in both troops and rifles, and were successfully driving them back. Marshall, however, imposed a total of three truces — which the communists violated, allowing them to regroup, bring up Soviet supplies, and further train their guerillas. This expanded their control from 57 Chinese counties to 310. General Claire Chennault recounted the impact of Marshall’s truces:

North of Hankow some 200,000 government troops had surrounded 70,000 Communist troops and were beginning a methodical job of extermination. The Communists appealed to Marshall on the basis of his truce proposal, and arrangements were made for fighting to cease while the Communists marched out of the trap and on to Shantung Province, where a large Communist offensive began about a year later. On the East River near Canton some 100,000 Communist troops were trapped by government forces. The truce teams effected their release and allowed the Communists to march unmolested to Bias Bay where they boarded junks and sailed to Shantung.

Marshall’s disastrous 15-month China mission ended in January 1947. Upon his return to the United States, President Truman rewarded his failures with appointment as Secretary of State. Marshall imposed a weapons embargo on the Nationalists, while the communists continued receiving a steady weapons supply from the USSR. Marshall boasted that he disarmed 39 anti-communist divisions “with a stroke of the pen.” This doomed Chinese freedom.

The Media Role

Critical to the China sellout was manipulation of U.S. public opinion. A plethora of books and news reports perpetuated the myth that Mao’s communists were “democratic agrarian reformers,” even though, once in power, they established a totalitarian communist dictatorship, executing tens of millions of Chinese, in an orgy of atrocities that reached its height during the bloody Cultural Revolution. Chiang Kai-shek and the nationalists were portrayed as “fascist,” “reactionary,” and “corrupt.”

Soviet Prime Minister Vyacheslav Molotov outlined this strategy:

Who reads the Communist papers? Only a few people who are already Communists. We don’t need to propagandize them. What is our object? Who do we have to influence? We have to influence non-Communists if we want to make them Communists or if we want to fool them. So, we have to try to infiltrate in the big press.

The most influential U.S. writers fulfilling this were probably Edgar Snow, author of the pro-communist book Red Star Over China, and Owen Lattimore, author of Thunder Out of China, a Book-of-the-Month selection that attacked Chiang Kai-shek. Writing in the Saturday Review, Snow audaciously told readers, “There has never been any communism in China.” And he reported in the Saturday Evening Post that Chu Teh, Mao’s military commander, possessed the “kindliness of Robert E. Lee, the tenacity of Grant and the humility of Lincoln.”

In his monumental book While You Slept, John T. Flynn exposed the media bias favoring Chinese communists. Between 1943 and 1949, 22 pro-communist books appeared in the U.S. press, and only seven pro-Nationalist ones. Also, reported Flynn:

Every one of the 22 pro-Communist books, where reviewed, received glowing approval in the literary reviews, I have named — that is, in the New York Times, the Herald-Tribune, the Nation, the New Republic and the Saturday Review of Literature. And every one of the anti-Communist books was either roundly condemned or ignored in these same reviews.

One reason the pro-communist books received such favor: reviews were written by writers of other such books. Flynn documented that 12 authors of the 22 pro-Red Chinese books wrote 43 complimentary reviews of the others’ books. This cozy “in-house” system guaranteed laudatory reviews. It left the American public — which generally knew little of Asian affairs — with indelible impressions. So severe was the bias, Flynn noted, that New York Times reviews were barely distinguishable from those in the communist Daily Worker.

Overt Betrayal: The IPR

Perhaps the most sinister influence on America’s Far East policy and opinion was the now-defunct Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR). The recipient of grants from the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations, the institute published hundreds of thousands of pamphlets on China for U.S. public schools and the military. These pamphlets extended the myth that the communists were “agrarian reformers” and the Nationalists “fascists.” The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee eventually found IPR included 54 persons connected with the communist world conspiracy. Among them were such communists or pro-communists as Alger Hiss, Frederick Vanderbilt Field, Owen Lattimore, and John Stewart Service. Alexander Barmine, a brigadier general who defected from the Communist Army, testified IPR was “a cover shop for military intelligence work in the Pacific.”

The IPR organized a magazine, Amerasia. In 1945, U.S. officials were shocked when Amerasiapublished an article reprinting — almost word-for-word — a top-secret government document. Agents of the OSS (the CIA’s forerunner) invaded Amerasia’s offices and discovered 1,800 documents stolen from the American government, including papers detailing the disposition of Nationalist army units in China. The magazine had been a cover for Soviet spying.

Although the FBI arrested numerous Amerasia employees for espionage, all the cases were either completely dismissed or dispensed with fines. John Stewart Service, despite arrest for giving stolen government documents to Amerasia editor Philip Jaffe, was rewarded by Dean Acheson, who put Service in charge of State Department placements and promotions. This was not the only time powerful “hidden hands” have conspired against American interests.

“Aid” to China

With Japan’s 1945 defeat, Lend-Lease aid, sitting in India and slated for the Nationalists, was either destroyed or dumped in the ocean. By 1948, due to Marshall’s weapons embargo, the Nationalist government faced nearly inevitable defeat by the communists, who continued receiving unlimited weapons from Russia. Former U.S. Ambassador William C. Bullitt testified before the Committee on Foreign Affairs in March 1948:

The American government has not delivered to China a single combat plane or a single bomber since General Marshall in August, 1946, by unilateral action, broke the promise of the American Government to the Chinese Government and suspended all deliveries of planes…. As a means of pressure to compel Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek to take Communists into the Chinese Government, General Marshall stopped all fulfillment of this program and dishonored the pledge of the United States.

Although Dean Acheson deceptively told Congress the Nationalists had received over $2 billion in U.S. aid, most was non-military or unusable. Colonel L. B. Moody, U.S. Army Ordnance Corps, clarified the realities:

1. The inevitable defeat of the Nationalist army was due to their deficit in items of infantry weapons and especially ammunition, and the Communist superiority in these items.

2. Military aid to the Chinese meant infantry weapons and ammunition above all else and it is “precisely these items which the United States has consistently denied, delayed or limited. Only passing reference will be made to the billions of mouldy cigarettes, blown-up guns, and junk bombs and disabled vehicles from the Pacific Islands which have been totalled up with other real or alleged aid in various State Department, Communist and leftist statements to create the impression that we have furnished the Nationalist government with hundreds of millions or billions of useful fighting equipment.”

In April 1948, Congress, apprised of the desperate situation, granted $125 million in military assistance to save Chiang’s government. However, the first of this aid did not reach the Nationalists until seven months later (when China had become an issue in the 1948 elections). By contrast, after the British defeat at Dunkirk, U.S. ships needed only eight days to be loaded with munitions bound for Britain. Anthony Kubek describes the first shipload reaching the Nationalists in late 1948:

Of the total number, 480 of the machine guns lacked spare parts, tripod mounts, etc. Thompson machine guns had no magazines or clips. There were no loading machines for the loading of ammunition belts. Only a thousand of the light machine guns had mounts, and there were only a thousand clips for the 2,280 light machine guns.

China Collapses

The embargo and subsequent sabotaging of congressionally mandated aid to the Nationalists spelled their doom. In 1949, the communists completed conquest of China. Chiang Kai-shek and approximately two million followers escaped to Formosa (now called Taiwan), where they maintained the Republic of China’s government, establishing the island as a bastion of freedom.

The propaganda myth that Mao Tse-tung was an “agrarian reformer” evaporated as he formed a totalitarian communist regime, slaughtering millions. Acheson and the State Department clique still hoped to recognize Communist China, but after Mao’s thugs seized U.S. consular officers, imprisoned and even murdered our citizens, and poured their troops into Korea to kill American soldiers, this U.S. recognition of China ended up being deferred for many years.

The China disaster did not result from “blunders.” Congressman Walter Judd, an acknowledged Far East expert, said: “On the law of averages, a mere moron once in a while would make a decision that would be favorable to the United States. When policies are advocated by any group which consistently work out to the Communists’ advantage, that couldn’t be happenstance.”

Communist Professor Charged With Attempting To Torch St. Patrick’s Cathedral In New York City.

12416150-6934767-St_Patrick_s_Cathedral_which_was_built_in_1878_has_installed_a_s-a-69_1555608334828

After Notre-Dame, Professor Charged With Attempting to Torch St. Patrick’s Cathedral

thenewamerican.com

Written by Selwyn Duke

April 19, 2019

In yet another episode of academics behaving badly, a college professor walked into New York City’s iconic St. Patrick’s Cathedral while carrying gasoline, lighter fluid, and lighters — in an apparent arson attempt — just two days after the shocking fire at Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris.

“Marc Lamparello, 37, of New Jersey, entered the historic Midtown church about 8 p.m. [Wednesday] with the flammable paraphernalia, but was quickly intercepted by church security, law enforcement sources said,” reports the New York Post. “He turned around, but spilled some gas in the process, prompting the guards to alert counter-terrorism cops stationed outside the church.”

The paper continued, “When questioned, Lamparello claimed he was simply cutting through the church to get to Madison Avenue because his van, which was parked outside on Fifth Avenue, ran out of gas, NYPD Deputy Commissioner for Intelligence and Counterterrorism John Miller said at a press conference outside St. Pat’s Wednesday night.”

Of course, this claim is problematic when your vehicle isn’t actually out of fuel, which Lamparello’s mini-van wasn’t. Moreover, his “‘answers were inconsistent and evasive, although he remained conversational with them [the authorities] and cooperative,’ Miller said,” the Post further reports.

Miller also stated, writes the paper, “I think the totality of circumstances of [an] individual walking into an iconic location like St. Patrick’s Cathedral carrying over four gallons of gasoline, two bottles of lighter fluid and lighters is something that we would have great concern over.” Yes, well, unless he was just trying to ensure his votive candle’s successful lighting, I’d say so.

Lamparello was arrested and charged with attempted arson and reckless endangerment. Miller explained that “surveillance camera footage showed Lamparello circling St. Patrick’s several times in a minivan well over an hour before he parked outside the cathedral on Fifth Avenue, walked around the area, returned to his vehicle, and retrieved the gasoline and lighter fluid,” Fox News informs.

It also emerged that he was just arrested Monday at a different church, the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, New Jersey, for refusing to leave after a late Mass.

What will surprise some but not others is that Lamparello is a college professor, having worked part-time as an online instructor at Lehman College in the Bronx and as an adjunct instructor at Seton Hall University in New Jersey. He also was teaching a class at Brooklyn College as part of his requirement as a Ph.D. student.

Given the level of competency Lamparello displayed at St. Patrick’s, it’s no surprise learning that his field of study isn’t criminology, but philosophy (and Aquinas he’s not). Unfortunately, his intent also won’t surprise astute observers, as misbehaving academics are legion. Here’s a short list:

• Professor Melissa Click was fired by the University of Missouri in 2015 after a student journalist pressed assault charges. Among other things, she told a mob that she needed some “muscle” to help her strong-arm the journalist. Don’t feel too sorry for her, though — she was hired to teach the next year by Washington’s Gonzaga University.

• College of Southern Nevada sociology professor Mark Bird was brought up on multiple charges last year after bringing a gun on campus and shooting himself to protest President Trump. It sounds like the sociologist needs a psychologist.

• That is, unless it’s Millikin University psychology Professor James St. James, former head of the institution’s Behavioral Science Department. It was revealed in 2013 that the pony-tailed academic had murdered his entire family in 1967, but spent only six years in a mental asylum after being found not guilty by reason of insanity. Apparently, though, he was still sane enough for academia.

• University of Alabama professor Amy Bishop, who had a history of volatile behavior, shot six colleagues in 2010. She, too, had a unique way of settling family squabbles: She’d shot her 18-year-old brother to death in 1986.

• Charles Johnston, a psychology professor at Harper College in Palatine, Illinois, was charged with attempted murder last year after shooting at truck drivers and police in Iowa.

The above just scratches the surface. Then there’s the endless list of academics who utter comments (usually on Twitter) such as:

• It’s “a privilege to teach future dead cops”;

• “Hurricane Harvey was karmic payback for Republican-voting Texans”;

• “Trump must hang”;

• The president should be shot;

• The late Barbara Bush was an “amazing racist who…raised a war criminal” (posted just after Mrs. Bush’s death);

• “F— your life!” (shouted at a student);

• Some “white people may have to die for black communities to be made whole”; and

• “All I want for Christmas is white genocide.”

None of this will surprise an ex-Ivy League professor-turned-editor I know — he once told me that academics are “wretched” people (I believe it’s one of the reasons he left academia).

What’s the explanation? Well, note that a 2016 study confirmed what most already knew: Academia is a leftist bastion in which liberals outnumber conservatives almost 12 to 1 — and this imbalance is getting worse, too.

This is relevant because, as the Daily Mail reported in a 2008 article, “Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows.” This thesis can be informally tested here, by the way. Just try to determine how many of the misbehaving academics are not leftists. Wanna’ bet the number is smaller than 1 in 12?

Anyway, defending her actions, Melissa “Muscle” Click stated in 2016 that there “was no reason to think I was doing something that wasn’t sanctioned by the university.” This is absolutely believable and is why we shouldn’t assume that Marc Lamparello won’t yet get the chance to mold young minds. After all, attempted arson may not be actual murder, but they both appear to be résumé enhancers on today’s college campus.

Twelve French Churches Attacked, Vandalized In One Week In France. But Notre Dame Fire Just A Accident?

12346716-0-image-m-23_1555424083828

Saint-Sulpice church in Paris on fire on March 17. Alice Weidel linked this blaze to the Notre Dame fire despite investigators believing the latest incident was an accident

breitbart.com
THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D.

20 Mar 2019

A dozen Catholic churches have been desecrated across France over the period of one week in an egregious case of anti-Christian vandalism.

The recent spate of church profanations has puzzled both police and ecclesiastical leaders, who have mostly remained silent as the violations have spread up and down France.

Last Sunday, marauders set fire to the church of Saint-Sulpice — one of Paris’ largest and most important churches — shortly after the twelve-o’clock Mass.

Police have concluded that the fire was the result of arson and are now looking for possible suspects. The restoration of the church from the damage caused by the fire will reportedly cost several hundred million euros.

In Nimes (department of the Gard), near the border with Spain, the church of Notre-Dame des Enfants was desecrated in a particularly odious way, with vandals painting a cross with human excrement, looting the main altar and the tabernacle, and stealing the consecrated hosts, which were discovered later among piles of garbage.

Likewise, the church of Notre-Dame in Dijon, in the east of the country, suffered the sacking of the high altar and the hosts were also taken from the tabernacle, scattered on the ground, and trampled.

In Lavaur, in the southern department of the Tarn, the village church was assaulted by young men, who twisted one arm of a representation of the crucified Christ to make it appear that he was making an obscene gesture.

In the peripheries of Paris, in the department of Yvelines, several churches have suffered profanations of varying importance, in Maisons-Laffitte and in Houilles.

Although commentators have been reluctant to attach a particular religious or cultural origin to the profanations, they all share an evident anti-Christian character.

In recent months, anti-Semitic gangs have desecrated Jewish cemeteries, signing their actions with swastikas. In the case of the desecration of Catholic churches, the vandalism has spoken for itself: ridicule of the figure of Christ on the cross and desecration of major altars.

The Catholic hierarchy has kept silent about the episodes, limited themselves to highlighting that anti-Christian threat and expressing hope that politicians and police will get to the bottom of the crimes.

Reports indicate that 80 percent of the desecration of places of worship in France concerns Christian churches and in the year 2018 this meant the profanation of an average of two Christian churches per day in France, even though these actions rarely make the headlines.

In 2018, the Ministry of the Interior recorded 541 anti-Semitic acts, 100 anti-Muslim acts, and 1063 anti-Christian acts.

Why the Certainty That Notre Dame Fire Was Accidental? History Shows Communists Hate Christians And Destroy Churches.

91ab46a11817892c5dcf249172ed644f_M (1)
thenewamerican.com
Written by C. Mitchell Shaw

In the wake of Muslim immigration and the embrace of secularism across Europe in general and in France in particular, violence and crime are on the increase. That includes the desecration and vandalism of Christian churches. In fact, recent reports show that in France alone, more than 1,000 churches have been vandalized, burned, or burglarized in the past year. This reasonably leads to the question: “Was the Notre Dame fire really an accident?”

Almost as soon as the fire at Notre Dame Cathedral was reported, officials — and major media — were already calling it an “accidental fire.” That statement is particularly odd, given that in many fires, authorities are hesitant to make determinations of cause for days or even weeks after a thorough investigation has been completed and all of the evidence fully examined. In the case of Notre Dame, the statement was made even as the fire was still hours away from being extinguished.

This writer would like to say up front that he has no evidence that the fire was deliberately set by Muslim jihadists or anyone else. The point is that — given the fact that part of the rolling-release jihad taking place across Europe involves the desecration of churches — the question is reasonable.

In an article originally published April 6 and then updated April 16, the British newspaper The Sunreported that official reports from French police show that “875 churches in France were vandalised last year” and “a further 129 churches reported thefts from the premises.” Those figures do not include vandalism at 59 cemeteries.

There are 42,258 churches in France. That means that one out of every 42 churches was targeted last year.

The Sun reported:

Recent incidents have included a fire in Saint-Sulpice church in Paris, human [feces] daubed on a wall in Notre-Dame-des-Enfacts in Nimes, and an organ vandalised at Saint-Denis basilica outside Paris.

The desecration of Christian churches and cemeteries has led some French politicians to the realization that France’s Christian heritage is under attack by “militant secularism.” Republicans MP Valerie Boyer said: “Every day, at least two churches are profaned.” And after the fire at Saint-Sulpice — which was determined by police to be a case of arson — Republicans leader Laurent Wauquiez accused the media of operating under a “code of silence” on the issue, saying, “Saint-Sulpice is not only a church, it’s a part of who we are. That’s enough of this code of silence.”

And it is not just the Republicans saying this. Annie Genevard and Philippe Gosselin — both members of the Opposition party — are calling for a parliamentary investigation into anti-Christian acts in France.

Just nine days after that article was originally published, the fire broke out at Notre Dame, which had already been one possible target for jihadist attack in September 2016. The British newspaper The Guardian reported at the time:

A cell of radicalised French women guided by Islamic State commanders in Syria was behind a failed terrorist attack near Paris’s Notre Dame Cathedral last weekend and planned another violent attack this week before they were intercepted by police, the Paris prosecutor has said.

The women, aged 19, 23 and 39, were arrested in Boussy-Saint-Antoine, a small town 19 miles (30km) south-east of Paris, on Thursday night after they were linked to the discovery of a car packed with gas cylinders parked near the cathedral last weekend. Officials said the women had been planning an imminent violent attack on the busy Gare de Lyon station in Paris and were stopped after a police and intelligence operation described as a “race against time.”

That Notre Dame was at least one target in that failed attack is clear, since The Guardian reported:

The group’s first attempted attack involved parking a Peugeot 607 car packed with gas cylinders near the cathedral in the heart of Paris and trying to blow it up. The car was also found to have contained diesel canisters and a barely-smoked cigarette had been thrown into the car near a canister with traces of hydrocarbons. Molins said the perpetrators had clearly tried to blow the car up and if they had succeeded it would have led to the explosion of the whole vehicle.

After Monday’s fire that very nearly destroyed the more-than-800-year-old cathedral, Daily Mailreported that “ISIS fanatics revel in Notre Dame’s destruction days before Easter” and that those “fanatics” described the inferno as “retribution and punishment.” According to the report, terror intelligence researchers revealed a poster showing the cathedral inferno and the words, “Have a good day” and “Its construction began in the year 1163 and ended in 1345. It’s time to say goodbye to your oratory polytheism.”

It also called the fire “retribution and punishment” — suggesting that the fire may have been deliberately set.

The poster — created by the ISIS-aafiliated Al-Muntasir media group — was created and distributed via the Internet even as the fire was still raging. Against that backdrop, French authorities and media around the world reported the fire as “probably accidental” and related to the renovations taking place at the time the fire started.

What is puzzling is why — without any evidence being cited — it is considered alright to speculate that the fire was “accidental” but it is heresy to speculate that it may have been a case of arson. In fact, CNN and other media have called any discussion of the possibility of arson “conspiracy theories” and dismissed them out-of-hand while continuing to repeat the “accidental fire” mantra. And remember, the “accidental fire” theory was floated by authorities while the fire was still ongoing and before any investigation — forensic or otherwise — could have taken place.

Again, neither this writer nor The New American claims to have any evidence that the fire was the work of either radical Islamists or radical secularists. But given the hatred of both of those groups for Christianity, the recent history of attacks on Christian churches, and the thinly-veiled “retribution and punishment” claims of ISIS, this writer can perhaps be forgiven for concluding that the possibility that the Notre Dame fire was set should not be ruled out.

And it is not just the liberal media that eschew any discussion of the possibility of arson while regurgitating the phrases “conspiracy theory” and “accidental fire.” The day after the fire, Fox News’ Shepard Smith had French media analyst Philippe Karsenty on his show as a guest. Karsenty — who was a call-in guest — was allowed to speak for exactly 49 seconds before Smith cut him off and ended the interview. In those 49 seconds, Karsenty told Smith he had been in the area and had seen the fire before leaving when French officials asked people to keep the area clear for emergency workers. He called the Notre Dame fire “a French 9/11” and said that Notre Dame had survived “more than 850 years” and that “even the Nazis didn’t dare to destroy it.” Then he pointed out that “for the past year, we’ve had churches desecrated each and every week in France” and said, “Of course, you will hear the story of political correctness which will tell you that it’s probably an accident —”

And that is as far as he got.

Smith took the moment as his cue to occupy the moral high ground and shut Karsenty down with, “Sir! Sir! Sir! We’re not going to speculate here of the cause of something which we don’t know.” He then challenged Karsenty to provide evidence, saying, “If you have observations or you know something, we would love to hear it.” But when Karsenty tried to answer, Smith immediately interrupted with, “No sir! We are not doing that here; not now; not on my watch!” He then thanked Karsenty for joining him and kicked him off the air.

There are a couple things about that exchange that are odd. First, Smith had a guest on his program who was a first-hand witness to the fire and is respected enough to have been invited onto the program. Then, because he didn’t stick to the “accidental fire” orthodoxy, Smith cut him off and kicked him off the program. One might expect a journalist of Smith’s experience to simply — even if firmly — redirect his guest back into “safer waters” if he did not like where the interview was going. Instead, Smith acted shocked and ended the segment without any effort to save the interview.

Second, it is not likely that Smith was actually shocked by what Karsenty had to say. After all, Fox has a vetting process for guests, and any quick Internet search of Karsenty would show them that he is known for taking this type of stand. He was branded as a “conspiracy theorist” for correctly pointing out that a 2004 piece by the French television network France 2 showing what the network described as the shooting of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy by Israelis was faked.

It looks for all the world as if Smith had Karsenty on his program for the express purpose of using the interview as an opportunity to appear to be taking the moral high ground by shutting Karsenty down and ending the call. This is especially apparent, given that when Karsenty attempted to rise to the challenge to provide information to bolster his assertion, Smith refused to allow him to get more than three words out before telling him he would not allow that on his watch.

The virus of political correctness and the “code of silence” that have resulted in the recent attacks on Christian churches across France being under-reported by the media and perhaps under-investigated by authorities show that, although we must never engage in wild speculation, we must doggedly pursue the evidence, regardless of where that may lead.

Source: domuspatris.net

Churches suffered the greatest persecution of all Russian history during the Communist regime. We can afford a broadcast production on all the waves of persecution mentioned below thanks to our historical archive, our network of experts, up to the final religious freedom of our days.

Let us present very shortly the main phases of this martyrdom. From the very moment that the Bolsheviks took power, not only priests, but also ordinary believers — Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant — were added to the list of enemies.

The Council of Commissioners of the People” in February 1918 created the VČK, the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission Combating Counterrevolution and Sabotage, giving it the power for eliminating all opponents without any legality and control (that’s why no statistics exist on the victims during Lenin’s secretariat).

Early in 1918 began the expropriation of all buildings of the Church as a consequence of the decree on the separation of Church and State. During the course of 1918, all the institutions of religious learning were closed, more than half of the existing monasteries were nationalized, and the system of lagers for the enemies of the people was organized, giving origin to the GULag, an acronym of Glavnoe Upravlenie Lagerej (that is the General Administration of Concentration Camps). The famine in Povolzhye in 1921, a consequence of the Civil War and to the draught, gave the government the opportunity for a large theft, closure of temples, harder repression of believers.

A new wave of repressions began in 1929. In the period from 1929 to 1933, 40,000 clergy members were arrested. The majority of them were sentenced to incarceration in concentration camps, many were shot. As in the 1937 census the majority of the people defined themselves as “believers”, the data of the Census were kept secret but a new and cruel repression was ordered. Some sort of religious renaissance took place during the war, as Stalin needed the moral and — mainly — patriotic support of the Church during the invasion of the German Army, but with the victorious end of the war repression became as previously, and in the second half of the ’50s, Khrushcev’s aim at building up a real communist country and a real “communist man” by the ’80s induced a strengthen pressure against the Church, particularly in his native Ukraine.

In 1961, a prohibition was passed against the ringing of church bells and against charitable activity that benefited churches or monasteries. In the mass media, an extensive campaign of slander was waged against the clergy. Clergy members, their families and even ordinary religious believers could be subjected to discrimination at work, in school, in the army and in day-to-day life. In contrast to the pre-war repressions, in the 1960s neither priests nor laypeople were executed or sent to prison.

They were forced, in essence, to denounce the Church, and thereby their faith, and they were made pariahs in society. While the Orthodox Church led a shadowy existence during Leonid Brezhnev’s administration, the Catholic Church was subject to even stronger restrictions.

Only two catholic parishes were opened in Russia, one in Moscow (St. Ludwig) and one in Leningrad (Mother of God of Lourdes) during the Brezhnev era. Beginning in the late 1970s, these two communities experienced a growing participation of young people who belonged mainly to the intelligentsia.

Finally, after the grey period of Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko, at the end of 1987 Michael Gorbachev stopped the official atheistic propaganda and the hate against the religious communities. The cooperation of all people was required for the putting into action of the perestroika. In the sight of an improvement in relations to the Western world, the religious freedom finally appeared in the Soviet Union after 70 years of black out.

Senator Joseph McCarthy´s Famous Lincoln Day Address in Wheeling, West Virginia February 9, 1950.

Video Above Is Not Senator Joseph McCarthy´s Famous Lincoln Day Address in Wheeling, West Virginia February 9, 1950. No video exists of that speech. The Speech is below.

SOURCE: Congressional Record, 81st Congress, 2nd Sess., 1954–57.

 

Five years after a world war has been won, men’s hearts should anticipate a long peace, and men’s minds should be free from the heavy weight that comes with war. But this is not such a period— for this is not a period of peace. This is a time of the “cold war.” This is a time when all the world is split into two vast, increasingly hostile armed camps—a time of a great armaments race….

Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity. The modern champions of communism have selected this as the time. And, ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down—they are truly down…. Six years ago, at the time of the first conference to map out the peace—Dumbarton Oaks—there was within the Soviet orbit 180,000,000 people. Lined up on the antitotalitarian side there were in the world at that time roughly 1,625,000,000 people.

Today, only 6 years later, there are 800,000,000 people under the absolute domination of Soviet Russia—an increase of over 400 percent. On our side, the figure has shrunk to around 500,000,000. In other words, in less than 6 years the odds have changed from 9 to 1 in our favor to 8 to 5 against us. This indicates the swiftness of the tempo of Communist victories and American defeats in the cold war. As one of our outstanding historical figures once said, “When a great democracy is destroyed, it will not be because of enemies from without, but rather because of enemies from within.”…

The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because our only powerful potential enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have been treated so well by this Nation. It has not been the less fortunate or members of minority groups who have been selling this Nation out, but rather those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer—the finest homes, the finest college education, and the finest jobs in Government we can give. This is glaringly true in the State Department.

There the bright young men who are born with silver spoons in their mouths are the ones who have been the worst…. In my opinion the State Department, which is one of the most important government departments, is thoroughly infested with Communists. I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy….

I know that you are saying to yourself, “Well, why doesn’t the Congress do something about it?” Actually, ladies and gentlemen, one of the important reasons for the graft, the corruption, the dishonesty, the disloyalty, the treason in high Government positions—one of the most important reasons why this continues is a lack of moral uprising on the part of the 140,000,000 American people. In the light of history, however, this is not hard to explain. It is the result of an emotional hang-over and a temporary moral lapse which follows every war.

It is the apathy to evil which people who have been subjected to the tremendous evils of war feel. As the people of the world see mass murder, the destruction of defenseless and innocent people, and all of the crime and lack of morals which go with war, they become numb and apathetic. It has always been thus after war. However, the morals of our people have not been destroyed. They still exist. This cloak of numbness and apathy has only needed a spark to rekindle them. Happily, this spark has finally been supplied.

As you know, very recently the Secretary of State proclaimed his loyalty to a man guilty of what has always been considered as the most abominable of all crimes—of being a traitor to the people who gave him a position of great trust. The Secretary of State in attempting to justify his continued devotion to the man who sold out the Christian world to the atheistic world, referred to Christ’s Sermon on the Mount as a justification and reason therefore, and the reaction of the American people to this would have made the heart of Abraham Lincoln happy.

When this pompous diplomat in striped pants, with a phony British accent, proclaimed to the American people that Christ on the Mount endorsed communism, high treason, and betrayal of a sacred trust, the blasphemy was so great that it awakened the dormant indignation of the American people. He has lighted the spark which is resulting in a moral uprising and will end only when the whole sorry mess of twisted, warped thinkers are swept from the national scene so that we may have a new birth of national honesty and decency in government.

Censured Senator Joseph McCarthy Was One Of The First To Expose Communist Infiltrators In The U.S. Government And He Was Right.


download (51)

MOST-HATED SENATOR WAS RIGHT

Scholars: Joseph McCarthy’s charges ‘now accepted as fact’

Published: 02/08/2000

wnd.com

WASHINGTON — Although Joseph McCarthy was one of the most demonized American politicians of the last century, new information — including half-century-old FBI recordings of Soviet embassy conversations — are showing that McCarthy was right in nearly all his accusations.

“With Joe McCarthy it was the losers who’ve written the history which condemns him,” said Dan Flynn, director of Accuracy in Academia’s recent national conference on McCarthy, broadcast by C-SPAN.

Using new information obtained from studies of old Soviet files in Moscow and now the famous Venona Intercepts — FBI recordings of Soviet embassy communications between 1944-48 — the record is showing that McCarthy was essentially right. He had many weaknesses, but almost every case he charged has now been proven correct. Whether it was stealing atomic secrets or influencing U.S. foreign policy, communist victories in the 1940s were fed by an incredibly vast spy and influence network.

The conference, a gathering of old McCarthyites and younger scholars, commemorated the senator’s first speech, in Wheeling, W. Va., 50 years ago, when he first held up a list of names of employees of the State Department whom, he said, were major security risks. McCarthy questioned how, in six short years after America’s winning of World War II, the communist world was triumphant and had expanded to include 800 million people.

Of the lists, a key one consisted of 108 names from a House Appropriations Committee report, of persons declared as “security risks” in the State Department — the Lee List. The House committee chairman had complained that State wasn’t bothering to do anything about the suspects. Details of the list and its accusations were presented at the conference.

Speakers detailed many of the cover-ups used to smear McCarthy. Veteran journalist and teacher Stan Evans, director of National Journalism Center, told of the Tydings Committee, which had investigated McCarthy’s charges of communists in government. Its report had exonerated everybody. Among the accused it stated categorically that there was no evidence against Owen Lattimore, a man McCarthy said was a major figure in the communist conspiracy. Lattimore had been Roosevelt’s key advisor on China policy. Yet Evans showed evidence from 5,000 pages of FBI files on him — files released only a few years ago to the public, although the White House had access to them.

However, evidence before the committee showed that Lattimore had supported Soviet policy at every turn, even declaring that the Stalin purge trials in Russia, “sound like democracy to me.” With then-Vice President Henry Wallace in Russia, Lattimore compared concentration camps to the Tennessee Valley Authority, and later urged Washington to abandon China to communism and to withdraw from Japan and Korea. FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, who had fed information to McCarthy, broke with him afterwards, fearing McCarthy would prejudice FBI sources of information for its criminal prosecutions.

Although most of McCarthy’s cases involved actual spies and “security risks,” the really important issue was that of communist influence over American foreign policy, argued Evans. Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s closest advisor who lived in the White House, had regular contacts with Soviet intelligence. He helped bring about the disastrous Yalta and Pottsdam agreements. The Morganthau Plan, to prevent German reconstruction and starve the Germans to make them desperate enough to go communist, was the product of Laughlin Currie and Harry Dexter White at the Treasury Department. The abandonment of Chiang Kai-shek by denying military support was the product of “China Hands” led by John Stewart Service, John Patton Davies, and Lattimore. Evans described other major spy networks — in England, the Burgess Maclean group which infiltrated Washington as well as London.

Reed Irvine, chairman of Accuracy in Media, told how he himself had been a leftist in his early career. He had been against McCarthy, but McCarthy’s speeches had made him think and start to read “evidence that I had avoided.” He described how all during his military career as a Marine officer and later in Japan with the U.S. occupation he had never hidden his leftist views and later had even been offered a job at the CIA. Irvine argued that real communists were only in the hundreds, but that thousands of leftists, such as he, all feared McCarthy and had wanted him discredited.

Pulling all the latest evidence together was luncheon speaker Professor Arthur Herman. His new book, “Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator,” and featured in the Sunday New York Times Magazine, shows the vindication of most of McCarthy’s charges. Herman, who is also coordinator of the Smithsonian’s Western Heritage Program, said that the accuracy of McCarthy’s charges “was no longer a matter of debate,” that they are “now accepted as fact.” However, the term “McCarthyism” still remains in the language.

Asked whether McCarthy had understood all the forces arrayed against him, Herman said no, that McCarthy hadn’t realized he’d be fighting against much of the Washington establishment. President Truman was fearful that exposures would reflect on key Democrat officials, he said, and big media and the academic world were very leftist, a heritage of the Depression and World War II. High government officials also feared investigations of their past appointments and associations with people who turned out to be communists or sympathizers.

That was the reason McCarthy was so demonized, he said.

Joe McCarthy had been a Marine air gunner, an amateur boxer, a county judge and towards his end, under constant attack, he began to drink heavily. Herman said he certainly was over his head and his fall came about after sweeping attacks on General Marshall and the Army. Senator Taft and other key supporters began to draw away from him.

If Robert Kennedy, his competent and well-connected co-counsel, had stayed on, McCarthy might have behaved more carefully, said Herman. An argument with other co-counsel Roy Cohn left Cohn in charge, but Cohn and staffer David Schine were disastrous for McCarthy. Still, McCarthy’s original charges helped bring about Eisenhower’s electoral victory and the defeat of the Democrats and key leftist Democratic senators such as Tydings of Maryland. Four years after his original charges, Joe McCarthy was censured by the Senate and died shortly thereafter.

There is more evidence to come. Herb Romerstein, another speaker, who started out with the old House Un-American Activities Committee, is writing a book about the Venona FBI intercepts and their links to other evidence from his comprehensive study in Russia of Soviet archives, made available to Westerners since the fall of communism. His book, The Venona Secrets, will be released by Regnery Gateway this fall.


Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2000/02/4020/#LVky1qPV87jdAqRZ.99

Bombshell: Proof The U.S Government Has Committed Treason Against The American People Since 1945 And Is In Fact Counterfeit.

fic_amrk-un

By Michael Difensore

CantonTruth.com

FourHorsemen66.com

Upon the creation of the Socialist & Communist U.N. Charter in 1945 the U.S. government and majority of its treasonous politicians through the years have been working toward creating a one world totalitarian socialist government behind the American people´s back. The radio show Hour Of The Time hosted by William Cooper back in 1994 proved the U.S. government and the den of vipers called the District Of Columbia or the city of Washington D.C. has committed treason since 1945 against the American people. All you have to do is some light research to realize since 1945 the U.S. Constitution has been thrown in the garbage can and is only a ceremonial document. The United States has been gutted from the inside financially to make the United Nations stronger since 1945. However I do believe that President Trump is doing a great job so far it is hard to undo 74 years of treason in eight years and he may just be a stumbling block in the way of the traitors. The real U.S. Government, a republic that represents the people is in fact gone. Democracy is another word for socialism folks do some research of your own. One thing is for sure the public needs to wake up and that is the goal of this article.

Do you know about the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency? Do you know that the name of the Agency was dissolved in 1999 and is part of the U.S. State Department today? A agency working for the United Nations to take your 2nd Amendment rights and your Guns away. Most likely it was renamed into several different departments because it was exposed in the 1990´s by William Cooper. Listen to William Cooper expose the Agency below as I have and you will learn how this Socialist World Government has been in the works for years but will you stand against it?

Click Links Below To Hear The Show:

Treason #1, (World Governmnent Declared), Truman 

Treason #2, Truman 

Treason #3, Disarmament in the US, PL 87-297 

Treason #4, Blueprint Peace Race 

Treason #5, Law and Con Record 

Treason #6, Paul’s Research 

Treason #7, Congressional Record 

Treason #8, Congressional Record

« Older Entries