ISLAMIC TERROR - AMERICAN TREASON & WHO MAY HAVE CREATED ISIS

                                                by Hugh Murray

Steve Nelson (Stjepan Mesaros), a native of Croatia had come to the US as a teen and joined the Communist Party (CPUSA) in the 1920s.  He fought in the Spanish Civil War against the Fascists and returned to America.  He also came under federal surveillance during WWII.  Nelson was then a leader of the American Communist Party on the west coast with influence in left-wing labor unions.  During war, Americans endure decreased civil liberties, and the federal government had rounded up and interned Japanese nationals and American citizens of Japanese heritage; the government also rounded up and interned German and Italian nationals too.  Nelson was not interned, but his home in Oakland, California, was bugged.

          On 10 April 1943 Nelson received a visitor, Vasily Zarubin, an employee of the Soviet Embassy, who gave Nelson money.  Zarubin explained he wanted Nelson to place “reliable” workers in certain jobs that the Soviets deemed important.  Apparently, until hearing the recordings, the FBI had no knowledge of the Manhattan Project – the American effort to create an atomic bomb.  The Soviet employee was telling the American Communist to place Communist spies in sensitive positions to relay information about American progress in developing the bomb.

          When FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, became aware of the attempt by a Soviet Embassy official to use the American Communist Party to create a spy network, Hoover acted.  On 7 May 1943 Hoover wrote the White House.  He wrote to Harry Hopkins, who was then considered the chief advisor to Pres. Franklin Roosevelt, especially on Soviet affairs.  Hopkins was so important, he literally lived in the White House and was sometimes called Roosevelt’s Co-President.  Hopkins, alerted by Hoover to such important information, also acted quickly.  Whether Hopkins informed Roosevelt, is still a question.  But Hopkins jumped to insure that nothing like this would occur again.  Hopkins contacted the Soviet Embassy, telling them about the bugging incident, warning them that the FBI was on to them, and urging that they be more careful in the future!

          Hollywood still produces films like “Trumbo,”(2015)  showing the persecution of an excellent screenwriter who was blacklisted for standing up for his political beliefs.  Author Diane West, in her fascinating American Betrayal, quotes Dalton Trumbo in an article published in 1946 in the Communist Daily Worker, in which Trumbo  concedes that the Hollywood “progressives” could not always make the films they wanted, but they certainly could prevent the anti-Communist films from ever being produced.(West, pp. 88,92) Trumbo was boasting that he was one of those who could veto films and blacklist those who might defame the  workers’ paradise led by Joseph Stalin.

          Unfortunately, it is not only Hollywood that distorts that time period.  The academedia complex assure us that the McCarthy era was one of paranoia, persecution, and the destruction of civil liberties and freedom in the US.  Was it all paranoia?  Why was Steve Nelson taking the money from Soviet Embassy official Zarubin?  Why did the White House try to protect the Soviet spies?

          .  In January 2012 Russian leader Vladimir Putin in a public address praised the Western scientists who provided atomic secrets to the Soviets so that the Communist regime could develop its own nuclear bombs.  Putin emphasized that the Soviets were provided “suitcases” filled with material; “suitcases full” he stressed.  Americans spying on behalf of the Soviets was not paranoia; it was a reality.  And the consequence of that spying aided Stalin to develop nuclear weapons faster, and probably helped in other areas of military advance.

          Soviet coded messages were sent from the US to the USSR, and the American Army began to keep records of these.  Eventually, the “Venona files” would make headlines, and confirm the treason of several prominent figures.  However, even now, only some 10%  of the Venona files and been decoded.  Soviet espionage against the US was real and much more extensive than people realize.  But why should they realize it?  Hollywood ignores it to portray a hard-core Stalinist as a man persecuted for free speech.  Academics are no better.  Most are liberal or “progressive,” and even if they admit the Soviet was an enemy to American interests, they dismiss the influence of the American Communist Party and of any spies for the Soviets.  Putin did not dismiss those who passed along information to the Soviets – Putin publicly thanked them.  Americans were not paranoid during the McCarthy era.  There was treason in the American government, “a conspiracy so vast” as Sen. McCarthy analyzed it.  Most Americans to this day are unaware of the extent of Communist penetration of the American government and its consequences.  And the consequences may not have been merely atomic.  When during the Cold War, Republicans asked “Who lost China?” it was not such a foolish question.  When Japan surrendered in 1945, war in China continued, now between Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek and Communists under Mao Zedong.  Some in the US State Dept. demanded that Chiang form a coalition government with Mao.  Chiang had once done so, and it had proved disastrous, so he was determined not to become ensnared again in a coalition with the Communists.  While the Soviets began to supply Mao, sometimes with booty from the defeated Japanese, efforts by the Americans to supply Chiang with weapons and money were either continually delayed, or sabotaged.  Were there members of the American State Dept. who favored Mao over Chiang; Communism over alternatives?  Were they responsible for the failure of supplies to reach Chiang?

          In early morning hours of 12 June 2016 American-born Omar Mateen entered a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, and proceeded to shoot and kill at least 49 people who, till then, had been enjoying a night out.  Omar was not shy about his motives – during the massacre he phoned 911 to announce his allegiance to the Islamic State.  He also praised Allah and declared that he was murdering because he wanted the US to “stop bombing my country.”  (Wikipedia interpreted this survivor’s memory as referring to Mateen’s allegiance to the Islamic State, whereas James Bradley on the left-wing counterpunch.org viewed it as referring to Afghanistan, home of Mateen’s parents.  Either way, Mateen did not identify his country as the United States.)   Some days later, the national Attorney General, Loretta Lynch told reporters that the Justice Department would not release the full transcripts of those 911 calls.  Any mention of the Islamic State would be redacted, and Allah was now written as God.  Apparently, one was not to presume that Omar was a Muslim!  Erase all such references, by US Govt. decree (for our own good, of course).  Even before Atty Gen Lynch attempted to impose her politically correct views on the 911 tapes, pc had already entered the fray.  I think the very day after the shooting; an FBI representative came to Orlando to provide a report.  Most of it seemed factual.  But before closing, the FBI spokesman stressed to the TV audience that Islam is a religion of peace.  Thus, PC had infected the FBI even before FBI Director James Comey announced that no reasonable prosecutor would indict Hillary Clinton for her email abuses.

          Democrats are as unwilling to denounce Islamic terrorism as 1948 Progressives were unwilling to denounce Stalinsim.  How could Democrats handle the Orlando shooting?  Democrats went on a frenzied search for the motive(s) of Omar in murdering so many young people.  It was simply another “hate” crime.  Omar had been depressed, and may have had mental problems.  He may have been secretly gay, and some alleged he had a gay lover.  Omar was bi-polar.  The liberal media were flooded with such stories searching for the real motives behind Omar Mateen’s shooting spree.  But these stories invariably tried to avoid mention of Allah and his allegiance to ISIS.  Many Democrats simply refused to state the mass murderer had anything to do with radical Islamic terrorism.

          Meanwhile, the Democrats in Congress constructed another ploy – it was the fault of guns.  We need stricter gun regulations, more gun laws.  About 100 Democratic members of Congress then planned to obstruct the work of the national House of Representatives by having a sit-in on the floor of the House, while they demanded gun-control laws and sang old civil rights songs.  Congress had already rejected the proposed legislation in Committee, but Democrats vowed to continue their tactics until their minority proposals were passed into law by the majority.  They were offended when one Republican Representative shouted at them, that the issue is Islamic terrorism.  The Democrats also forget that the most deadly act of terrorism on American soil, in which over 3,000 people were killed, was performed without a gun being used - by the terrorists who brought down the World Trade Center in New York and part of the Pentagon in Washington.

          Moreover, how could Orlando possibly be about Islamic terrorism?  Omar Mateen was born in the USA.  In the summer of 1968 a dazed Democrat emerged from a hotel in California, nearly in tears.  The man was bewildered, incomprehensible.  “How could he say that?” he asked the TV reporter.  The gentleman had left the scene where Sirhan Sirhan had just assassinated Democratic Sen. Robert Kennedy (who had just won the California Democratic Presidential primary).  The gentleman quoted Sirhan as saying, “I did it for my country.”  “How could he say that?  How could he believe that?”  The gentleman clearly did not understand, for the answer is simple.  Sirhan was Palestinian.  A Christian Palestinian, but Palestinian.  His country was not the US.  He killed Kennedy for what he thought would be the best interest of Palestine.

          When Omar Mateen announced he had killed many people for his country, he had identified his country as the Islamic State.  Mateen may have been born in the US, but he did not consider himself an American.  His concerns were Allah and pledging allegiance to ISIS.  Mateen was killing Americans while simultaneously pledging allegiance to the Islamic State.  And the American Attorney General tried to prevent us from knowing that!  Just as Harry Hopkins sought to obstruct the FBI in 1943 and prevent it from doing its job of protecting American citizens and American atomic secrets from Soviet spies, there now seems to be another group – inside the US Govt. – intent on preventing any exposure of Islamic terrorism and its supporters.

          The Muslim Brotherhood (hereafter MB) was founded in Egypt in 1928 as a movement to liberate the Muslim world from the infidels.  It was a nationalist movement, and anti-colonial movement, and one mixed with religion (like many other nationalist movements, as in Ireland, Poland, the Balkans, etc.)  The founder, Hassan al-Banna was a 22-year-old teacher, who grew to admire Hitler, wrote to him, and was encouraged by him.  The MB grew in the 1930s as did its hostility to Jews and Zionism.  During WWII, as Gen. Erwin Rommel’s armies pushed beyond the Libyan border into Egypt (and many Egyptian Jews prepared to purchase tickets for South Africa), the Muslim Brotherhood readied to join the Axis advance when Rommel routed the British. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, expelled from the British mandated lands for his anti-Western views, turned up in Berlin where he met Hitler and began broadcasting to the Middle East on Radio Berlin.  Sometimes his message was simple, “Kill the Jews!”  However, when British Gen.Bernard Montgomery defeated Rommel at el-Alemein in October 1942, that Axis defeat would delay MB dreams for decades.  With Axis defeat, the Mufti was able to escape Allied prosecution with the help of MB politicians.

          Beginning in December 2010 in Tunisia with the series of uprisings collectively called “the Arab Spring,” people in many countries went into the streets to demand change, and young people using social media, often cooperating with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) , began revolutions in the Arab world.  The first government to fall to the change was Tunisia in northern Africa, and the stirrings spread.  Cairo’s Tahrir Square became a scene of daily protests against the long-term leadership of Hosni Mubarak, whose authoritarian government encouraged tourism from all over the world, and who maintained friendly relations with the US and neighborly relations with Israel.  But Tahrir Square became the center of daily mass gatherings denouncing the government, where there were now huge pictures of Mubarak with a Star of David scratched across his face.  Both Pres. Obama and Sec. of State Hillary showed great enthusiasm for the changes stirring in the Arab Spring   The Western media portrayed the gatherings quite sympathetically.  One night CBS correspondent Lara Logan, an attractive young blond, found herself in the square forcibly separated from her cameramen, her clothing ripped, and she was groped and sexually assaulted.  But the general euphoria overwhelmed reports of such unfortunate urges that managed to surface.  In February 2011 Mubarak fell and free elections would be held.  Democracy would come to Egypt!

          Elections were held, and Mohammed Morsi, the MB candidate won.  Hillary and Obama were proud of their policy that expanded democracy.  With the MB victory, Jewish tourists and businessmen quickly departed.  The Copts, Egypt’s Christians, who comprise some 10% of the population, suddenly found themselves under attack.  Ancient churches were set ablaze by the Muslim majority.  Muslims, expressing their empowered status, began beating Christian men and attacking Christian women.  Some leaders of the new MB regime sought to ally with Palestinians in Gaza against Israel.  All Jews were monkeys, declared some of the new clerics in power.  One prominent Muslim imam urged the government to destroy the pagan relics of old – that is, destroy the pyramids! (When ISIS attained power elsewhere, it destroyed Jonah’s tomb and part of the ancient ruined city of Palmyra.  One should take such talk seriously.)  Happily, this ruthless MB regime was toppled by the army led by Abdel Al-Sisi in 2013.  In response, Obama cut off aid to Egypt’s new military government in Egypt, but Al-Sisi then sought support from Russia’s Putin.  

            Col. Ghadaffi’s Libya had become a leading terrorist nation after he had come to power in 1969  (and he helped subsidize the Black Panthers and the Black Muslims inside the US.)  Ghadaffi’s regime was the likely source for the 1986 bombing of a Berlin club popular with American soldiers, and Ghadaffi was behind the downing of Pan Am flight 103 that killed the plane’s occupants over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988.  However, by the 21st^h century Ghadaffi’s government had moderated.  But Obama and Hillary had other plans for Libya, and decided to seek Ghadaffi’s overthrow.  In summer of 2011 Libya joined the Arab revolutionary Spring, and by October 2011, Ghadaffi himself was dead.  Obama and Hillary next set their sights on the dictatorship in Syria of Bashar al-Assad.  It is alleged that Americans were to supply weapons to rebels in Syria through newly liberated Libya.  Indeed, some allege that American Ambassador Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi to facilitate gun-running deals with violent types whom he hoped would help overthrow Syria’s Assad.

            The fall of Ghadaffi left power vacuums and chaos in Libya.  Not all of the rebels were sympathetic to the West.  Working in the eastern city of Benghazi, American Ambassador Stevens was fully aware of the deteriorating situation, and a number of times requested reinforcements for protection.  The requests (to the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton?) were denied.  As the anniversary of the 9/11 terror attack approached, neither Obama nor Hillary sent help.  Four Americans, including our Ambassador, were killed in a prepared attack by Muslim extremists on 9 September 2012.  Then, Sec. Hillary Clinton, Pres. Obama, and Under Sec. Susan Rice all continually lied to the American people, blaming the attack and murders on anger as a result of a video that mocked the Prophet Mohammad. The film was produced by an Egyptian Christian residing in the US.  Obama and Hillary even bought time on Pakistani television to denounce the video and its creator.  Obama’s federal government soon found grounds to imprison the Egyptian Copt.  I am less certain if he and Hillary did anything to apprehend the murderers of the Americans in Benghazi.

            Under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, there has been a policy that is often sympathetic to Muslims at the expense of the American people.  Recall the original 9/11 attacks in the US, in which Muslim terrorists hijacked American civilian planes to attack the World Trade Center twin towers and the Pentagon (and a 4^th plane was downed by passengers when they realized the Muslims were intending to use their plane as a missile).  Over 3,000 innocent Americans were killed by the Muslim terrorists in those attacks - and not a gun was fired.  Later, an official report was issued, but 28 pages were kept secret because they apparently showed connections between the terrorists and high Saudi officials.  Pres. Bush preferred a cover-up.  And so does Pres. Obama.  The cover-up continues to this day.

However, the situation grew worse under Obama.  He appointed as his first Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, one of whose most trusted advisors is Huma Abedin.  Although Huma had married Anthony Weiner, then a prominent Jewish Congressman from New York, she had links of a very different kind.  Her husband had hoped to become the mayor of New York City, but Weiner’s sex texting, when it became known, roused sufficient embarrassment, even in liberal NY, to force Weiner to withdraw from the race.  But even after the deflation of Weiner’s political prospects, Huma retained her post as a major advisor to one of the most influential people in America.  In addition to working for Hillary, Huma had links to the World Muslim League and the Muslim Brotherhood.

In a 2009 ruling, a Federal Judge in the case of the Holy Land Foundation concluded that the Muslim Brotherhood was an un-indicted co-conspirator funneling money to a terrorist organization, Hamas.  The new Obama Administration sought to ride to the rescue.  In his 22 Jun 2016 article on frontpage.com. Joseph Klein described Obama’s approach.   In a speech in Cairo in June 2009 Obama announced he would use his Presidency to “‘fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear’…his administration conducted what amounted to a censorship within the government…For example, an anti-terrorism conference scheduled for August…2011 was cancelled after Islamic groups protested…the content of several presentations and the speakers.”  

Klein added, “Beginning in the fall of 2011, the Dept. of Homeland Security’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties undertook a campaign to purge any critical references to Islamic ideology and beliefs from intelligence and law enforcement training materials.”

Klein also reports that Patrick Haney, a retired, senior official of the DHS claimed that he was ordered to purge records he had accumulated in a data base that tied potential jihadists with various Islamic groups.  Haney alleged that had those files not been purged, there would have been a greater chance to detect and halt Mateen before he killed 49 people in Orlando.  On TV Haney stated he personally did not delete the files, but it was done by higher-ups at DHS.  And consider further, Mateen worked as a security guard for a company that was contracted to DHS!  He passed their security checks.  Someone wondered if he might have one day become a guard at a nuclear plant!  Is the government doing its job of protecting us from Muslim terrorists?

National Public Radio is hardly right-wing radio, but even its reporters had difficulties trying to explain the failure to recognize the threat posed by Army Major Nidal  Hasan.  Hasan was a psychiatrist, and some of those interviewed must have been his colleagues.  They were shocked to hear the hatred Hasan expressed toward America’s efforts in the Middle East.  They wondered what kind of counseling he was providing for soldiers needing psychiatric help.  Yet, these fellow professionals dared not officially complain, because they knew that doing so would be a mark against them, showing they might be racist, or prejudiced against Muslims, and it might cause them problems down the road in politically correct America.  Hasan wanted out of the army and he sought to avoid being sent to Afghanistan, but he could  not win the proper release.  So on 5 November 2009 at Ft. Hood, Texas, a gun-free zone, Major Hasan proceeded to kill 13 of his fellow soldiers and injure 30 more.  Islamic terrorism?  NO, concluded the Obama Administration.  This was simply work-place violence.  Just like the Obama’s Dept. of Justice is still searching for the real motive that caused Omar Mateen to kill 49 in Orlando.  Surely it was not Islamic terrorism.

Mateen a lone wolf?  Before his mass murders, Mateen sold his home to a relative for about $1.  Did they not ask any questions as to why?  At such a price?  The mosque Omar attended was the same one that inspired Moner Abu Salha to go to Syria as a suicide bomber in 2014.   Pure coincidence, I’m sure.  Mateen’s 2^nd wife drove him to the Orlando bar.  She accompanied him and helped him purchase weapons.  And Mateen’s father is an Afghan and has his own videoTV show on politics in Afghanistan.  So clearly none of this influenced Omar Mateen; clearly he was a lone wolf who had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism.  He murdered 49 for some other reason, all alone.

The Russians warned the Americans about another immigrant family that we welcomed into the US, the Tsarnaevs.  They came as immigrants to the US and were soon ensconced on welfare.  They were Muslims sympathetic to radical Islam and terrorism.  Before setting off bombs on 15 April 2013 at the Boston Marathon – killing 3 and injuring 264 – the brothers had apparently killed a Jew in a “drug” deal (or perhaps merely for the Islamist ideal of killing a Jew).  After the bombing, the mother endorsed her sons’ actions, and she left America for her homeland.  I would hope her welfare payments have been stopped.

Why were the Russian warnings about this family as possible terrorists ignored by the American authorities?  Who is responsible for permitting such a murderous family into America?  And if not the individual, what policies prevent America from barring such potentially violent immigrants?

During WWII a policy of alliance with and appeasement toward the Soviet Union was adopted by high elements in the Administration of FDR, and possibly including Roosevelt himself; these policies resulted in the stealing of atomic secrets, which greatly advanced the Soviet development of its own bombs.  Furthermore, pro-Communist policies inside the US State, Treasury, and other federal departments, sabotaged aid to Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-Shek, and sabotaged help to anti-Communist elements in Yugoslavia, Poland, and other lands.

Under Pres. George W. Bush and especially under Pres. Obama, a policy has developed so that America cannot defend itself against Muslim terrorists.  Additionally, Obama’s, and Hillary’s association with the MB and the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) present a great danger.  Those groups assert that they are simply  defending civil rights and civil liberties for Muslims, but in reality they may be out to destroy the civil rights and civil liberties of those who expose the bigotry and history of violence and terror and slavery and oppression and terrorism in Islam?  Islam is not a religion of “peace.”  It grew through conquest.  It demands not equality with other groups; it demands submission by all to Islam and to its oppressive sharia law.  The Obama Administration pretends that Islam is a religion of peace.  But on this important issue, the Obama Administration lies.  The Obama Administration declared the Major Hasan murders to be workplace violence.  The Obama Administration lied.  The Obama Adm. demands that the FBI coordinate its anti-terror activities with groups like CAIR.  But CAIR  and similar groups are notorious for defending terrorism.  It will simply obstruct efforts to prevent terrorism. (For more on CAIR, see Daniel Pipes, “Is CAIR a Terror Group?” National Review, 28 Nov. 2014)  No wonder the Tsarnaevs were undetected until they bombed the Boston Marathon.  No wonder the Muslim terrorists in San Bernadino, Syed Farook and his foreign-born wife Tashfeen Malik, were allowed in the country and under the radar and allowed to murder 14 and seriously injure 22 on 2 December 2015.  They killed them, most of them his co-workers, at a party.  No wonder Omar Mateen, even after mouthing off against this group and that, was allowed to pass security clearances and get a job in security at a company that has contracts with the DHS.  No wonder he was allowed to kill 49 at Pulse night club.

I do not maintain that all Muslims are terrorists.  There are peaceful Muslims who are willing to abide by the American Constitution.  But there are other Muslims who reject America, Western civilization, our notions of freedom, and out Constitution.  Our government is failing utterly to distinguish between them.  Worse, it appears as if some inside   our bureaucracies sympathize with those who would use terrorism against us.  In our efforts not to offend Muslims, not to profile, not to track those who favor the Islamic State or other tyrannical and terrorist groups, the US Government is betraying the American people.  Or rather, elements of the US Govt are doing so.    

The present Obama Administration policies are killing Americans.  It would be as if FDR had ordered J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI to coordinate with the Communist Party, USA, to uncover any Soviet spies in America.  The CPUSA would naturally tip off anyone under suspicion.  Indeed even the non-Communist, co-President Harry Hopkins did that too.  In the 1940s there was a vast conspiracy inside the US government working to aid international Communism.  Today, there appears to be conspirators inside the US government working to appease and provide easy access for Muslim terrorists.  The results of such appeasement policies will be the murder of innocent Americans and the long-term destruction of the USA.  It is time for a change.

         

I LIKE IKE's biography

EISENHOWER: A LIFE (New York: Viking, 2014)

BY PAUL JOHNSON

Rev. by Hugh Murray

            I like Ike’s biography, but Johnson makes some questionable assertions in this short volume.  First, the basics – Johnson stresses that Eisenhower was a team player, as coach, general, and as president.(p. 4)  Ike was intelligent, and purposely presented the image of an average Joe.  Johnson maintains that Ike was in control of the White House when he was president, but let others think that men like Sec. of State John Foster Dulles were in charge.  Eisenhower tried to get along with people, and was a hard worker, learning about the importance of industrial production and organization to the military as he rose in the ranks.  In WWII, he was less interested in capturing political objectives, like Berlin or Prague, believing that the masses of rubble would be rife with snipers and America would pay a heavy cost in lives.  But Eisenhower did rush to capture Luebeck, and thereby cut off any Soviet advance into Denmark.

            According to Johnson, Ike “regarded as his greatest error of judgment” a campaign stop in 1952 in Wisconsin, where, heeding bad advice, he deleted a paragraph praising his old boss, Gen. George Marshall for his patriotism.(19)   Marshall had come under attack by Indiana Republican Sen. Jenner as “a front man for traitors.”(85)  Wisconsin Sen. McCarthy was also critical of Marshall, and Eisenhower removed the paragraph so as not to offend McCarthy in a state the GOP hoped to win in November.  Yet, despite brooding over removing a paragraph from a campaign speech, Eisenhower conceded “The reason we lost China…was because Marshall insisted Chiang Kai-shek take Communists into the government, against Chiang’s judgment.”(101)  So whatever Eisenhower’s emotional response to Marshall, it appears his rational assessment was not significantly different from Jenner’s.

            Eisenhower’s hatred of Jenner, his hostility to California Sen. Knowland, Sen. McCarthy and other conservatives and populists is made manifest in this short book.  Ike, whose politics were so little known during and shortly after WWII that Pres. Harry Truman at one point offered him anything, including the Democratic Party nomination for president in 1948 if he so desired.(62)  But Eisenhower was a quiet Republican, who disagreed more with Truman during the Democrat’s second term.  But Ike also vehemently opposed the old isolationist wing of the GOP, headed by Ohio Sen. Robert Taft, and the seeming favorite for the 1952 nomination.  To oppose Taft, Eisenhower would receive the support of the liberal, internationalist wing of the GOP, the wing that had captured the nomination in 1940 for Wendell Willkie, and in 1944 and 1948 for New York Gov. Thomas Dewey.  Under the leadership of the liberals, the GOP lost those elections.  The nomination in 1952 was a close contest between Taft and Ike, but with a new California Sen. corralling delegates for Eisenhower, Ike won the nomination.  He then gave the vice-presidential nomination to that young Californian, Richard Nixon, to balance the ticket.  Once in power, Ike named a cabinet of millionaire businessmen.

            Johnson describes McCarthy as “a uniquely unpleasant person”; Ike thought if he used patience, McCarthy would destroy himself.(97)  But Ike used more than “patience.”  When McCarthy sought to ferret out Communists working for the government, Ike was just as devious as Truman in moving files to prevent them from being scrutinized by Congressional committees.  Eisenhower even came up with a new mwrhos to stonewall investigations, “executive privilege,”(97) a notion that would prevent exposure to the American people and shield all kinds of nefarious activities – under administrations of Eisenhower, Nixon, and up to and including Obama.

            During WWII Ike planned the Allied invasion of North Africa.  Spending several sentences on the French Admiral Francois Darlan, Johnson remarks that “the French navy was far more anti-Allies, or rather anti-British, than the army.”(32)  What Johnson fails to mention is that in 1940 Churchill had ordered the British navy to attack his erstwhile French allies whose fleet was at Mers-el-Kebir, Algeria.  The French were given short notice to surrender on July 3, and when they refused, were attacked by the British, who weeks earlier had been their allies.  Some 1,300 French mariners were killed in this attack, (for comparison, some 2,500 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor) and consequently, in the new Vichy France, there was strong support for a declaration of war against Britain.  (However, having just lost to Germany, Marshall Petain, believed France was then too weak, so no war was declared.)

            There are some strange omissions from this short book.  According to a PBS documentary on the Supreme Court, Eisenhower later judged his decision to appoint Republican California Gov. Earl Warren to the US Supreme Court, as “the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made.”  Certainly, that court’s unanimous decision finding legal segregation of schools as unconstitutional would raise issues that Ike preferred to defer to another time.  Yet, Ike did send troops to Little Rock to enforce the Court’s decision, the first time since Reconstruction that American troops had been sent South to defend the rights of Blacks.  No Democrat had done that.  Furthermore, the first civil rights legislation since Reconstruction was enacted under Eisenhower.

            Another strange omission is one that occurred shortly before the 1956 election.  Johnson mentions the joint Israeli, British, French invasion of Egypt, which aimed to topple Nasser.  But almost simultaneous was the revolt against the Communist regime in Hungary – with American supported radio encouraging the rebels.  Hungary is not mentioned in the book – neither the rebellion nor its suppression by the Soviets, nor the refusal to intervene by Eisenhower.  Johnson asserts that Ike knew nothing about the invasion of Egypt, but I remain skeptical.  I read at the time that the US had give the invasion about 2 weeks to overthrow Nasser; when he retained power, then the US would force the three nations to retreat while the US gained the applause of the Third World.

            Johnson rightly notes that Ike brought peace to Korea, and did not intervene in Vietnam.  Unlike Truman, Kennedy, or Lyndon Johnson, Ike never considered using nuclear weapons.(99)  Eisenhower showed no warmth toward Nixon, but disliked John Kennedy even more.  Johnson contrasts Eisenhower’s victories with the botched operation of the Bay of Pigs in Cuba under Kennedy.(113)  But the author does not include that the planning of the Bay of Pigs occurred under Eisenhower on the assumption that Nixon would win the election.  Moreover, the CIA and others lied to Kennedy about salient aspects of the project, lies which contributed to the fiasco.

            One astonishing revelation – Ike did not allow tipping in the White House.  When a Saudi was guest and left tips of $50 and $100 bills, Ike tried to retrieve them before the staff could appropriate them.

            There were two instances where Johnson might have better clarified issues for an American audience.  He gives a list of new men who in Ike’s second term replaced the older appointees, the ones with whom Ike had been close.  Among those whom he would miss and liked were (Herbert) Brownell, (Sherman) Adams, and Humphrey.  Reading this, I thought what?  Hubert Humphrey?  And then I realized, Johnson meant Cabinet member and GM President George Humphrey.(104)

            And following the British-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt, the U S “tabled” a motion at the UN, - meaning the motion was placed on the agenda.  That is the British meaning of the word – and it is just the opposite of the American meaning, which would indicate that the proposal had been sent back to committee for later consideration, or killed.  Clearly, Johnson meant the British use of the term, but for an American readership, he might have rephrased the sentence for clarity.

            Despite Johnson’s high opinion of Ike, he does note his vindictiveness, some of his hatreds, some of his duplicity.  Others have suggested Ike may have been extremely cruel to German POWs and other prisoners after WWII.  He obstructed McCarthy and the populist Republican and felt at home with the wealthy.  But he led Allied invasions of North Africa, then of Sicily and Italy, and finally, the world’s largest with D-Day at Normandy.  He commanded the American sector of occupied Germany, and was a commander of forces in NATO, he was president of Columbia University (an Ivy League one), and the President of the US.  He ended the war in Korea, and engaged in no large-scale adventures.  While Sputnik’s high orbiting lowered American prestige, still there was no doubt that the leading power in the world was the USA.  The economy boomed, inflation was low, new consumer products filled the markets which people rode to in automobiles over the new national highway system.  For America, it was a golden age - and Ike was its President.                

Pat Buchanan on Subversion by NGOs

Pat Buchanan has another most interesting article posted on vdare.  Non-Governmental Organizations have rightly drawn the suspicion of various nations.  In the US, millionaire George Soros has funded numerous left-wing groups, as have once respectable foundations (see the book by Horowitz on his expose of the Ford Foundation and others with names implying they are above controversy).  Some NGOs do improve conditions; some are just political action groups to mobilize unofficial militias.  Buchanan recounts reasons to be skeptical of the NGOs.----Hugh Murray

NGOs As Agents of Subversion: Not Only In Israel, But Egypt And The Caucasus As Well

By Patrick J. Buchanan on March 23, 2015, 6:08 pm

See, earlier, Are Freedom House And The National Democratic Institute Really “Our Innocents Abroad”?

Though “Bibi” Netanyahu won re-election last week, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will still look into whether the State Department financed a clandestine effort to defeat him.

Reportedly, State funneled $350,000 to an American NGO called OneVoice, which has an Israeli subsidiary, Victory 15, that collaborated with U.S. operatives to bring Bibi down.

If we are now secretly pumping cash into the free elections of friendly countries, to dump leaders President Obama dislikes, Americans have a right to know why we are using Cold War tacticsagainst democracies.

After World War II, my late colleague on CNN’s “Crossfire,” Tom Braden, delivered CIA cash to democratic parties in Europe imperiled by communist parties financed from Moscow.

But that was done to combat Stalinism when Western survival was at stake in a Cold War that ended in 1991.

Hopefully, after looking into OneVoice and V15, the Senate will expand its investigation into a larger question: Is the U.S. using NGOs to subvert regimes around the world? And, if so, who decides which regimes may be subverted?

What gives these questions urgency is the current crisis that has Moscow moving missiles toward Europe and sending submarines and bombers to probe NATO defenses.

America contends that Vladimir Putin’s annexation of Crimea and backing for pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine is the cause of the gathering storm in Russian-NATO relations.

Yet Putin’s actions in Ukraine were not taken until the overthrow of a democratically elected pro-Russian regime in Kiev, in a coup d’etat in which, Moscow contends, an American hand was clearly visible.

Not only was John McCain in Kiev’s Maidan Square egging on the crowds that drove the regime from power, so, too, was U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.

In an intercepted phone call with our ambassador in Kiev, Nuland identified the man we preferred when President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted. “Yats,” she called him. And when Yanukovych fled after the Maidan massacre, sure enough, Arseniy Yatsenyuk was in power.

Nuland also revealed that the U.S. had spent $5 billion since 1991 to bring about the reorientation of Ukraine toward the West.

Now, bringing Ukraine into the EU and NATO may appear to Nuland & Co. a great leap forward for freedom and progress.

But to Russia it looks like the subversion of a Slavic nation with which she has had intimate ties for centuries, to bring Ukraine into an economic union and military alliance directed against Moscow.

And if NATO stumbles into a military clash with Russia, the roots of that conflict will be traceable to the coup in Kiev that Russians believe was the dirty work of the Americans.

If the U.S. had a role in that coup, the American people should know it and the Senate should find out whether Nuland & Co. used NGOs to reignite a Cold War that Ronald Reagan brought to an end.

And if we are now using NGOs as fronts for secret operations to dump over regimes, we are putting all NGOs abroad under suspicion and at risk.

Not in our lifetimes has America been more distrusted and disliked. And among the reasons is that we are seen as constantly carpingat governments that do not measure up to our standards of democracy, and endlessly interfering in the internal affairs of nations that do not threaten us.

In this new era, U.S. foreign policy elites have boasted of the “color-coded” revolutions they helped to foment in Belgrade, Kiev, Tbilisi. In 2003, we helped to overthrow the Georgian regime of Eduard Shevardnadze in a “Rose Revolution” that brought to power Mikheil Saakashvili. And Saakashvili nearly dragged us into a confrontation with Russia in 2008, when he invaded South Ossetiaand killed Russian peacekeepers.

What vital interest of ours was there in that little nation in the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin, to justify so great a risk?

Nor is it Moscow alone that is angered over U.S. interference in its internal affairs and those of its neighbor nations.

President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt has expelled members of U.S. NGOs. Beijing believes U.S. NGOs were behind the Occupy-Wall-Street-style street blockages in Hong Kong.

If true, these U.S. actions raise a fundamental question:

What is the preeminent goal of U.S. foreign policy?

Is it to protect the vital interests and national security of the Republic? Or do we believe with George W. Bush that, “The survival of liberty” in America “depends on the success of liberty in other lands.”

If it is the latter, then our mission is utopian–and unending.

For if we believe our liberty is insecure until the whole world is democratic, then we cannot rest until we witness the overthrow of the existing regimes in Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Belarus, most of the Arab and African nations, as well as Venezuela and Cuba.

And if that is our goal, our Republic will die trying to achieve it.

Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his books State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? are available from Amazon.com. Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.

OBAMA – WHO LOST THE MIDDLE EAST?

                                        by Hugh Murray
           During the Cold War, Republicans asked a question of the Democrats: "Who lost China?"  During the civil war in China between the Communists under Mao and the Nationalists under Chiang, the Nationalists seemed to have the main advantage.  Of course, in the 1930s and early 40s, the Japanese expanded their domination of China.  Beginning in 1931 when the Japanese created a puppet state for the last emperor of China Pu Yi, the last Manchu emperor would be the official leader of several northeastern provinces, near Korea, and called Manchukuo. In the late 30's, the Japanese invaded other coastal areas of China, and took the northern capital of Beijing, and the southern one too, Nanking.  The "rape" of Nanking, where Japanese soldiers had a free hand to impose terror on the city, is still remembered as a horror.

          After the defeat of Nazi Germany, the US wanted the Soviets to enter the war against Japan.  Stalin promised to do so, and he kept his promise.  Between the dropping of Atomic bombs on two Japanese cities and the entrance of the Soviets into the war, Japan sued for peace.  It is possible that Communist influence in the Roosevelt Administration was responsible for granting certain Japanese islands to the Soviets as part of the peace.  The Soviets also got to occupy northern Korea, and much of Manchukuo.  The Soviets then helped Mao and his Communist rebels against the officially recognized Chinese government of Chiang.  In the US, Communists and Popular Fronters did not want to aid Chiang.  They delayed, obstructed, prevented aid from reaching Chiang and his Nationalist forces.  Many of the State Dept.'s China experts were sympathetic to Mao and the Communists.  By the time Truman decided to push for aid to Chiang, it was too late.  In 1949 Mao spoke from Beijing to proclaim the People's Republic of China.  Chiang's forces fled to the island of Taiwan.

          Republicans were angry and alarmed.  They asked, "Who lost China?"  They suspected it was because of Communists in the Roosevelt-Truman Administration.  Of course, the Chinese had fought their civil war, and China was not a property of the US to lose.  However, China had been an ally of the US.  And the failure of the US to provide financial and military aid to Chiang, while Mao was receiving aid from the Soviets - may well have contributed to the victory of Mao and the Communists.

            Before President Obama, Egypt was an ally, maintaining peaceful relations even with its neighbor Israel.  Obama supported the Arab Spring, with the masses of demonstrators who rallied in a Cairo Square, and in demonstrations in other Arab nations.  Obama and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton cheered the rebels, hailing a new era of democracy.  Yet, even in the early days of cheering, there were ominous signs.  Beautiful CBS reporter Lara Lang was physically, and sexually, attacked amidst the mob of celebrants in Tahrir Square in Cairo.  Anti-Mubarik signs often showed a star of David across his face.  While the Western media assured Americans the rebellion was the result of Facebook, the new social media, and Western minded liberals, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), was working in the background.

            Significantly, one of the chief advisors to Sec. Hillary Clinton has several relatives connected to the MB.  Yet, when Republican Michele Bachmann warned of this influence on Clinton, the liberal media in the US sneered at Bachmann - as the media would laugh, when as a guest on a TV program on NBC, she was introduced to the music of "Lying Bitch."

            I am not saying Obama-Clinton began the Arab revolts.  I am saying they cheered them on, gave them support, did not criticize.  And the result: in Egypt Christian churches are burned.  Some Christians have been killed, and at least one crucified about a week ago.  Had Obama been listening, he would have known some in the MB, in rallies in Tahrir Square called for the extermination of Israel and of all the Jews.  He would have realized that the MB and its allies might win Parliament (they won 67%), and they might win the Egyptian Presidency - Morsi did.  Egypt has moved from an ally under Bush, to a "neutral," in Obama's own words of September 12, 2012.  Meanwhile, Obama gives over a billion dollars in aid to the new Egypt!

 MB and fanatical Muslim influence has spread, as has anti-American demonstrations - Egypt, Tunis, Libya, Yemen, and more to come.  Under Bush, many of these nations were allies of the US, or covert allies.  Under Obama, they are preparing to join the enemies of the US.

It was fair to ask of Truman, "Who lost China?"  It is even more appropriate to ask of Obama: Who lost Egypt?  Who lost Tunis?  Who lost Libya?  Who lost...

Below are some of my responses to news event of 9/11/12.

Ambassador Chris Stevens killed in Libya: Is Arab Spring turning against US?

The flare-up of anti-US violence in which Ambassador Chris Stephens was killed in Libya shows how the Arab Spring has unleashed forces in the region that are vehemently opposed to America and its ideals.

By Howard LaFranchi | Christian Science Monitor – 23 hrs ago

Hugh Murray  •  20 hrs ago

When Republican Michele Bachmann charged that friends of the Muslim Brotherhood were in Hillary Clinton's entourage, the liberal sneered. The Obama/H.Clinton crowd cheerled the Arab Spring. We got a glimpse of it in the early days when CBS correspondent Lara Logan was physically and sexually attacked in the Cairo square amidst "revolutionary" celebrations. Since then, The Muslim Brotherhood has come to power, in Parliament and with the new President of Egypt. Some in his movement call for the extermination of Israel and of all Jews. They also burn churches, kill Christians, and last week, even crucified some Christians. Freedom!? Democracy!? Hillary must have been listening to her Muslim Brotherhood advisor. Obama no longer listens to Rev. Wright's sermons of "God Damn America.;" no, now he hears from his new friends, "Allah damn America."
Let us hope Americans wake up and oust the anti-American Obama-Hillary crowd in the November elections.

Romney under friendly fire for his response to embassy attack in Libya

By Holly Bailey, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 21 hrs ago

Hugh Murray  •  16 hrs ago

Romney said what should have been said. What should not have been said is what came out of the embassy in Egypt, the appeasers of Muslim fanaticism. Hillary echoes the craven attacks of free speech because it offend Muslims. Offend them. Barack Hussein Obama acts as if he were a Muslim. He and Hillary gave us the tyranny called the Arab Spring. Michele Bachmann already challenged Hillary's Muslim Brotherhood-connected advisor. Obama plans to five Muslim Brotherhood-led Egypt over a billion dollars. Yet their mobs attack American territory on 9/11; they burn churches, kill Christians, and last week even crucified at least one. They also call for the extermination of Israel and Jews. Such is the "freedom" spawned by Obama's Administration.
Romney takes a swift, strong stand for freedom, and the appeasement media criticizes him. The media supports Obama. I hope the America people in November will support freedom and the Republicans in November 2012.

Blasting Obama on Libya and Egypt, Romney accused of opportunism

By John Whitesides | Reuters – 15 hrs ago

Hugh Murray  •  14 hrs ago

The pro-Muslim Brotherhood crowd accuses Romney of opportunism when he criticizes the Obama Administration on the Middle East. Obama and Hillary should be denounced for appeasement. Not only did they help stir up the Muslim Brotherhood to take power in Egypt in the "Arab Spring," but they encouraged the hate movement. One of Hillary's main advisors is connected to the MB, as made public by the heroic Michele Bachmann. Obama's policies have left much of the Middle East in the hands of Muslim fanatics - indeed, when they assaulted the Am. Embassy in Cairo, they shouted, "We are all Osama's now." The Obama Admin. killed one Osama, and his appeasement policies have given the world a million more Osamas. And some killed Americans on 9/11/12 in Libya.
Romney stands up for American freedom. Unlike the appeasement brigade of Obama, Romney will not grant the MB Egypt over a billion dollars. The MB demands the extermination of Israel and Jews; in Egypt in burns churches, kills Christians, and last week crucified one.
America needs more films exposing Islam.
And we should vote against Barack Hussein Obama.

                                

KILLING CHRISTIANS; KILLING SIKHS. HATE CRIMES

Riot leaves an Egyptian village without Christians

By SARAH EL DEEB | Associated Press – 23 hrs ago  Aug. 2, 2012

My comment

Hugh Murray  •  Delafield, Wisconsin  •  17 hrs ago Remove

President Obama praised the Arab Spring. Even in the early days, CBS reporter Lara Logan was sexually attacked in Tahrir Square. Muslim clerics at rallies in the square called for the destruction of Israel and killing Jews. As there were few Jews left to kill in Egypt, the Muslims began torching churches and killing Christians.
And the liberal media in the US are amazed that so many Americans think that Barack Obama is a Muslim! His policies are anti-Israeli and anti-Christian. His policies endorse extremist Muslims. Like the fanatical Muslims of Egypt, Obama must be condemned.

Shooting breaks out at Sikh temple in Wisconsin: witnesses

Reuters – 1 hr 22 mins ago----Aug. 5, 2012

My Blog comment:

   The shooting occurred Sunday morning, as Sikhs prepared for religious service.  On Friday evening I dined at the flat of newlyweds, friends, in a Milwaukee suburb.  The couple was married last month in a Roman Catholic Church, and the bride is a native of a Milwaukee suburb.  Husband is from India, born Hindu, but has agreed that their children, when they have them, will be Catholic.  At supper they spoke of going to a temple this weekend.

   I was truly shocked when I turned on the Olympics on TV, and the local NBC channel interrupted the telecast to speak of the shooting.  I then turned to the local Fox station which interviewed many of the Sikhs outside the temple.  It is still early, but now they are reporting 7 dead and many others shot.  My friends visited another temple on Saturday, so they were not in jeopardy.  But others, simply going to temple, were killed.

   It is horrible when Christians are killed just for going to church in Egypt.  It is also horrible when Sikhs are killed for going to temple in the US.  The big difference – in Egypt, the leaders of the government want to make the entire nation Muslim.  American leaders, American law, the American Constitution, promotes religious tolerance.

   One hopes that the killer(s) will be punished.  Unfortunately, Wisconsin does not have the death penalty for murderers.  That penalty is only performed by murderers upon the innocent.

               Hugh Murray 

Was the Sikh temple shooting domestic terrorism?

By Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News | The Lookout – 20 hrs ago Monday, August 6, 2012

My comment:

Hugh Murray  •  Delafield, Wisconsin  •  17 hrs ago

"Hate Crimes" - a phrase to destroy justice. When the nut shot viewers of the Batman movie, was that not just as hateful as the man who shot in the temple? The Muslim fanatic at Ft. Hood, hated the army he was sworn to serve. Was not his killing of fellow soldiers "hateful"?
   Liberals use this category of "hate crime," not to go after all murderers, but only whites who kill minorities. But Blacks who attack and kill whites are almost never charged with hate crimes. Even the Black flash mobs that infest many cities are not even called Black racist mobs, they are simply "youths." If you hate white people, then you should favor hate crime legislation. If you think all mass murderers are hate criminals, then charge them with murder and execute them. Hate crime laws are discriminatory laws, because in big cities, and among the feds, minorities cannot, by definition, be hateful and guilty of such crimes. So it is the hateful liberals who encourage such Black racist criminals.