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.

         

ON ORDERS - by Hugh Murray

ON ORDERS  -  by Hugh Murray

Over the weekend I watched a Netflix disc movie, "Your Unknown Brother," made in 1982 in German.  It was about an anti-Nazi German during the 1930s.  He had been sent to prison for his political activities, but once released in 1936, decided to continue his activities, despite his fear.  I found the movie slow and boring.  In some ways it was more like a theater production than a film with some of the actors’ movements utterly unrealistic, choreographed  like dance.

            Not until the end of the film did I realize it was a DEFA (East German) film.  The main characters portrayed were members of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), seeking to discredit and overthrow Hitler by placing a red flag atop a factory smokestack, distributing leaflets, and other activities to let others know that there still existed an opposition to the Nazi dictatorship.  The Communists in the film seem to be aware of their ineffectiveness following  three years of Hitler’s domination in Germany.  One of the members of the KPD has even informed to the Gestapo.  The film’s mood shows it was made in the last decade of the DDR, for an earlier film would have depicted the ever correct policy of the Party, and how it sparks some success in persuading Germans to reject Hitler.  By the 1980s, one senses, that the Party was aware that it was not always correct.
            More interesting than the film were the features on the same disc.  One in particular, interviewed a woman who had joined the KPD in the 1920s.  She relates the story of some of her activities.  She lived in a neighborhood in which the Nazis were popular even before Hitler achieved power.  Beginning in the late 1920s, the KPD asked her if some people might stay in her apartment from time to time.  She said yes.  She did not know who the visitors were, and the conversations with them were minimal.  She noted that sometimes they did not even speak German.  But the Party ordered her to do this, so she did.
            In 1933 she was visiting her mother, who asked if she had read the day’s newspaper.  No, not yet.  Her mother showed her, - several Bulgarians had been arrested in connection with the Reichstag fire, treason, (the burning of the German Parliament building led to emergency security measures that soon would transform Hitler from mere Chancellor to dictator).  The woman looked at the newspaper photos of the Bulgarians on page 1.  (One, Georgi Dimitrov, would later head the Comintern).  She told her mother she recognized them as those who were staying at her apartment.  Decades later she peers into the camera to explain – she had no idea who the men were, but the Party ordered me to do it, so I did it.  She may not have known who they were, and it is still disputed as to who fired the Reichstag building, but she was simply following orders.  Party orders.
            After WWII various Germans were tried for war crimes.  Their main excuse was simple – I was simply following orders.  Orders not of a Party, but of the nation and its elected leaders.  Also after WWII there was a famous psychological experiment conducted in the US.  At Yale University students were to use a devise to administer electric shocks to others at the command of a “scientist.”  The student could see the reaction of the human guinea pig, their contorted face, even if they might not hear the shouts of pain.  In reality, the victims were also students pretending to be shocked.  The devises controlled by the student did not sent electricity to the victim area.  On the other side of the glass, the actors only pretended to be victims.  Yet, most students were quite willing to administer what they assumed to be shocks, very painful ones by the expressions of the “victims.”  In liberal, democratic America, enlightened university students (at a time when relatively few attended university), were willing to inflict pain on command of a minor authority figure.
            The results of the Milgram experiment were so disturbing to liberals (who seem to prefer the assumption that only Germans could follow brutal orders to such extremities) that they pressured to psychological association to enact “ethical” rules which would in future prohibit another Milgram experiment.  That is often the liberal approach to science, by the way, when they disapprove of the results of scientific research: forbid the test – be it IQ exams, police promotion exams, firefighters tests, and even future Milgram experiments.  Interestingly, the New York Times published an article on the 50^th anniversary of the Milgram experiment and its importance, and I commented on line that had the “ethical” procedures of today been in effect 50 years prior, there would have been no Milgram experiment, and no New York Times article assessing its importance.  Indeed, had the liberals had the present “ethical” procedures in place decades ago, mankind would have been deprived of the important results of those experiments.  The liberals and their “ethical” concerns are determined to prevent mankind from learning the truth about humanity.
            I did it because I was ordered to – says the Nazi war criminal; says the woman Communist who harbored Dimitrov in Berlin in 1933, perhaps says an American Communist who simply delivered a sealed suitcase containing papers from one apartment to a hotel room (a suitcase that may have contained atomic secrets).  I did it because I was ordered to do so, said many of the American students in the Milgram situation.
            Yet, a child does something because mommy said to do it, no questions asked.  Just do it.  Do like your daddy says.
            We all have done things because we are ordered to do so. We do it to please mom and because we love her and trust her.  We do it for dad for the same reasons.  Should we do things in the same manner for Stalin?  For Hitler?  We may have extremes, with Hitler and Stalin on one side, and parents on the other.
            What about teachers?  Scientific authorities?  (Or seeming scientists, as in the Milgram experiment.  Or even the American TV ad of previous decades, “I’m not a medical doctor, but I play one on television;” he then urges the audience to purchase a brand of headache tablets.
            We cannot survive as total skeptics.  We need to trust.  The question is, whom do we trust?  In what areas of life:  How far should we go:  Should we prepare to execute our child because God has commanded it as He commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac in Genesis?  As a test?  Or should we refuse such a command?  Which commands accept?  Which refuse?  And how much should we calculate the cost of refusing to obey?
            I do not want to excuse, but surely it is “understandable” how a good Communist might seek to rid the earth of Ukrainian kulak vermin; how a good Nazi might seek to purify the earth by eliminating Jewish vermin; how Ruandan Hutus might seek to destroy the Tutsi cockroaches, how in Bosnia…But if they perform such tortures, such executions, such murders, such mass murders, one hopes they are made to pay the price for such atrocities.
            I did it because I was ordered to do so!  Did you approve of the order?  Disapprove?  Neutral?  If you disapproved, did you resist, in part, in full?  What might be the consequences of your failure to perform your duty?  To you?  To your family?  Friends?
            Some of us have been fortunate to have had basically good parents, basically good friends, and to have lived in a nation that is essentially fair and just.  But just view the terrific 2011 South Korean film “My Way” for a glimpse of the horrible choices afforded two talented men born in the 1920s.  One was forced to fight inside two armies in which he did not believe.  The other had to fight in three.  By contrast, we in the West are most fortunate.  And to retain these basically good choices granted to us, we may even have to struggles against those who have been corrupted, distorted, crippled, by their family, friends, party, ideology, or nation.  Sometimes we must join or act alone to insure that right does make might.

Joe McCarthy: Blacklisted by History

BLACKLISTED BY HISTORY: THE UNTOLD STORY OF SENATOR JOE MCCARTHY

AND HIS FIGHT AGAINST AMERICA’S ENEMIES (NY: 2007)

BY M. STANTON EVANS

Rev. by Hugh Murray (complete review)

            On 22 February 2012 Reuters reported that Russian leader Vladimir Putin “praises Cold War-era scientists…for stealing U.S. nuclear secrets so that the U.S. would not be the world’s sole atomic power…Spies with suitcases full of data helped the Soviet Union build its atomic bomb, he told military commanders.  They were carrying the information away not on microfilm but literally in suitcases.  Suitcases!” (Story by Steve Gutterman).

            In the May 2009 Smithsonian Michael Walsh writes of “George Koval: Atomic Spy Unmasked.”  The man was born in Iowa, became a Communist, left for the USSR where he was trained.  He returned to the US at the beginning of WWII to work for the US government on atomic projects in Oak Ridge, Ohio. and elsewhere.  He returned to the Soviet Union in the late 1940s.  He died there in 2006, and in 2007 Putin posthumously bestowed on him a gold star as recognition of his efforts at stealing American secrets.  Putin identified him as “Delmar.”  A book published in Russia in 2002, THE GRU AND THE ATOM BOMB focused on the Soviet military spy network and the man with the code name Delmar, “who with the exception of…Klaus Fuchs may have done more than anyone to help the Soviets achieve its sudden, shocking nuclear parity with the US in 1949.”  Anyone writing prior to 2007 would have no way of connecting Koval with Delmar.

            Morton Sobell, a co-defendant of the Rosenbergs, had been convicted and served several years for spying.  Like others accused of these types of crimes, Sobell maintained his innocence over the decades.  However, in an interview published in the New York Times on 9/11/2008, Sobell finally admitted his guilt.(Wikipedia, Atomic Spies)

            American Theodore Hall (born Holtzberg) died in 1999 in Cambridge, England, where he had resided for decades.  As a precocious student at university in America, he had joined the John Reed Club, a Communist student organization.  Hall became the youngest physicist to work on the atomic project at Los Alamos.  The New York Times obituary headlined, “Theodore Hall, Prodigy and Atomic Spy, Dies at 74.”  Hall was never charged nor convicted of espionage, but apparently admitted his deeds to friends and reporters in the late 1980s.

            Some of these cases we have learnt of only recently.  Were there others spying for the Soviets?  Who was stuffing the suitcases described by Putin?  No wonder Putin could smile, brag and gloat - perhaps, smiling about more than he revealed in his speech.  Even now, do we know all?  Or are there more shocking revelations to come?

Evans’ book notes that the FBI was aware as early as December 1942 “that J. Robert Oppenheimer, the nuclear physicist then becoming a central figure in the atomic energy project, was identified by Communist leaders as a secret party member who had to be inactive because of the wartime work he was doing.”(p. 6)  Evans also notes that a Communist leader in Californian declared in November 1945 that Oppenheimer had informed them “several years ago that the Army was working on the atomic bomb.”(318 –footnote, emp. mine)  If he told them this, say in 1942, what else was he revealing to them?  “Like Hiss, Remington would later be convicted in federal court for lying about his Red connections, which meant the Truman loyalty program had been incapable of discharging a flagrant risk found guilty by a jury.   Along with Oppenheimer, Condon, Service, and Adler – all holding down significant federal posts in 1950 – the Remington case made it clear that the alleged security crackdown under Truman was a myth.” (330)

            Yet, when McCarthy first made his charges about Communists holding federal jobs in early 1950, many thought, and still think. he was being irresponsible.

            There can be little doubt that the Soviets gathered important data from their agents and spies in the US – including those working for the American government.  In February 1950 McCarthy, in a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia claimed that Communists were on the federal payroll, and many were in the US State Department.  Whether he alleged 205 or 57 became one of the first big disputes, but it is a diversion.  The question was, were there subversives in the State Department and other high government offices?

            Unfortunately, there are two major omissions that illustrate a major flaw in Evans fact-filled book.  Had these been included, and the issues that they represent been fully analyzed, then the book might provide better understanding to the McCarthy era.

            1) Though Evans refers to Democratic Representative Samuel Dickstein, a Congressman who helped establish what would later become the House un-American Activities Committee, Evans neglects to mention that Dickstein was a paid agent of the Soviet Union.(49)  Soviet agents were in high places.  2) In 1943-44 Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles was compelled to resign, but not because he was accused of being a Soviet agent (indeed, he had opposed US recognition of the Soviet takeover of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia during the era of the Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact).  Although Welles had several marriages, he was forced out because he was also homosexual and had solicited sex with men.

            These two cases show that there were Soviet agents in government in high places – sometimes in most unexpected places.  Also, the Roosevelt Administration was more willing to force the retirement of a friend of the President because he was homosexual, than to fire Communists and Soviet agents.  To rephrase: the government deemed both Communist subversives and homosexual security risks as threats, though at different times, it seemed more interested in firing one than the other.  The red scare and the lavender scare were conflated in the minds of many, and some blame McCarthy, not only for the effort to rid the government of Communists and Soviet agents, but also of gays.  The reality was for more complex than is revealed in Evans book.

            Why were homosexuals considered security risks?  At the time, homosexuality was a mental illness and homosexual activity was a crime.  Thus, the assumption in government was that their promiscuous behavior would lead to possible arrest and blackmail whereby they might reveal the nation’s secrets.  In theory, this was not limited to gays, for there was the lingering image from WWI of the seductress Mata Hari passing on Allied secrets to the enemy Hun.  The issue would arise later when J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI discovered that Sen. John Kennedy had had a liaison with a pretty European gal who was thought to be an East German spy.  Yet, in reality, men having a good time with women did not result in punishment.  Indeed, it might enhance one’s reputation and result in promotion.  On the other hand, having a gay relationship was ground for dismissal.

            The issue of reds and lavenders is conflated from the outset of McCarthy’s charges of Communists employed by in the State Department in February 1950.  The following week Secretary of State Dean Acheson appeared before a Senate committee on another matter, where he was questioned about security in his department.  Replying for Acheson on this issue was Dept. of State official, John Peurifoy who announced that 91 had recently been dismissed as security risks.  However, under further questioning, it became clear that they were fired NOT for being Communists or Soviet agents; they were fired for being gay.

            When McCarthy demanded the firing of subversives, the Democratic Truman Administration, and even more so that of Republican Eisenhower, responded by firing sexual deviants instead.

            When McCarthy made his charges of Communists in the State Department, the Senate passed such a resolution to investigate the allegations.  Democratic Sen. Millard Tydings of Maryland was selected to chair the process.  Evans is particularly good at detailing the misuse of the committee by Tydings and its Democratic majority.  Tydings colluded with the Truman Administration and representatives of the State Department to investigate McCarthy, to allow his enemies like Owen Lattimore to expound at length and without interruption, to refuse to call McCarthy’s witnesses, to belittle the Wisconsin Senator, to whitewash any investigation of the Dept. of State, to issue a committee report that was incomplete, that lied about previous investigations conducted by the Republican controlled 80^th Congress; in short, the Tydings committee was a kangaroo court determined to avoid investigating Communists in government  and smear McCarthy instead.  Moreover, to prevent McCarthy from subpoenaing pertinent material, Truman had State Department files moved to the White House.  The Democrats developed a policy of smear and cover-up, while finessing the issue the committee was created to investigate – Communists in government.  Meanwhile, the liberal press portrayed McCarthy as the bully and mudslinger.

            Furthermore, when McCarthy revealed information about suspected subversives in government, the Truman Administration was far more worried about detecting McCarthy “moles,” than rooting out Communist spies.  Evans reveals how the Trumanites investigated thoroughly seeking out employees who were suspected of providing information to McCarthy.  Truman seemed to deem a whistle blower for McCarthy as a greater threat than a Soviet agent. 

            Were there subversives in State?  Evans details the Amerasia case whereby an official of State provided secret material to the journal that had Communist connections.  J. Edgar Hoover thought the case was “air tight,” but in 1945 a deal was made by higher-ups.  The DA who was to prosecute told the grand jury that the stolen material was of little import, Amerasia was an academic journal, and the incident should be ignored.  Following his lead, the grand jury voted against an indictment.  John Service, who was charged with stealing the papers which included military information, remained an employee at State.  Worse, informants later revealed that Service spent considerable time viewing the security files of many employees of the State Department.  As there was then no proper filing system, anyone who viewed the files could also remove damaging material, and no one would be aware that it was missing.  Such was security at State.

            But there had been problems in other areas of government, too.  Lauchlin Currie (“the Soviet’s man at the White House on China policies,” Arthur Herman, Joseph McCarthy, p. 111), for example, was an executive assistant to President Roosevelt in the early 1940s, with a specialty on China affairs.  In 1941 Currie arranged to have Roosevelt appoint Owen Lattimore as the President’s personal advisor to China’s Nationalist leader, Chiang Kai-shek.  Of course, Lattimore, like Currie, was hostile to Chiang and sympathetic to the rebel forces in Yenan under Mao Tse-tung.  The Americans in this group of China hands invariably reported that Chiang was “dictatorial,” “feudal,” “fascist,” “reactionary,” “corrupt,” etc.  By contrast, their reports of Mao and his rebels were glowing: “democratic,” “popular with the peasants,” “rational,” “progressive,” “resisting the Japanese,” etc.  After Japan surrendered, the Soviets marched into Manchuria, where they aided the Communists under Mao.  Should the US aid Chiang?  The China hands in State said no.  The 80^th Congress passed resolutions to aid Chiang, but subversives in the Treasury Dept. delayed and obstructed any transfer of money to the Chinese Nationalists.  When military aid was promised, again there was delay and obstruction.  Documents reveal it was purposely delayed.  Finally, when a small portion of the promised military materiel arrived in China, it was defective.  Was this American incompetence, or treason?  Who were the culprits?

            When Republicans asked, “Who lost China?” Democrats replied, “It was not ours to lose in the first place.”  Nevertheless, the Soviets were aiding the Communists, while subversives in the US government were preventing American aid from reaching Chiang and the anti-Communists.  Evans is superb in presenting much of this material.  And the same people in the American government were also writing off the little Chiang, Synghman Rhee of South Korea.  Moreover, the American leadership was planning to assassinate Chiang and award Taiwan to Mao and the mainland Communists.  Indeed, In January 1950 Secretary of State Dean Acheson announced that South Korean and Formosa were beyond the American security perimeter.  One weakness in Evans book is why Truman decided to about face in summer 1950.  After  declarinf South Korea beyond the security perimeter (and thus liable to be seized by the  North Korea), Truman decided to go to war (or police action) to defend South Korea and then placed the 7^th fleet near Taiwan to prevent the mainland Communists from invading that island.  This was a major policy change.  Who made the change?  More relevant, who had favored the old policy of appeasing the Communists?

            When there were public cases where officials were identified as Communists or spies, the Administration often pressured the accused to resign, but slowly, over time.  McCarthy wanted them fired, and complained that by allowing them to resign, they entered a revolving door whereby those exposed as subversives simply left one department for another, where in the new section no one would be aware of the possible danger.  Thus, the security problem would begin all over again.  Or those who were forced to resign left for positions with the UN, the International Monetary Fund, or other such influential posts.

            After the Republican victory in 1952, McCarthy became chair of a committee and hired various researchers, including a young attorney, Roy Cohn, who had helped in the prosecution of the Rosenbergs.  Cohn was aided by another young enthusiast, G. David Schine.  They travelled to Europe to expose the imbalance of materials in the American library reading rooms, that were meant to counter the Marxist culture of the Communists.  However, many of the books intended to promote the American way, were written by Communists and fellow travelers who undermined the West and praised the Soviets.  Cohn and Schine sought to purge the libraries, and liberals were quick to denounce them as book burners.  (Of course, the left had proudly burnt Nazi and right-wing materials in 1945.)  Still, one wonders if Orwell’s Animal Farm or The God That Failed collection existed in these libraries.  Certainly the Voice of America had continued its WWII left-wing approach to broadcasts: criticizing conservatives and praising socialists and communists.  Even in 1950 during the Korean War, VOA was broadcasting attacks on South Korea’s anti-Communist, Rhee.  One wonders if VOA broadcasters preferred Kim Il Sung, founder of the present dynasty in North Korea.  But to liberals of Europe and America, Cohn and Schine were simply a pair of intolerant witch-hunters.

            McCarthy charged that there was treason in military bases in New Jersey, where radar and sophisticated technical research was conducted.  There was good reason to believe that secrets from Jersey shore were washing up in Eastern Europe.  One officer, Maj. Gen. Kirke Lawton, alarmed about the problem of subversion in the area, cooperated with McCarthy.  Unfortunately, Lawton would then be sacked.  His replacement, Gen. Ralph Zwicker, was initially cooperative with the McCarthy inquiry, but quickly learnt the lesson of Lawton.  Over night, Zwicker changed tactics from cooperation to obstruction of and lying to McCarthy and his committee.  In time Zwicker was promoted.  That was the Army way.

            The Evans book includes so many facts and exposes of the liberals that one cannot detail them here.  Yet, sometimes Evans spotlights the trees and misses the forest.  This is especially true of the Army McCarthy Hearings.

            While McCarthy maintained that there was treason in New Jersey and that to expose and end it was the purpose of the hearings, the Army had another view.  It maintained that Roy Cohn had threatened to destroy the Army through the hearings because the Army was not granting sufficient privileges to his friend, the now draftee, Private G. David Schine.  The subtext was simple – Cohn wanted hearings to undermine the Army because he felt it was mistreating his boy friend.  The issue was not Red treason, but Lavender revenge.

            McCarthy had been an amateur boxer while a student at Marquette University and he had served during WWII; he had a macho image.  In the 1952 election campaign, McCarthy planned to make a speech attacking the Democratic nominee for President Adlai Stevenson.  There were some rumors about the divorced Democrat, and McCarthy proposed a television address to denounce the Stevenson campaign as one filled with “pinks, punks, and pansies.”  Democrats heard of the project and threatened to expose Eisenhower’s liaison with his WAC chauffeur, Kay Summersby.  The family guy Ike had even considered divorcing Mamie to marry his driver.(David K. Johnson’s The Lavender Scare, pp.121-22)  With the treat of retaliation, McCarthy then abandoned that speech and the Democrats remained silent about Eisenhower’s indiscretion.

            On McCarthy, David Johnson writes, “notorious for his attacks on alleged Communists in government, [McCarthy] was often pressured by his allies to denounce homosexuals in government, but he resisted and did not do so.”(Wikipedia, “gay bashing”)  Furthermore, “McCarthy was not involved in any of the congressional investigations or hearings into homosexuals in government.  Though he was a member of the congressional committee that spent several months examining the homosexuals-in-government issue, McCarthy mysteriously recused himself from those hearings.”(Johnson, Lavender, p. 3)  Johnson speculates that the reason may have been that McCarthy, 43 and unmarried, was himself vulnerable on this issue.     

                      In the Army-McCarthy hearings the Left, the Army, and the Eisenhower Administration sought to destroy McCarthy.  The Army again used deception and diversion, the Eisenhower Administration used cover up, and all used anti-gay prejudice to smash the McCarthy assault.  Army Council Welch spent much time inquiring about a cropped photograph of Private Schine with army officers.   Instead of the GOP questions like “Who lost China?” Welch queried, “Who cropped the Schine photo?”  Cohn was called as a witness.  His “own performance on the stand was, as he admitted a quarter-century later, ‘a disaster’…The unsympathetic [Sen.] McClellan pressed him on whether there was something ‘unusual’ about his relationship with David Schine.  Cohn shifted uneasily and said no.  Then Welch had his sport with him.  Earlier he had worked in a nasty comment about ‘pixies’ and ‘fairies’ having handled the cropped photograph, which raised gales of laughter from the audience…”(Herman, p. 273)  The hearings were televised.  In an era when I Love Luch could not use the word ‘pregnant’ to describe her condition, the liberal Welch was taunting Cohn with words implying he was queer.  Yet, McCarthy is the man whom history portrays as the bully and mudslinger.

            There were tapes made of the Army officials preparing their trumped-up case against Cohn about trying to destroy the Army.  Their whole purpose was to obfuscate, divert attention from the question of possible spies on Jersey military bases, and point instead to Cohn’s queer-love vendetta against the Army.  The Army knew there was nothing to Cohn’s “threat”;  the entire Army case against McCarthy and Cohn was a fraud.  The tapes would reveal that.  And when McCarthy sought to subpoena them, Eisenhower invoked Executive Privilege to deny revealing the tapes.  Evans explicates how the New York Times and Washington Post cheered as the President rejected the demands of Congress for such data.  They expounded how Eisenhower was simply upholding the Constitution and the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. The liberal Establishment all agreed with Ike, Congress had no power to subpoena the tapes.

            Evans is superb at exposing the hypocrisy of the liberals – for when Congress demanded another set of tapes in the 1970s from President Richard Nixon, those very same newspapers reversed themselves and joined the demand.  When Nixon invoked Executive Privilege to prevent Congress from snooping into the President’s affairs, the liberals denied there was such a privilege, and responded with impeachment.  But in the 1950s the same liberal Establishment praised Ike for doing what they would later condemn Nixon for doing.  The liberals did not demand the impeachment of Eisenhower – they demanded the destruction of McCarthy.

            “On June 1 [1954, liberal Republican] Ralph Flanders gave one of the nastiest, ugliest speeches ever made in the Senate Chamber…It compared him[McCarthy] to Hitler…and accused him of homosexuality…Flanders spoke of Cohn’s ‘passionate anxiety’ to protect David Schine and insinuated that McCarthy had his own reason to keep Schines’s ‘services available.’  He urged the Mundt subcommittee to investigate the ‘real issue at stake’ in the McCarthy-Cohn-Schine triangle.”(Herman, p. 274)  McCarthy did not marry until he was 44, and liberal columnist Drew Pearson had provided information which was published in Nevada alleging that McCarthy had partaken in gay activities.  On the other hand, Evans discounts the story that McCarthy or Schine were homosexual, but concedes that Cohn was.

            The Army McCarthy hearings were followed by the Senate’s censure of the Wisconsin Senator in December 1954.  All the Democrats joined with half the Republicans to condemn McCarthy.  (Democrat Sen. John Kennedy did not vote because he was in hospital recuperating from back surgery.)   Thereafter, McCarthy would cease to be a political force.  Spent, he drank more and died in May 1957 at age 48.  His name became an “ism,” a synonym for witch hunts, irresponsible charges, cruelty, smears, and bullying.

            But was McCarthy right?  Putin gloats in 2012 because of the help provided by American spies who helped to make the USSR/Russia a nuclear power.  Putin knows what is in the archives of the spy agencies in Moscow.  However, what is held in the archives of the agencies in Beijing?  Herman writes (p. 168): “In 1945 George Marshall went to China to try to arrange a truce between the warring factions and to propose a coalition government.  Chiang refused, and despaired of Marshall’s and the American government’s naivete in dealing with the Communists.  The result was an American aid embargo to force Chiang’s hand, which lasted until April 1948 – while Mao’s Communists were receiving constant supplies and training from Stalin.  When the Truman administration finally lifted the embargo and authorized an aid package of $400 million, it delayed delivery until November.  By then the Communists were poised for their victorious campaign.”

            Evans clarifies this even more.  The US withheld aid toChiang until he formed a coalition government with the Communists.  In effect, this gave the Chinese Communists a veto power over aid to Chiang.  Because the Communists refused to enter into an agreement with the Nationalists, the US government responded by cutting of aid to Chiang.  Under the circumstances, the Communists did not enter into the coalition, and Chiang received no American aid.  Meanwhile, the Communists received Soviet aid and grew more powerful.(Evans, 416-17)  

            “Sinister figures like Lauchlin Currie flit in and out of the story,…, and FE [foreign expert] officials like [John Stewart] Service and [John Carter] Vincent worked hard to undermine official and public support for the Nationalists.  One of the critical factors in Chiang’s collapse, a rampant inflation and a worthless currency, was certainly engineered by Soviet agents in the Kuomingtang and the American Treasury Department…But when all is said and done, if Chiang would have been an inadequate leader for the Chinese people, Mao was a disastrous one.  If Chiang was willing to countenance corruption and incompetence, Mao was prepared to commit mass murder: perhaps as many as 50 million would die between 1949 and 1969 thanks to Mao’s policies.”(Herman, 168)

            McCarthy was demanding that some of those responsible for America’s pro-Mao policy  be exposed, fired, and not transferred to another government department or to the UN.

            Evans reveals another aspect of the Cold War – but occurring prior to McCarthy’s prominence.  The FBI and other investigations of Communists in government had taken place, especially with the Hitler-Stalin pact.  The FBI even had a list of people to be detained in case of emergency, like J. Robert Oppenheimer.  However, in 1944 government agencies began to remove such anti-communist files to basements, or remote locations, away from personnel offices.  Then many of those files were discarded or disappeared.  In 1950 when McCarthy charged that there were subversives on government payrolls, in time the government would finally tighten security.

            In any bureaucracy, whistle-blowers are usually unappreciated and often considered a threat by and to the directors of the department.  When McCarthy encouraged everyday workers in government to send him information about possible subversives, both  the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations saw him as a threat.  Their actions demonstrate they considered McCarthy “moles” more of a threat than Communist “moles.”

            In taking on the government, McCarthy felt the wrath of the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations, and he endured the hatred of the Left and the Liberal Establishment.  The New York Times, the Washington Post, Edward R. Murrow of CBS, academia, all pitched stories with sufficient spin so that McCarthy would finally strike out. After the censure by the Senate, the Establishment had won.  It might have advised McCarthy, in the manner of the friends of Job, “to curse God and die.”  McCarthy may well have cursed some, but it is unlikely he cursed God.  He died two years after censure, along with his reputation.

            Putin’s boast of 2012 must make us ponder.  Who stuffed the suitcases for Stalin?  Did American “advisors” pull the rug from Chiang and propel Mao to power in China?  Did subversives inside the American government help to accomplish this – and all the millions of murders that ensued?  (In March 2012 even Chinese Communist Premier Wen Jiabao called the Cultural Revolution an “historical tragedy” disaster for China.)  It is time to reconsider McCarthy, and books and by Evans and Herman’s can help us to do just that.