Commies in Government

We’ve been reading and hearing a lot recently about FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) and DOJ (Department of Justice)and State Department leaders and employees who seem, at the very least, to have no love for America. Let me state that this is nothing new. Nor is there anything revelatory in recognizing that Ivy League grads tend to be leftists. In a review article I wrote a decade ago I highlighted this tendency in U.S. government bureaus as shown by M. Stanton Evans, in his book Blacklisted by History. For those of you struggling to understand “cold war” history, it might be worth your while to find a copy of this book and give it a read. The entire review article can be found below. Please give special attention to the paragraphs in colored ink.

Blacklisted by History Jeopardizes Standard Liberal Storyline Wild-Eyed Myth Encounters the Real Joe McCarthy

Published in the Pearcey Report- http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2008/01/wildeyed_myth_e.php

By Curt Lovelace

At Friendship Street School in the early 1950s, we were taught that hiding under our school desks would save us from nuclear attack –- which, in the lingua franca of the day, the Satan-loving Commies in the Kremlin were poised to rain down upon us at any moment. These exercises were the famous “duck and cover” drills.   Yet, while we feared Communist-initiated death from the skies, as a nation we tolerated -– even fostered -– Soviet activity within our own government.

While trying to find a place to hide from nuclear destruction, we somehow felt safe

enough to vilify Joseph McCarthy, a U.S. senator from America’s heartland who tried to root out the Reds from service in our federal apparatus. So successful were efforts against the senator that the term McCarthyism has become synonymous with wild-eyed fanaticism.

I recall the tales of Joe McCarthy and the anxiety of the 1950s. At the very onset of the Cold War, Americans were told whom we ought to fear, and it wasn’t so much the Communists, though they were bad enough. Why, it was McCarthy and his “ism” that brought terror to men’s hearts.   But was this any way to treat a former ally of WWII? If so, why? Why the about-face to the Soviet Union? This is one of the questions M. Stanton Evans tries to answer in his recently released Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies.

According to Evans, the real Joe McCarthy has been lost, “vanished into the mists of fable and recycled error.” This new 600-plus-page book is an attempt to separate fact from myth, and in the process, Evans shows McCarthy to be, yes, human (his foibles are not overlooked), a whistleblower, and (gulp!) a patriot.

Coulter Factor

The recovery of the historical McCarthy as a genuine patriot is just one of many reasons liberal academics and “objective” modern journalists might hate this book. Then, of course, there’s the fact that Ann Coulter liked it. Coulter has written positively, in fact, glowingly, about McCarthy in her own book, Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. She has also penned an essay titled “Joe McCarthy invented the Internet.”

In her review of Blacklisted, Coulter writes, “The true story of Joe McCarthy, told in meticulous, irrefutable detail . . . is that from 1938 to 1946, the Democratic Party acquiesced in a monstrous conspiracy being run through the State Department, the military establishment, and even the White House to advance the Soviet cause within the U.S. government.”   Not quite done, she in her typically understated manner says Blacklisted “proves that every conventional belief about McCarthy is wrong.” For example:

  •  “That he lied about his war service: He was a tailgunner in World War II”
  •  “That he was a drunk: He would generally nurse a single drink all night”
  •  “That he made the whole thing up: He produced loads of Soviet spies in government jobs”
  •  “That he just did it for political gain: He understood perfectly the godless evil of communism”

What can we say? When Ann’s right, she’s right. Based on years of research, Evans has indeed produced the goods. He shows from transcripts of memos, interviews, and testimony that McCarthy had it right.

Evans includes facsimiles of numerous documents that name names and prove connections.   Evans links names of Communists and fellow-travelers to the agencies of the federal government in which they worked as well as to the Soviet or Communist organizations to which they belonged. These federal agencies include the FBI, headed by radical anti-Communist J. Edgar Hoover. The Bureau was excoriated in the 1940s and 1950s for a lack of knowledge regarding the Communist Party and its various front organizations. The FBI was accused of both withholding facts from President Harry Truman and of allowing Reds to run riot in the federal bureaucracy. But according to Evans, the “FBI was neither fooled by nor indifferent to Soviet penetration efforts in the 1940s. Nor was it unaware that the Communist Party USA was a creature of the Soviet Union, up to its ears in spying, pro-Moscow influence schemes, and other species of subversion” (p. 136).  

Evans devotes an entire chapter (11) to Hoover and Truman, quoting from numerous internal FBI memos that prove not only that Hoover knew about the Communist threat, but also that he informed the President and administration. The chapter concludes with a copy of the “FBI Master Chart” from Hoover’s files. The chart offers an overview of memos, and other information, that were disseminated to the White House, the Office of the Attorney General, and federal agencies that employed suspected or known Communists.

Khrushchev 1956, Reason to Be Cocky

According to an AP report released late in 2007, Hoover had planned to arrest 12,000 Americans whom the FBI had evidence demonstrating disloyalty to their country. Evans contends that many in positions of authority knew how great was the infiltration of our government by those who would destroy it. Evidently, when in 1956 Nikita Khrushchev asserted, “We will bury you,” he had reason to be cocky. He knew what Hoover and McCarthy and Rep. Martin Dies before him all knew: The U.S. government was deeply compromised.   Dies, a conservative Democrat from Texas, was the “first and longest-serving chairman of what would become the House Committee on Un-American Activities” (p. 49). McCarthy, by the way, was never a member of this House committee, though his name is inextricably linked to it. He was a Senator, not a member of the House of Representatives.

According to common folklore, McCarthy “was spreading hysteria about an ersatz internal Communist threat and smearing innocent people as subversives, without a shred of evidence to go on” (p. 15). That story was and is knowably false, as Evans has so well demonstrated.   But one wonders why today that convenient mythology is held onto so fervently by liberal types who applaud propagandists Al Gore and Michael Moore for their respective Nobel Peace Prize and Academy Award. Perhaps today’s Left seeks refuge in victimhood, feeling an affinity with those poor, afflicted anti-American souls upon whom Joe McCarthy unleashed what is now recast as a torrent of “hate” and “vitriol.”

Perhaps, modern Leftists hope to forestall scrutiny of their work lest their anti-Americanism is exposed to the common people and their time in the sun be all too brief. Leftist elitism runs rampant in our media, our universities, even in our pulpits today. As during the Cold War, one wonders about the loyalty and even the intelligence of those who offer aid and comfort to the enemies of our nation.

For example, what makes today’s liberal think that, if radical revolutionaries –- whether domestic born or foreign controlled — should scuttle the American experiment, that liberals themselves won’t be first in line for membership in the vast left-wing gulag or next on the executioner’s schedule?   Evans provides something of an answer to this question. He points out that the Communists who were exposed in Britain and the United States tended to be of the “upper crust.” McCarthy’s targets, Evans writes, “often as not, were Ivy League respectable types in the mold of Hiss or Duggan” (p. 64). Alger Hiss, of course, is one of the most well-known names in American treachery. Evans describes him as “a well-bred, respectable type with all the right credentials.” Hiss was “one of a numerous, often upscale, band of brothers. William Remington, Donald Wheeler, Henry Collins, Duncan Lee, Laurence Duggan, Robert Miller, and others involved in Red machinations in the United States had been to the best schools, spoke in cultured accents, and had upper-crust connections” (p. 62).  

Respectable Haters Of Republic of Freedom Flash-forward to the present and we see that today’s Leftist tends to be from Harvard or Yale and has, if not buckets of money, at least access to lots of cash. Much as with the European aristocracy of old, nationality means little to this modern nobility. Patriotism is something to be scoffed at, ridiculed, and perhaps outlawed. “Wrapping oneself in the flag” is a negative, outmoded manifestation of peasantry.

The global gentry has the ability to see beyond that kind of primitivism to a time and place in which the ever-growing “compassionate” state (manned, not jailed, by that very same nobility) orders our existence. After all, they are smarter than we the people. Isn’t that why the “smartest woman in the world” wants to be President?   The political affiliation of these respectable haters of the republic of freedom has changed little. Nor has their Marxian ability to change viewpoints to suit their need been affected by time. Evans points this up brilliantly when noting how Executive Privilege was then used to keep some federal employees from testifying before Congress regarding what they knew and when they knew it.

As a member of the House, and later as Vice President, Richard Nixon would be party to those discussions, which more often than not upheld the right of Executive Privilege. He, however, would be extended no such privilege during his own time of crisis. “If Nixon had such expectations,” Evans writes regarding the Watergate investigation, “he was in for a rude surprise. It turned out that what had been a sacred constitutional precept when invoked by Ike against Joe McCarthy wasn’t so sacred when invoked by Nixon against Sam Ervin. (p. 580).

Although some may find that this admirable book could be more readable in parts, no student of history should shy away from this wonderful resource. It is well worth mining for nuggets and even whole veins of truth.

In Blacklisted by History, Evans wrote a truly timely book. He sets out to verify what McCarthy tried to tell the nation: that we were being overrun from within. Evans has made his case. Then, as now, there was more to concern America and her freedoms than bombs falling out of the sky.

MY READERS, please note: this article – and the book about which it was written, appeared a decade ago.  The morass in which we find ourselves is no new thing. And it’s our own fault. We keep electing the American jihadis who hate the American way as they hide behind their own walls in their gated communities.

I really want your feedback Americans.

Curt Lovelace holds degrees in political science and history, and pastored several churches. His writings have appeared in Human Events, World, Chalcedon Report, and elsewhere.

Advertisements

Self-Hate as a Societal Norm

As I have been looking for work, I have tended to keep away from controversy online, recognizing that prospective employers may read what I write and attach their own meanings. “He’s not in favor of my ‘isms’” is a an easy way to pare down the numbers of recruits and interviews. Now, however, recognizing that I may well have been “aged-out” of meaningful employment in the fields for which I have been trained and educated and spent decades mastering, I will once again enter the fray.

I’ll start with this: I am white. So were my parents. So are my siblings. My wife is also white, as are our children. No apologies here. In the words of that great philosopher, Popeye the sailor –Man, “I yam what I yam.”

I also fit into a number of other categories which are generally despised by progressive society today. I am married to a woman. I am a Christian. I am pro-life. Deal with it – or don’t. Not my problem. I refer you back to Popeye.

My thoughts on the destruction of American society are not recently acquired. In fact, I am reposting, below, an essay I penned a couple of years ago. My thoughts on the subject matter were not new then, either, but a lot of my thinking on societal issues is revealed.

So, have at it. Enjoy it. Hate it. Comment on it. Try to employ a little civility, though.

“Duke offers men a ‘safe space’ to contemplate their ‘toxic masculinity’” reads the headline in a news story published online Sunday morning October 2, 2016. The dateline might have been “Moscow, USSR, 1960.”

This is America, 2016. Everyone (except a few now-anointed minorities) is considered toxic and offensive. By virtue of having been born male, or white, or middle class, entire segments of the population have been deemed worthy of scorn.

The news story defines the mission thusly,

The Duke Men’s Project, launched this month and hosted by the campus Women’s Center, offers a nine-week program for “male-identified” students that discusses male privilege, patriarchy, “the language of dominance,” rape culture, pornography, machismo and other topics.

While nations of the former Soviet bloc seek to distance themselves from their communist past, America rushes headlong into the numbing and dehumanizing morass of Marxism-Leninism. Consider this excerpt from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia.

Marx regarded “the weapon of criticism” as an effective means of the proletariat’s class struggle under the conditions of capitalist society, with its inherent social antagonisms. Lenin stressed the vital importance of criticism and self-criticism for carrying out the socialist revolution and for the work of the Communist party. In the course of the workers’ and communist movement and the national liberation struggle of peoples the weapon of criticism has been extensively employed to expose the exploitative essence of capitalism and the policies of the ruling classes and to bring about the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system and the liberation of the toiling people from social and national oppression.

Under socialism, the change in the nature of social relations and the elimination of antagonistic contradictions and exploiter classes fundamentally alter the purpose and nature of criticism. The weapon for the destruction and revolutionary overthrow of the old system becomes an instrument for the creation of socialism and communism.

Notice the aim of the self-criticism: to get rid of the old system (capitalism and democracy) and replace it with the glorious socialist and communist state.

Self-criticism is neither unheard of nor totally unwelcome in Christian circles. In fact, confession, as it is properly called, is one of the duties of the Christian. James 5:16 tells us, “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.”

The purpose of such declarations of our own sinfulness is not the creation of a Godless state, however, as is the aim of the self-criticism session. Rather, the aims of confession to one another are unity and healing. We are not confessing for the party bosses to hear us. We are proclaiming our need for prayer and claiming for ourselves the prayer of the Godly. The admonition to pray for one another, for the other members of the household of faith, is found in many places throughout God’s Word.

America is in a bad place. Americans today are thin-skinned and intolerant; easily offended by the least offensive statements and acts.

Perhaps these modern self-criticism sessions are a plea for prayer. Certainly our nation needs it. Pray for our country and for the generations of Americans affected by the current wave of self-loathing called for by those who do not recognize the image of God in mankind.

 

Coram Deo Farm Weekend

A couple of weekends ago, Sandra and I spoke at a conference at a farm in Thorndike, Maine. At the Coram Deo Farm website we find this description of the mission of the farm:

Coram Deo Farm has been established to provide an educational environment for those interested in homesteading and sustainable farming practices. We plan to provide instruction in composting, renewable energy design and installation, husbandry, and organic farming and permaculture.

Our goal is to incorporate homesteading courses in a way that glorifies our creator by applying Biblical principles and theological thought to the practice of self sufficiency. In this process we hope to encourage a young generation of potential farmers to support themselves and be a gracious example among the community by offering a portion of their crops to individuals in need.

At this first weekend of events at the farm, I spoke three times on the topic: “Is God Green?” We talked about the history of “environmentalism,” some of the hot-button topics such as the “greenhouse effect,” global warming/cooling/climate change, and population. Then we addressed the Biblical view on the creation and its Creator and application of Biblical principles.

Of course, we concluded that God is Green.

IMG_0095 (1)

Some twenty-five to thirty adults attended the talks and many children were in attendance. Sandra spoke to a group of women on the topic: “Nurturing an Organic Lifestyle,” addressing the idea of developing a lifestyle of harmony from the inside out. She also introduced the ladies to her Old Testament friend, Naomi.

BTW, we slept in a tent.

A Political Aside

This post did not go up when I scheduled it. Maybe better late than never.

It has been a while since I posted a political piece. So, here we go. Before I began what will basically be a rant, let me ask you to:

pray that I’m wrong.

In the Bible book of Daniel chapter 5  we read of Belshazzar, King of Babylonia who was holding a big banquet. During the banquet he saw a human finger write a message on the wall. That message was mene, mene, tekel, parson.  Try as he might, Belshazzar could not find a wise man or astrologer who could interpret this. Then the queen suggested he call upon Daniel, a Jewish exile. Daniel interpreted the inscription. It was not positive. In fact, the king died that very night.

Well, I believe that the handwriting is on the wall for the upcoming presidential election in the U.S. I believe that I can interpret it – and it’s not good.

thI believe the election is over. It’s rigged and the winner is already determined. Consider this. There have been one caucus and one primary so far. On the Democrat side, Bernie Sanders has come out of the two events with a tie Decided by flipping a coin six times) and a decisive win. Yet he is very far behind in the delegate count. I haven’t even described the “coin-toss victory” of Hillary Clinton in Iowa. There were six tosses to decide the winner, and she won each of them. How likely is that? Well, according to one political blog,

We find that the percentage odds of correctly calling the outcome of 6 coin tosses exactly 6 times by chance is 1.56%, or rather, the odds are that this exact outcome will occur by chance just once in 64 opportunities.

Which is also to say that there was a 98.44% chance that this outcome would not occur by chance.

It seems fixed; rigged; settled. OK, so the Democrats, by means of “Super Delegates” choose Hillary to be their candidate. What of the general election? There is another party,  after all, isn’t there? The Democrat machine seems to have many tools in its arsenal to take care of that as well. Consider these factors:

  • The liberal Media (Is that redundant?)
  • Illegal voters (Illegal aliens, dead voters, and multiple ballot voters)
  • Democrat-dependent voters (Keep them fat and happy; give them a ride to the polls; give them a new phone and EBT card)
  • The Republican Party acting like the church (being divisive and shooting their wounded)

The Democrats are not going to leave this election up to the legitimate voters and the Supreme Court as they were forced to do in 2000 with the Bush-Gore race being decided by the justices. They cannot afford to be legit, especially with a Supreme Court seat likely to be waiting to be filled.

So, will the Democrat machine thwart God’s will? As the Apostle Paul was wont to answer to many a question (usually posed by himself), μει  γενοιτω. This is variously translated: “may it never be”, “God forbid,” and “No way.” Romans 13, verse 1 states, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” In 1 Peter 2, verses 13-15, we likewise read,

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor  as supreme,  or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

God institutes the authorities. Governors are sent by Him.

Be not fooled, friends. No matter how this election turns out, God is still in charge. He has a plan – and it may be time for punishment for the arrogant nation known as the United States of America.

I predict that Hillary has already won.

PLEASE PRAY THAT I AM WRONG.

Kindle Version of Children in Church

 

CIC coverChildren in Church: Nurturing Hearts of Worship is currently available at the Amazon Kindle store for only $9.99.

Certainly I would appreciate you buying it, but I would also appreciate it if you would write a review at Amazon.

This book is not a “how to,” nor is it a polemic. It is an encouragement for families to bring their children into the worship experience of the church, with Scriptural foundation, practical tips, and many personal anecdotes.

 

Is God Green?

As the northeastern part of the United States stumbles toward a real springtime season, some Great Lakes regions are still fighting huge blocks of ice encroaching on the land and homes. Is this “Global Warming.” Made-up science is not science. Who’s to blame for the scenarios created by the “experts?” Why, we are. We are polluters, and therefore guilty of killing the planet.th

Is pollution something to be taken seriously? Yes. Clean streets, clean water, clean air are all important. We don’t need to create scenarios worse than reality to realize this. We don’t need new draconian regulations from the EPA which strangle peoples’ ability to even use their own land.

From the might-someday-be-published, “Is God Green?” by Curt Lovelace