Standing with Sources and more FDR Criticism – PT Two


Herbert Romerstein

John R. Houk

© August 14, 2014

 

This is where I continue from Part One. I will get to the Marxist infiltration of the FDR Administration in more detail, but I still need to address the Conservative source that I sense Leftists will gripe as Right Wing propaganda.

 

I had to explain using Jonah Goldberg as a source because he was the source DTN used to compare FDR New Deal actions with totalitarian nations Germany, Italy and Japan which operated on a Fascist paradigm of Corporate Nationalistic Socialism. Then I went to M. Stanton Evans as a source of some of the revelations of Soviet-Marxist infiltration Roosevelt’s U.S. Government.

 

For me Evans is the expert on Soviet infiltration, but as I discovered in Part One, Ronald Radosh is the go-to-guy for all things Cold War involving the former USSR. Radosh criticizes Evans’ 2007 book, “Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies”. And Radosh is fairly critical of Evans’ scholastic work. Evans responds to Radosh’s criticism of his scholarly work with just as much vigor in a response. So unless you read the primary sources for yourself you are left with the decision – Whom do you believe?

 

Trust me, both Radosh and Evans have plenty of fellow Conservatives that agree with each one of them. The irony is that both of them agree on one thing; viz. that there was Marxist-Soviet infiltration in the U.S. Government. Their disagreement is largely based on each other’s interpretation of the primary sources to the degree of infiltration and as to who was an actual infiltrator and who was character assassinated by Senator Joe McCarthy. Radosh sticks to the vilification of McCarthy and Evans takes the path that McCarthy’s image needs to be redeemed from vilification.

 

I first became acquainted with “Blacklisted” via Ann Coulter in her review that I included in an old SlantRight.com post I entitled “The Redemption of Joe McCarthy”. Since the days of 2007 Evans has written a kind of update or sequel to “Blacklisted” along with the former head of the U.S. Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation – Herbert Romerstein. This book was published in late 2012 and is entitled, “Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government”.

 

So how credible is Herbert Romerstein? Romerstein passed away in May 2013. To get a feel for just how significant his knowledge base I read two obituaries. One from Wes Vernon on Renew America and the other from Cliff Kincade at Accuracy in Media (AIM).

 

 

… His expertise earned him high intelligence and counter-subversion posts in the legislative and executive branches of government. His positions included being a lead investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities (later the House Committee on Internal Security), and the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence. His encyclopedic knowledge was also shared in testimony before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and the Subversive Activities Control Board.

 

He had an understanding of the Cold War that was so voluminous it would be a challenge to find anyone who can match it and carry on its work. Of course, much of that understanding has been building up over the years in his own personal library. Thankfully those works will be preserved by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. But how can one possibly duplicate the volumes of detailed material that Herb carried in his head? …

 

 

Herb – born in 1931 – joined the Communist Youth League, and then the Communist Party. In 1950 when the Korean War broke out, his nagging doubts about communism quickly became revulsion, and he joined the U.S. Army, fought the Communists on the battlefields of Asia, and returned home to wage lifelong war against them on the battlefield of ideas with an investigative fervor fixated on exposing their subversion of U.S. society and their mischief throughout the world.

 

 

Herb’s other volumes included The KGB Against the Main Enemy: How the Intelligence Service Operates in the U.S. (co-authored with Stanislav Levchenko); Soviet Active Measures and Propaganda: New Thinking in the Gorbachev Era; The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors, co-authored by Eric Breindel (where no relevant details in the record of FDR Svengali Harry Hopkins are spared – more on that below); and Stalin’s Secret Agents: the Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government co-authored with M. Stanton Evans. (This book provides shocking revelations on which the current series of our column is based.)

 

READ ENTIRETY (Herbert Romerstein (RIP): Part 7: Stalin’s Secret Agents (and an American who fought them for over 60 years until his dying breath); By Wes Vernon; Renew America; 5/16/13)

 

Five months before Barack Obama was elected to his first term as president, Herbert Romerstein and I finished a Washington, D.C. briefing on “The Stealth Candidate”—Barack Obama—and his communist connections. …

 

 

It’s true that Herb worked for the House Committee on Un-American Activities. He also worked for the House Internal Security Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, and headed the Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation and Active Measures of the United States Information Agency. He was part of the Reagan Revolution that safeguarded our freedom and turned back the Soviet Union and its proxies in the 1980s. As a result of his research in the archives of the Communist International in Moscow, which were briefly opened for outside inspection after the Soviet collapse, Herb ascertained that Harry Bridges of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union had been a secret member of the Communist Party USA. Bridges had always denied party membership.

 

 

Herb’s passing has left the anti-communist cause without a walking encyclopedia of knowledge about the conflict between communism and freedom. His archives have been acquired by the Hoover Institution. Milbank and other reporters would rather see them burned.

 

Some may not know that this fierce anti-communist was once a communist himself. Herb was in the tradition of Whittaker Chambers, the ex-communist who exposed Alger Hiss. His books included The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage, co-authored with Eric Breindel, and Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government, co-authored with veteran journalist M. Stanton Evans. It documents how hundreds of Soviet agents infiltrated the U.S. government during and after the World War II period.

 

 

Herb’s masterful report, “From Henry Wallace to William Ayers – the Communist and ‘Progressive’ Movements,” analyzes how Henry Wallace’s Third Party Movement in 1948—the Progressive Party—was under total Communist Party control, and he explains how the “New Left” of the 1960s and 70s included Communists involved in such groups as Students for a Democratic Society and its terrorist offspring, the Weather Underground. Some of them would later become members of “Progressives for Obama.”

 

The problems in Congress did not escape Herb’s attention and will be the subject of a forthcoming book from Trevor Loudon. In addition to exposing Ted Kennedy’s collaboration with the KGB against the Reagan Administration, Herb filled in some of the most important details about the communist background of Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).

 

Herb’s interest in the Barbara Lee story actually began in 1984, when Herb was selected, along with Michael Ledeen, to analyze documents captured on Grenada after the U.S. liberation of that island from communists. The result was Grenada documents: an overview and selection, an extraordinary compilation of documents on how a communist regime operates.

 

Some of the documents demonstrated that … READ ENTIRETY (The Wit and Wisdom of Herbert Romerstein; By Cliff Kincaid; AIM; 5/13/13)

 

The once reputable Kirkus Reviews has harsh words in reviewing “Stalin’s Secret Agents” by Evans and Romerstein:

 

 

… Evans and Romerstein discuss the roles of Alger Hiss and Armand Hammer, and they cite an impressive array of sources in both English and Russian. However, as has been their practice for decades, the authors equate presence at an event—e.g., Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill at Yalta—with the covert wielding of tremendous influence. That Hiss, Hammer and others accused of treason by Evans and Romerstein could have achieved the results for which they are blamed falls into the realm of speculation, no matter the breadth of research. Their speculation is interesting, and some may be true, but their seeming inability to distinguish between factual evidence and assumption weakens the book. …

 

This treatment of an important topic is tainted by excesses of preconception and ideology. (Kirkus Reviews: “STALIN’S SECRET AGENTS: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government”)

 

The original Kirkus Reviews had its beginning by its founder Virginia Kirkus in the early 1930s originally as a book reviewer for Librarians. This lineage ended in 2009. I don’t know the story of who picked up the rights to the brand name but the Kirkus Reviews was resurrected in 2010 as an online book reviewer. The blog The Passive Voice exposes the current Kirkus Reviews as a mere shell of its former integrity. PG excerpts from an article at Indies Unlimited. PG provides a link but seems to have removed the original article or perhaps changed its url address. When I did a search on Indies Unlimited I discovered their outlook must have changed about Kirkus Reviews because now the only related posts seem to be pertaining to glowing relationship based on interviews with the current Kirkus Reviews Senior Editor Karen Schechner. Regardless of the change of attitudes by Indies Unlimited you should read the excerpts from PG. I excerpt PG’s feelings about Kirkus Reviews which can be found at the of the Indies Unlimited original excerpts (How’s that for repetitive and confusing name-usage?):

 

PG says Old Kirkus had some credibility. In his unflinchingly humble opinion, for indies, New Kirkus is pretty much a vanity review publisher.

 

The article in Indies Unlimited estimates Kirkus has a circulation of about 3,000. That’s fewer people than come to The Passive Voice on most days.

 

… (Kirkus Reviews: A Disparity Apparent; Passive Voice; 2/1/14)

 

The point being when it comes to political reviews Kirkus Reviews seems to concur with Leftist generalizations than praising the original documentation for what it is. The Kirkus Reviews of Evans and Romerstein’s expose on the FDR and to a certain extant the Truman Administration simultaneously uses the words “breadth of research” its culminating sentence: “This treatment of an important topic is tainted by excesses of preconception and ideology.” Wow, talking about bias in preconception and ideology. There is criticism without actual critical citation.

 

End Part Two

 

JRH 8/14/14

Please Support NCCR

 

Standing with Sources and more FDR Criticism – PT One


Stalin-FDR sitting side-by-side

John R. Houk

© August 13, 2013

 

I have been on a general quest to examine the impeachable offenses of past Presidents from the 20th century to the present. So far I have posted on Theodore Roosevelt to Warren Harding followed by Calvin Coolidge to Franklin Roosevelt.

 

In looking at FDR I focused primarily on the impeachable potential related to the New Deal still hailed under the mythology as digging the USA out of the Great Depression. I showed that the numbers do not match the mythology. Most realistic Economists show that the American prosperity returned to the USA largely to the war production involved in building a military to confront a two-theater war against Nazi Germany (Europe and N. Africa) and Imperial Japan (Pacific and Asia).

 

I was thinking after I posted on FDR that there are other nefarious actions that I believe under the U.S. Constitution could have been impeachable. BUT I sincerely doubt such info was made public even by people who knew and even in the present Democrats would pooh-pooh the documented evidence as Conservative sour grapes meant to smear a man under hero worship in American history.

 

The nefarious actions I did not get to in writing of FDR potential impeachable offensives is the degree that Marxism had infiltrated his Administration. But before I get to the Marxist-FDR issue I feel the need to address one of the sources in the last post that looked at FDR.

 

I did allude that the Presidential powers enjoyed by FDR were near dictatorial. The primary source for the dictatorial accusation about FDR comes from Jonah Goldberg. As a Conservative I like Jonah Goldberg. Here is a short profile from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI):

 

Research Areas:

 

·         U.S. politics and culture

 

·         The Progressive movement

 

·         The Conservative movement

 

·        Media

 

 

A bestselling author and columnist, Jonah Goldberg’s nationally syndicated column appears regularly in scores of newspapers across the United States. He is also a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, a member of the board of contributors to USA Today, a contributor to Fox News, a contributing editor to National Review, and the founding editor of National Review Online. He was named by the Atlantic magazine as one of the top 50 political commentators in America. In 2011 he was named the Robert J. Novak Journalist of the Year at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He has written on politics, media, and culture for a wide variety of publications and has appeared on numerous television and radio programs. Prior to joining National Review, he was a founding producer for Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg on PBS and wrote and produced several other PBS documentaries. He is the recipient of the prestigious Lowell Thomas Award. He is the author of two New York Times bestsellers, The Tyranny of Clichés (Sentinel HC, 2012) and Liberal Fascism (Doubleday, 2008).  At AEI, Mr. Goldberg writes about political and cultural issues for American.com and the Enterprise Blog.

 

Experience

 

·         Contributing editor, National Review, 1998 – present

 

·         Founding editor, editor-at-large, National Review Online, 1998 – present

 

·         Columnist, 1999-present

 

·         Senior Producer, Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg, 1994 – 98

 

·         Research assistant, American Enterprise Institute, 1992 – 94

 

Education

 

B.A., Goucher College

 

All in all as a Conservative I find these credentials quite respectable. It would be even nicer if Goldberg was able to add a Masters and a Ph.D. to his résumé. Lacking the academic credentials it has been a boon for Progressives when they notice that either Goldberg or a publicist (or maybe both) have inflated his honors. The use of false honors admittedly tarnish books and articles in their credibility in scholarship.

 

Here are a couple examples from Left Wing online rags that have taken the full opportunity to impugn Jonah Goldberg:

 

Jonah Goldberg profile picture including glowing profile

clip_image001

 

On the dust jacket of his new book, “The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas,” best-selling conservative author and commentator Jonah Goldberg is described as having “twice been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.”

 

In fact, as Goldberg acknowledged on Tuesday, he has never been a Pulitzer nominee, but is merely one of thousands of entrants.

 

When this bit of résumé inflation was pointed out by a reporter for msnbc.com, Goldberg said he hadn’t meant to mislead anyone and removed the Pulitzer claim from his bio at National Review Online. …

 

His publisher, Penguin Group (USA), said the error was unintentional and it would remove the Pulitzer word from his book jacket when it’s time for the first reprint, “just like any other innocent mistake brought to our attention.” …

 

What’s surprising in Goldberg’s case is that he has been called out for the same résumé padding before, when his previous book was published.

 

There is more character destroying if you choose to read entirety (Conservative author Jonah Goldberg drops claim of two Pulitzer nominations; By Bill Dedman, Investigative Reporter; NBC News; 5/9/12 2:36 AM)

 

Then there is Slate in 2008 castigating Goldberg’s book, “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning”: 

 

Why did Jonah Goldberg write Liberal Fascism? To find out, you must wade through 391 pages of tendentious scholarship. A mighty jackbooted procession—Herbert Croly, John Dewey, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Herbert Marcuse, John F. Kennedy, Saul Alinsky, Ralph Nader, Hillary Clinton—goose-steps across the page to illustrate Goldberg’s apparent belief that, with the exception of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations and everything published in National Review (where Goldberg is contributing editor), every word previously written or spoken in favor of mobilizing the citizenry was either proto-fascist, fascist, or heavily influenced by fascism. …

 

 

Liberal Fascism, then, is a howl of rage disguised as intellectual history. Some mean liberals called Goldberg hurtful names, so he’s responding with 400 pages that boil down to: I know you are, but what am I?

 

 

Goldberg’s argument begins with the observation that well into the 1930s, the American progressive movement had more admiration than scorn for Benito Mussolini, who coined the words fascist and totalitarian, and even for Adolf Hitler. This isn’t news to anyone with even a glancing familiarity with American history. Goldberg further argues that fascism initially evolved from and positioned itself as a muscular brand of socialism (hence Nazi, an abbreviation for “National Socialist German Workers Party”). Also true, and also known to most educated people.

 

 

…  Here Goldberg is, for instance, trying very hard not to call Franklin Roosevelt a fascist:

 

This is not to say that the New Deal was evil or Hitlerian. But the New Deal was a product of the impulses and ideas of its era. And these ideas and impulses are impossible to separate from the fascist moment in Western civilization. … Franklin Rosevelt (sic) was no fascist, at least not in the sense that he thought of himself in this way. But many of his ideas and policies were indistinguishable from fascism. And today we live with the fruits of fascism, and we call them liberal.

 

Thirty-five pages later, Goldberg can hold back no longer. “[I]t seems impossible to deny that the New Deal was objectively fascistic,” he crows, imposing without irony a Marxist analysis.

 

The rest of Goldberg’s argument unfolds as follows: Wilson begat FDR, who begat contemporary liberalism. The only reason the United States didn’t remain a fascist country like Italy or Germany or Spain was “American exceptionalism,” i.e., the public’s resistance to tyranny over the long term. But Democratic presidents from Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy to Lyndon Johnson to Bill Clinton continued either to impose fascism or to bring the country terrifyingly close to it. To demonstrate this, Goldberg is obliged to render an ever-more-flexible definition of the word fascist.

 

Was Bill Clinton a fascist president? Well, he certainly believed in the primacy of emotion and the supremacy of his own intellect. … But I think if we are going to call him a fascist, it must be in the sense that he was a sponge for the ideas and emotions of liberalism. To say that he was a fascist is to credit him with more ideology and principle than justified. He was the sort of president liberal fascism could only produce during unexciting times.

 

 

By this point, Goldberg’s reasoning has progressed from unconvincing to incoherent. Modern liberalism, he argues, is linked to Nazism because both contain a cult of the organic (Hitler was a vegetarian) and both embrace sexual freedom (Himmler ordered his men “to father as many children as possible without marrying” in order to achieve the Aryan ideal). Eventually, Goldberg backs himself into asserting, in effect, that any government that does more than prevent abortions and provide for the common defense is inherently fascist. …

 

Character Assassination in entirety (Am I a Fascist? Jonah Goldberg’s tendentious history of liberalism; By Timothy Noah; Slate; 1/28/08 7:49 AM)

 

Timothy Noah’s criticism isn’t based on dented credentials, but rather Left Wing rage about equating the history of American Liberalism with the seeds of fascism. Noah’s rage is exposed as mere character assassination by,

 

Goldberg’s argument begins with the observation that well into the 1930s, the American progressive movement had more admiration than scorn for Benito Mussolini, who coined the words fascist and totalitarian, and even for Adolf Hitler. This isn’t news to anyone with even a glancing familiarity with American history. Goldberg further argues that fascism initially evolved from and positioned itself as a muscular brand of socialism (hence Nazi, an abbreviation for “National Socialist German Workers Party”). Also true, and also known to most educated people.” (Bold Emphasis mine)

 

Out of Noah’s own mouth (or I guess keyboard): Noah is full of crap in criticizing Goldberg.

 

So Goldberg connected the dots to the historical phenomena of using fascist ideology as a global symptom to reverse global economic global depression. Just as fascism in its essence is connected to Socialism, it needs to be pointed out that at least influential people in the FDR Administration had an affinity to Soviet inspired Marxism as a utopian longer term solution for a transformed human society.

 

Check out this excerpt from the admittedly Conservative Human Events posting a book review to M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein’s book entitled, “Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government”.

 

How did this massive penetration and policy twisting occur? Deception, Evans mentioned at a recent lecture, succeeds best when people want to be deceived. Franklin Roosevelt’s willful blindness to Stalin’s malignant goals, aggravated by the President’s health problems, was clearly a major cause. FDR saw what he wanted to see: that Josef Stalin liked him and would cooperate in preserving a peaceful and just world. That mindset went hand-in-hand with a New Deal bureaucracy chock-a-block with Soviet agents, Communist party members and ardent Stalinist sympathizers, including two FDR confidants, Lauchlin Currie and Harry Hopkins, FDR’s most trusted friend who for several years lived at the White House. (INFILTRATION, INTRIGUE AND COMMUNISTS; By Wes Vernon; Human Events; 1/11/2013 02:10 PM)

 

Before I look at the Soviet agents and sympathizers this book review mentions, it is probably important to get ahead of the typical Leftist accusation of using Right Wing nut jobs as a credible source (as if Left Wing nut jobs are a credible source).

 

M. Stanton Evans

 

In writing “Stalin’s Secret Agents” Stanton used primary sources. Something Leftists won’t mention in criticizing Stanton. Rather than criticizing original source material Leftists typically fall back on vilifying one’s intellectual character if they are a part of the Conservative Right. In another book review of Evan’s book mentioned above Isabel Mittelstadt writes:

 

Evans stressed the importance of using primary sources, explaining to the audience that secondary sources – such as the Internet – are often just “recycled [information] that people have not researched themselves.”  The authors’ reliance on primary sources in developing the research for their book gives readers a strong sense of credibility.

 

The conclusions Evans reached from conducting this thorough research brought him to draw parallels between Communist infiltration during World War II and problems he sees in today’s politics. (Clear & Present Dangers; By Isabel Mittelstadt; Accuracy in Academia; 6/25/13)

 

Here is the typical criticism Evans receives at the hands of Left Wingers. In this case about his book “Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and his Fight Against America’s Enemies” written originally in 2007:

 

Ronald Radosh, a historian and expert on the Cold War spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, states that “rather than a biography, Evans has written a defense counsel’s brief for his client, whom he seeks to defend against all the slanders made about McCarthy by his political enemies.” He praises Evans’ “extensive research”, and his exposure of the political agendas of McCarthy’s main opponents and their unwillingness to look more closely into Soviet penetration. He also commends Evans for correcting the view that all of McCarthy’s victims were innocent. Radosh severely criticises McCarthy’s failure to distinguish between communists and anti-communist liberals, and between those expressing communist views and those working as Soviet agents, and criticises Evans for glossing over this. Radosh concludes:[3]

 

Evans’s book falls far short of what it might have done to correct the record about the era. His own exaggerations and unwarranted leaps parallel those made by McCarthy. It is unlikely that his hope to change history’s verdict will become a reality as a result of the publication of this book.

 

Reviewing the book for The New York Times, Pulitzer Prize-winning American historian David Oshinsky was harshly critical, calling Evans’ primary thesis a “remarkable fantasy,” asserting that Evans has uncovered no fresh evidence and arguing that the evidence supports the historical consensus that Communist spy networks in the United States had largely been dismantled by the time McCarthy started his campaign and that McCarthy was “a bit player in the battle against Communist subversion, a latecomer who turned a vital crusade into a political mud bath… The fiercely negative judgments of those who lived through the McCarthy era are widely accepted today for good reason: they ring true.”[1]

 

Kirkus Reviews called the book “[a] revisionist biography”, which although a “detailed account” is “marred by ideological blinders” and fit “[f]or true believers only”,[2] Publishers Weekly describing Evans as “given to conspiracy thinking”[4] and Reason magazine describing it as “revisionist” and “a breathless defense of McCarthy.”[5] (Blacklisted by HistoryReviews; from Wikipedia; last modified on 7/29/14 at 08:50)

 

In a book review for the same book Wes Vernon writes the Evans response to such criticism:

 

Generally, the media that trashed the Evans book did so either from a wealth of ignorance or willingness to gloss over the book’s irrefutable documentation.

 

As Evans tells AIM, “the negative reviews in almost all cases conform to a common pattern” of error on three points in particular:

 

1—“Failure to come to grips” with such issues as the bogus quote imputed to McCarthy of “205” communists in the State Department, the case of Annie Lee Moss, and the real security dangers at Fort Monmouth. Considering that Evans’ style in the 643-page book is to avoid name-calling while methodically laying out the evidence,  his description of critics as failing to “come to grips” with reality may be his polite way of saying (correctly in our judgment) that where the facts did not fit the critics’ biases, the facts were simply ignored. One cannot be a failure at something unless one first tries to succeed.

 

2—Misrepresenting what the author had to say about Owen Lattimore, McCarthy’s George Marshall speech, and the sources of McCarthy’s information. As Evans says, “Some of these distortions are so far afield from my actual views as to suggest the reviewer hasn’t read the book (the most charitable explanation that I can think of).”

 

3—In lieu of facts, there were those who resorted to the ad hominem attack. “By far the worst” of these was an “utterly false” accusation by Ronald Radosh. (Mainstream Media Try to Burn a Book; By Wes Vernon; Accuracy in Media; 6/24/08)

 

 

The lesson is read the original sources before engaging in vilification. On the other hand a few Conservatives notably of the background toward which I often gravitate toward (i.e. Neoconservatives) have been critical of M. Stanton Evans. Notably former Left Wingers turned Conservative Ronald Radosh and David Horowitz. Actually in Horowitz’s case the criticism lay in another journalist-writer Diana West who publish a similar indictment about Marxist infiltration into the U.S. Government (American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character). Radosh’s academic credentials are quite impressive. David Solway writing on PJMedia provides an even tempered outlook in the Diana West vs. Radosh-Horowitz disagreement on scholastic analysis:

 

 

It began when David Horowitz at FrontPage Magazine scrubbed Mark Tapson’s favorable account of the book and replaced it with Ron Radosh’s intemperate and distressingly ad hominem demolition masking as a “review.” Indeed, Radosh’s logomachic intervention read more like a personal vendetta than a scrupulous assessment. As a seasoned writer and veteran debater, Radosh should have known better. From that point on, a war of words was launched and the psychodrama shows no signs of tapering off. West published her Rebuttal and was heatedly defended by the notable historian Andrew Bostom and by many of the talkbackers to Horowitz’s own site. Meanwhile Horowitz and Radosh, and even the orotund Conrad Black, continued to pummel both book and author.

 

 

I can only say that Diana West’s thesis is surely deserving of scholarly consideration, whether pro or con. Whether one agrees with her conclusions or not, one must recognize that her argument is meticulously researched and abundantly footnoted. It seems to me that David Horowitz was wrong to remove a review that he had originally vetted and, furthermore, to substitute a largely personal imprecation in its stead rather than, say, to post a countervailing review and let the reader decide. Whatever his motive, the decision leaves an editorial stench that is not easily dissipated.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Revisiting the Diana West Controversy: The ongoing implosion of the conservative ethos; By David Solway; PJMedia; 9/16/13 12:01 am)

 

Since West’s book American Betrayal broaches the same subject matter that many of the well-researched and documented works of M. Stanton Evans, I had to include that here pertaining to source criticism.

 

End Part One

 

JRH 8/13/14

Please Support NCCR

Let’s Call it GOOD McCarthyism for a Good America


Leftists Keep Changing the Name

John R. Houk

© April 15, 2014

 

Senator Joe McCarthy led a campaign to expose Communists in the U.S. government and influential people in the private sector. Today that campaign is used as a pejorative phrase to paint a picture of modern day witch-hunts.

 

Senator McCarthy began his campaign in the early days of Soviet expansionism just after WWII during an era that history has marked as the Cold War. Essentially the Cold War was U.S. Free Enterprise Liberty vs. USSR Leninist-Stalinist Communist visions for life on planet Earth. American Constitutionalism regardless of some historical flaws had proven to be a success while Soviet Communism was proving to be dictatorial totalitarianism in which personal liberties were trampled upon to force conformity to a State imposed way of life. People were lied to which would bring about some kind Karl Marxian socio-political mythological utopia for the betterment of humankind.

 

The difference is that American Liberty proved to be innovative in science, technology and particularly commerce that brought so much prosperity to American citizens that even the American working poor fared better for individuals than anywhere else in the world – particularly better than citizens under the thumb of Soviet Communism.

 

And yet the Soviet government propaganda machine was convincing that the People’s Soviet Socialist Republics lived in a paradise of equal benefits for all its citizens. And even though it was a lie there were a significant amount of American citizens that fell for the lie promised after the success of the Bolshevik Revolution that ended Czarist Russia. So even prior to WWII there were Communist sympathizers in the USA that had no problem with believing Marxist-Socialist ideals would make a better America. I have no doubt that the decade labeled The Great Depression between 1929 and a significant amount of the 1930s began to add to that Marxist mystique. Couple that with Stalin’s Soviet survival of the Nazi onslaught that made its way all the way to Moscow before American military aid enabled the Red Army to stiffen and begin repelling the Nazi war machine. To Soviet credit it has to be admitted that no direct Western military units were involved in the Soviet military victories of WWII. We provided military aid and a Western Front and the rest was up to Stalin to create a viable Eastern Front to place Hitler’s Nazis in the wedge of the Allied vice.

 

Suspicions arose almost immediately in the post WWII world between American military might and the cancerous Soviet agenda to infect the rest of the world with Soviet Communism. The Soviet establishment of Communist puppet States being set up in Eastern Europe including one-third of the Red Amy occupied Eastern Germany solidified antagonism between the USA and the USSR. The free Western Europe confronted Soviet military aspirations evidenced by the “Eastern Bloc” Communist puppet states with the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO provided a Western Europe united front against the USSR with the American military machine acting as a prince among equals. A historical Turkey-Russia rivalry led to a NATO invitation to Turkey (probably much to Greece’s displeasure).

 

The Cold War then was a clash political visions that spilled outside the boundaries of historical European conflicts. The boots on the ground military clashes never directly occurred between NATO and the USSR; however there were plenty of global clashes between client states that received U.S. and/or Soviet support based on the National Interests of the Cold War adversaries. Mao Zedong ultimate victory on Mainland China can be traced to Soviet support, the Korean War was a Cold War conflict, the Vietnam War was a Cold War conflict, and Third World nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America revolutions and counter-revolutions were a Cold War conflict and so on.

 

In the midst of all this Senator Joe McCarthy from Wisconsin took it upon himself to expose Communists in government, scientists functioning in sensitive classified areas, influential people in Hollywood and so on. Admittedly the First Amendment entitles Americans to embrace Marxist-Communism as long as there is no threat of armed rebellion against the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution actually provides a path to amend itself or toss the whole document out peacefully to design a new Constitution for the rule of law in the United States of America. Joe McCarthy’s exposé campaign rang a bell in American hearts and minds because WWII adversaries in the Nazis and the brutal Japanese brought righteous indignation to the surface on a national scale. Although Americans were war weary with WWII vanquishing the enemies of the American way of life was a relief. Nuclear weaponry and the totalitarian nature of the Soviet government reawakened a sense of righteous indignation that there was a threat to Liberty. This time the threat was the fear of an atomic blast. America ended WWII by unleashing two atomic blasts on Japanese soil. By the 1950s both the USA and the USSR had the missile capability to unleash nuclear blasts on each other’s homeland. If we did it before why wouldn’t the Soviets do it now? The American view of Communist Ruskies was that of ideological psychopaths. Hitler was an ideological psychopath that unleashed a 12 MILLION strong Holocaust of which about half were Jews. The Japanese didn’t use death camps like the Nazis but their Asian invasions were brutal that resulted in the deaths of millions of civilians which included the brutal rapes of women.

 

With this mindset in Americans in the 1950s, Joe McCarthy’s Communist hunting made him an initial hero as a defender of the American way of life rooting out traitors that would transform our beloved America into a Communist nation. Senator McCarthy began to run into a problem in the Communist hunt. He began to focus too close to powerful men in government. So when it was discovered his list of Communist agents in government was a bit inflated, McCarthy’s credibility began to sink meteorically. Instead of warning McCarthy to tone down his vocal rhetoric to that which he could actually prove, Liberals in Congress began to excoriate and humiliate Joe McCarthy as a paranoid egotistical man who cared more about fame than about exposing real Communist threats to America. Senator Joe McCarthy became so discredited that today the word McCarthyism denotes an evil witch-hunter turning good people into the picture of an evil that is not there.

 

Here is an excerpt of a book review of M. Stanton Evans biography on Joseph McCarthy that I cross posted on my original SlantRight.com website (The original Intellectual Conservative book review by Bernie Reeves is no longer available):

 

In 1995, the NSA and CIA turned the wheel of history toward the truth by declassifying the Venona files, intercepted messages from Moscow to their American agents from 1942 until 1964. And lo and behold there they are: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Lachlan Currie and hundreds of other American Soviet agents working for the US government – code names and all. Not only were these alleged victims guilty, they and their apologists made fools of us all. Yet, what followed in the national press after Venona was resounding silence.

After Venona sank in, despite violent opposition by the usual suspects, some of the more rational members of the intellectual Left – such as the venerated historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. – opined that McCarthy may have been right after all, but he was a bad person and he did great harm to innocent people. Then it was back to the same shopworn clichés, such as “McCarthy didn’t uncover one communist.” Actually, according to Venona, he was way short in his estimations, but the anti-McCarthy propaganda machinery churned on to be sure history goes their way. Recently, George Clooney’s nifty propaganda stunt in the film Good Night and Good Luck was an example of the conspiracy to continue to malign McCarthy in the light of Venona, allowing the smug anti-McCarthy fellow travelers to sweep the facts under the rug and move on in their obsessive manipulations to protect their own.

Final Verdict

And that’s where things stood until November 2007 with the publication of Blacklisted by M. Stanton Evans, columnist, editor and former director of the National Journalism Center in Washington, DC. Drawing on previously classified FBI and governmental files – and new information available from Venona – Evans upends the McCarthy myth and turns the tables on the real guilty parties: Presidents Truman and Eisenhower; a majority of Congress; heads of several government agencies; lawyer Joseph Welch (who hurled the famous words at McCarthy: “have you no shame”); and …

 

 

… If the evidence was made available, McCarthy would be a hero rather than a pariah “blacklisted by history.” Instead, as is usually the case, history was manipulated and public policy stained due to the intelligence community’s obsessive desire to keep their secrets – no matter the consequence to the well-being of the nation. (From post: The Truth Be Told: The Real Story Of Joe McCarthy; By Bernie Reeves (Intro by John R. Houk); SlantRight.com; 1/9/08)

 

Now I say all this about Joe McCarthy because Communism is again backdooring its way into American government with America’s actual Manchurian Candidate in President Barack Hussein Obama. Now-a-days the harbinger of Soviet nuclear war threatening to impose a Communist state on the American way of life is no longer overtly there. Russia is again beginning to arise as a competitor to American National Interests however that emerging threat is not Communism but rather Putin inspired Nationalism to make Russia a respected super power to be reckoned with again.

 

The irony of today’s current Marxist-Communist threat to America is happening via political manipulation through Dem Party lies and propaganda promising, what? It is a promise of a new transformed America that will make Americans better people experiencing a better way of life. The great deception here is that the Dems running this transformation are not telling American voters that this new transformed American utopia is a State managed society notifying us what to believe, think and own. Christianity is attacked watering down morality. Diverse cultural thinking is being imposed to water down American Liberty and traditional Christianity. Homosexuality and transgender freaks are now normal by Judicial fiat, the real Islam is being obfuscated to Americans as a religion of peace when its own theology promotes violence to confront non-Muslims and Muslims that stray from Sharia AND encouraging immigrant cultures to be retained rather than insisting on assimilation to the culture that brought our successful American constitutional experiment to the world.

 

All these Dem Party moves are intended to use the Constitution to dilute the Original Intent into meaninglessness or eventually just do away with the heritage of our historical documents which define what an American is. Why? Because those Dems desire to transform (Obama’s Change) into a Marxist-Socialist new America rendering Liberty, Free Enterprise, Ownership and the Christian faith into interesting footnotes in history.

 

In case you have come this far and you are lost because we all know that I am not an erudite writer, let me spell it out socratically. Do you want to live in an America in which individual Liberty is trumped by government-speak telling you what to believe? Do you want to live in an America that begins to intrude unjustly and oppressively on how you worship or do not worship? Do you want to live in an America that imposes excessive taxes to fund programs that intrude in American lives more than promoting the general welfare? Do you want to live in an America that allows the murder of an unborn person because that person is considered a slave as an appendage to a female body?

 

You should recognize most of the answers to these questions are actively in this present time are already a “YES”. America’s Founding documents from the Mayflower Compact, on to the Declaration of Independence and our United States Constitution had supporters that would have answered “NO”.

 

Now … If you read this blog you probably know that I am not what people would label as an original thinker. Typically my own thoughts are written down due righteous indignation of the moment. This is what caused the above thoughts.

 

I read an article that is a synopsis of a Trevor Loudon speech that was posted by the initials TMH which was authored by the pseudonymous person going by the name Bookworm on the blog NoisyRoom.net. Personally I find all the anonymity annoying but I know some people just don’t want to be bugged in this world where Internet harassment is too often a fact of life. The article is entitled, “A Revolutionary Idea To Win The White House And Save The World”.

 

The author writes about Communists in government and Loudon’s revolutionary solution to change the transformation strategy of Dem Party closet Communists. It is a good read. I’ll give a bit of a spoiler that should inspire you to read the whole thing.

 

Loudon surmises correctly the Republican Party consists of Conservatives that gravitate toward their pet interests. For example: GOP Establishment, Tea Party Conservatives, Libertarians, Social Conservatives, Pro-Lifers and Evangelicals. Loudon’s solution to reverse the curse of Marxist-Dems transforming our American heritage is a dream team Republican ticket including a pre-announced Cabinet. Loudon implies this dream team would be unbeatable and the Dems would lose their political clout.

 

JRH 4/14/14

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

A Revolutionary Idea To Win The White House And Save The World

Posted by TMH

From Bookworm Room

NoisyRoom.net

 

Last night, I got to hear Trevor Loudon, the New Zealander who believes, as Ronald Reagan did, that America is truly a shining city on a Hill and the world’s last, best hope against global totalitarian rule. It is this belief that has taken Trevor from his once quiet life in New Zealand to America, on an endless round of research and talks, all aimed at convincing ordinary Americans that their country is at risk (as is the world’s security), but that Americans can turn it around and revitalize a constitutional America.

 

Trevor’s talk was eye-opening and exciting. He devoted the first quarter of his talk to detailing how significant numbers of Congress people are currently members of communist organizations or were once open communists (who, significantly, have never repented and reformed). In the second quarter of his talk, Trevor explained the communist long game, one that started in the 1960s or before, which enabled communists to infiltrate and co-opt American institutions. In the third quarter, Trevor got started on amnesty, which is the Left’s single most important initiative. Finally, when we were all completely depressed, Trevor offered the most revolutionary idea I’ve ever heard for winning the White House in 2016 (but we have to start working on it now, or maybe yesterday.)

 

I’ll never be able to replicate Trevor’s passion, knowledge, or oratorical brilliance, but I can offer you a short summary of each part of his talk. I urge you to read this entire post, because it will inform you and inspire you in ways you may not have previously imagined. If you can’t wait to see what the idea is, just scroll down, because I’ve marked clearly where I’ve spelled out Trevor’s revolutionary idea for re-taking the White House.

 

The communists in Congress: It’s become fashionable of late to deny that communism still exists (“Communists? Hah! It’s just a handful of Russian KGB agents and a few old hippies in San Francisco. Even China isn’t communist any more.”)

 

Alternatively, scoffers will acknowledge that communism is still around, but assure people (especially ignorant, vulnerable young people) that it’s essentially harmless. This latter argument effectively erases the 20th century, along with the murder and enslavement of tens of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain, in China, in Vietnam, in Cambodia, and in Cuba, not to mention large swathes of Latin America and Africa. Modern communists, we’re told, are just nice people who want to save us from the economic depredations of capitalists as well as the moral and social slavery of traditionalists, especially religious traditionalists.

 

Because we’ve been told for the past four decades that American communism is a harmless chimera, we currently have 51 House members and 14 Senators all with strong, documented Communist ties. As Trevor said, while these people couldn’t pass the FBI investigation necessary to become a janitor at Fort Hood, the fact that they won an election (often through fraud and voter manipulation), means that they were able to walk right through the front door of our government. They now hold the levers of power controlling taxes, the military, national security, the border, education, etc. They dictate government policy and their goal is antithetical to the America created under the Constitution. Rather than being a government of limited powers, they are working to create a government of absolute powers.

 

Many of the names Trevor recited will be familiar to you because the media routinely gives them a lot of airtime to explain why Progressive plans (which are just re-labeled communist ideas) are good for America: Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Charles Rangel, Sheila Jackson Lee, etc. — they’re all on the list. You can read about these people in Trevor’s newest book, THE ENEMIES WITHIN: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress. There, Trevor provides detailed evidence documenting Congress peoples’ ties to communist groups, communist front groups, communist individuals, and communist liaisons.

 

Even Trevor acknowledges that it makes one sound like a conspiracy theorist to call all these serving members of Congress communists or fellow travelers, but the documentation is there. This isn’t a case in which Trevor is trying to convince a room of people wearing tinfoil hats that “Nancy Pelosi was in San Francisco on July 7, 1967, a mere four days after Mr. Communist Bigshot gave a speech in Minneapolis in which he said, ‘July is a great month in San Francisco, because it’s not so hot,’ which was clearly a coded reference telling her to subvert more of America’s youth by selling acid in Haight Ashbury.” That kind of imaginary dots connecting invisible lines is true conspiracy stuff and Trevor doesn’t traffic in that garbage.

 

Instead, what Trevor offers are verifiable facts: Membership records and newsletters from openly communist organizations or communist-front groups, decades-long close associations between Congress people and open members of the Communist Party, etc. No imaginary dots or invisible lines here. These are cold, hard, very unpleasant facts. So yes, more than a quarter of the American Senate has strong and documented communist ties, and these Senators, because the Democrats control the Senate, hold powerful positions in our country.

 

The communist long game: None of what’s happened since 2008, says Trevor, is a coincidence. Every single part of the current Democrat agenda originated, not in small town, old-fashioned American Democrat Party outposts, but, instead, in hardcore communist circles. For example, Quentin Young, who died recently at around age 90, was a physician and an open communist. Indeed, he was so open that, during the Vietnam War, he traveled to North Vietnam and offered his medical services to the Vietcong (those would be the same Vietcong who were killing American soldiers and torturing American POWs). Young was also Obama’s next door neighbor and his personal physician. Young was also Obama’s adviser on Obamacare. Kind of makes you think, doesn’t it?

 

The most significant example of the communist long game is America’s unions. Up until the 1990s, the AFL-CIO, America’s most powerful private sector union, was headed by rabidly staunch anti-communists. The AFL-CIO’s platform specifically stated its opposition to communism. That all changed in 1995 when Thomas Donohue took over the AFL-CIO’s presidency from Lane Kirkland. The anti-communist platform went out the window, and the AFL-CIO was suddenly inundated by openly communist members. With that membership change came a push to get communist or communist-friendly people into government.

 

With the AFL-CIO’s reversal on communism, and its open-door policy for communists, something happened that we oldsters never saw before the mid-1990s: Unions became integral parts of the Democrat election process. More money than ever before went from unions to politicians. Union works devoted themselves to “get out the vote” efforts, handling everything from registering voters (living or dead), to canvasing, to getting people to polls (legal or illegal), and to staffing polls. What this meant was that every Democrat elected due to union efforts owed the unions big time — and what the union leaders demanded were political acts entirely consistent with demands that communist had been making for decades: socialized medicine, socialized student loans, socialized banking, etc.

 

Amnesty: Today’s communists are interested in socializing this and that, but they actually have one absolutely overriding goal: amnesty. It’s not because communists (aka Progressives aka socialists aka leftists) love Latin Americans more than the rest of us do. Heck, it’s not about love at all. It’s about creating a permanent Democrat majority. Texas is the pivot point: If Democrats can turn Texas blue (which also means that Arizona and New Mexico and other still-reddish Southwestern states will turn solid blue), it will become numerically impossible for Republicans to take the White House, not just in the short term, but in the long, long term . . . maybe forever, because a solid Democrat majority will change the rules to preclude anything but a one-party White House and, if possible, Congress.

 

Again, this is not a conspiracy theory. Trevor detailed speeches and writings from people involved in the amnesty movement (including Antonio Villaraigosa, the L.A. mayor who turned LA into an illegal refuge), boasting about the 8 million new voters they are planning on having in order to change forever America’s political identity.

 

When conservatives oppose amnesty, it’s not because they hate Latinos, anymore than the Democrats love them. It’s because conservatives understand that the point behind amnesty isn’t to reward “acts of love” or to be charitable or to preserve human rights or to prove we’re not racists. Instead, it’s our recognition (based on Democrat admissions) that amnesty is dedicated to a single goal: destroying America’s two-party system through a tidal wave of newly legal, permanently-Democrat-Party voters. Opposing amnesty is about preserving constitutional government, not about discriminating against the illegal aliens that the Democrats (with the president’s cheerful collusion) are inviting into America and into the voting booth.

 

But . . . but . . . what about the Republicans who are supporting amnesty (a group that includes most of the Republican leadership)? Surely amnesty can’t be so bad, given that it’s not reasonable for these people to commit political suicide, right? Wrong. The Republican leadership owes as much to the American Chamber of Commerce as the Democrat Party owes to the unions. The Chamber of Commerce doesn’t care about Left or Right, constitution or totalitarianism. It cares about the bottom line, and the bottom line is always better if labor is cheap.

 

I am absolutely not calling Chamber of Commerce members Nazis, but it’s worth [it to] remember from a political, not genocidal, perspective, that one of the reasons German industrialists supported the Nazis was that they got free slave labor and they got to keep their profits. The cheapest labor in America is the illegal alien or newly legalized citizen with no English and no skills. Trevor says that it’s no coincidence that the most pro-amnesty Republicans are the ones who receive the most money from the Chamber of Commerce.

 

That explains the RINOs and GOP’s support for amnesty? But what about the fanatical, hysterical union support for amnesty? Doesn’t illegal immigration and amnesty hurt union members for the same reason that the Chamber of Commerce likes it, by lowering wages? Yes. And the unions, both leadership and members, understood that right up until 1995. The old leadership’s opposition to communism wasn’t just ideological, it was pragmatic. Open borders lowered wages and otherwise depressed working conditions for ordinary Americans.

 

The new union leadership, though, doesn’t care about its members’ well-being. Members are merely cash cows subject to mandatory dues that ultimately pay for the union members’ own slaughter.

 

There is hope for the future: By the time Trevor finished the first 3/4 of his talk, all of us listening were depressed. I looked around and saw slumped bodies and sad faces. Not to despair, though, since Trevor held out hope and, as I said, offered a revolutionary idea for a Republican comeback. He broke this last part of his talk into three segments: the Tea Party, Reagan’s victory, and what we can do.

 

The Tea Party: In 2008, all the ducks were in a row for a complete, irreversible Leftist takeover of America’s political system. What stopped it, Trevor said, was something unforeseeable, and that black swan was the Tea Party’s organic and meteoric rise.

 

Thanks to the Tea Party, the Democrats only got 2 years of legislative victories and, since then, they’ve been on the defensive. At every level — local, state, and national — Tea Partiers roared out their disapproval at this, the greatest flowering of the American communist party.

 

No wonder that the backlash was so immediate and so vicious (racist, racist, war on women, Islamophobic, homophobic, racist, racist). The Tea Party had to be destroyed and quickly too. Trevor attended a major socialist/communist party event and said it was dead boring. All they did was talk about how terrible the Tea Party is and how it could be destroyed.

 

Trevor said that we in the Tea Party are feeling demoralized now, since Obama took back the White House in 2012. What he says we’re missing, perhaps because we’re too close to things (unlike a New Zealander, who gets a long view), is how big our victory was. We’re like “Baby Supermen,” he said, because we don’t realize the type of power we have. Instead, we focus on our losses and then retreat to lick our wounds, yielding the floor once again to the indefatigable left.

 

Tea Partiers also have a problem with the GOP itself, which bitterly resents the upstarts who disagree with the GOP’s “go along to get along” policies and, most especially, with its Chamber of Commerce-funded press for amnesty, cheap labor, and a permanent Democrat majority. There is hope, though.

 

Reagan: Trevor reminded us that, when Reagan emerged from California in 1976 and strode onto the national scene, the GOP hated him. The Ohio GOP refused to let him speak there. Essentially, the Grand Old Party, which Reagan later owned, blackballed him, denying him the 1976 primary, which went to Gerald Ford. Reagan, however, spent the next four years coalition building like mad. With his sunny personality; his gift for taking complex subjects and presenting them in simple, but not simplistic, terms; and his unabashed love for America, he brought everyone under his umbrella. He won by a landslide that originated with his newly cohesive base, revitalizing America.

 

Trevor acknowledged that things are different now. Obama and his team will have had eight, not just four, years to pursue their agenda (even with the Tea Party operating as a counterweight and drag). The news and entertainment media are intractably in the bag for the Left and will throw themselves into the breach in 2016, especially for a Hillary/Michelle ticket. And we’re having conservative civil war headed by the GOP’s desire to destroy the Tea Party.

 

Ah, that GOP. That nasty, weak, corrupt, amnesty-loving GOP. We Tea Partiers would like to see it gone, just as the GOP would like the Tea Party to vanish. There’s an unpleasant reality, though, that Trevor says the Tea Party must acknowledge: We don’t have the time — just 2.5 years until 2016 — to put together the election infrastructure that the GOP already has. Moribund and corrupt though it may be, the GOP is the only game in town for winning elections. The task, then, is to preempt and co-opt the GOP, just as Reagan did.

 

The Tea Party also needs to stop trying to convince independents to get on board. Trevor pointed out what we all know: You don’t win elections by getting lukewarm support from fundamentally disinterested people. You win elections when your base is incredibly excited and the lukewarm people want to join in the fun (as happened for Obama in 2008). The GOP, Trevor added, will also want to join the fun, primarily because the institution cannot afford to walk away from the seat of power. It happened in 1980 with Reagan and it can happen again.

 

The main problem the conservative base has is this fragmentation and internal hostility, which extends beyond the GOP versus Tea Party fight. Libertarians, social conservatives, and Evangelicals are also part of this cranky, disparate mix of people who are definitely not statists, but still can’t hang together enough to create a political wave advancing constitutional freedoms. The big question, then, is How can we bring these disparate groups together, enthusiastically, to win in 2016, which will be our last chance at wresting the country from the communist-backed Democrats?

 

Here’s Trevor’s revolutionary idea

 

Trevor has what I think of as a brilliant, inspired, out of the box, crazy, entirely possible idea. To build a coalition, you need to promise something to everyone. That seems impossible when you consider how the various conservative groups have such vastly different issues. One person cannot possible be all things to all conservative voters. TREVOR SAYS THAT ONE PERSON DOESN’T HAVE TO BE ALL THINGS. The next Republican candidate should identify his running mate and cabinet now, to make sure that the GOP doesn’t suck all the money out of the system by 2015 and then funnel it to Romney (part II) or Christie, neither of whom can excite the base and, therefore, neither of whom can win.

 

Here’s as much of Trevor’s dream ticket as I can remember. It should be promoted, in its entirety, from the get-go (say, starting next month, or maybe yesterday):

 

o   President: Ted Cruz, a committed conservative who can talk brilliantly (and a man who happens to be Hispanic).

 

o   Vice President: Allen West, a committed conservative, a military commander (and a man who happens to be black and I adore him).

 

o   Treasury Secretary: Rand Paul (Tea Partiers and libertarians get their fiscal conservatism)

 

o   Secretary of State: John Bolton (the neocons get their national security)

 

o   Energy Secretary: Sarah Palin (Tea Partiers — and most Americans — get their cheap energy)

 

o   Labor Secretary: Scott Walker (Right to Work across America)

 

o   Attorney General: Mark Levin or Trey Gowdy, deeply committed constitutional conservatives

 

o   Education Secretary: A strong supporter of homeschooling

 

 

And so on, down the line, with the Republican ticket being fully formed from top to bottom. Every conservative will know heading to the voting booth that the Republican ticket offers something to him or her personally. That gets out votes.

 

Someone pointed out that the obvious problem with this list, which is the fact that all of these people want to be president themselves, and will not want to be subordinated to Cruz or West. Instead of joining forces, they’ll simply form the same circular firing squad that they formed in 2008 and 2012, and mow each other down again, with the Democrats cheering them on from the sidelines.

 

Yes, Trevor, acknowledged, some people are going to have to sacrifice their immediate presidential dreams in favor of presenting a strong united front. While the notion of self-sacrifice isn’t usually high on a politician’s list, perhaps they can be brought to see that a little self-sacrifice now provides long-term selfish benefits in the future. By following his radical campaign plan, all these talents and egos can win in some way in 2016, setting the template for each of them to strike out on his or her own in 2024. Alternatively, they can selfishly commit political and party murder-suicide in 2016, forever ending any possibility that a Republican will take the White House.

 

Trevor emphasized repeatedly that this revolutionary idea — running a president, veep, and entire cabinet in one fell swoop — must be done now. Any delay means conservative money is gone, the circular firing squad forms, GOP money rescues Romney or Christie from the bloodbath, the base stays home, the independents stay home, the Democrats win again, and America becomes a permanent socialized state that has abandoned all of its allies around the world, and serves as a materials-supplier to the world’s dictators.

 

If you think this is a good idea, act on it: Share it with your local conservative groups, put it out on Facebook, make clever posters, contact conservative leadership. Do whatever you can do. We have a very small window of time, and very limited resources, to reverse a trajectory that, if not changed by 2016, will be fixed forever.

______________________________

Let’s Call it GOOD McCarthyism for a Good America

John R. Houk

© April 15, 2014

________________________________

A Revolutionary Idea To Win The White House And Save The World

 

© 2014 NoisyRoom.net

 

[Blog Editor: Information enclosed in brackets are added by the Editor]

%d bloggers like this: