Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Showing posts with label American Betrayal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Betrayal. Show all posts

Friday, April 5, 2024

Meet the Powerful American CEO Greasing Business Deals in China

Chubb’s Evan Greenberg: America can’t ‘put trade in competition with values.’ 

By | Apr 4, 2024 @ Liberty Nation News Tags: Articles, Business News, Opinion

As Americans continue to be alarmed by the menacing national security implications of China’s growing footprint in the nation’s interior, US-based multinational corporations are scrambling to increase business ties with the Asian communist superpower. The fact that China is today considered America’s number one geopolitical rival or concern over the morality of engaging in commerce with a violently oppressive regime will not dissuade them in the least.

“China’s economy has not ‘peaked’ and its growth prospects remain ‘bright,’ [President] Xi Jinping told visiting US chief executives on [March 27] as Beijing sought to revive foreign investor confidence in the world’s second-largest country,” The Financial Times reports.

“Meeting the group of about 20 US business figures, who included Chubb’s Evan Greenberg, Blackstone’s Stephen Schwarzman and Qualcomm’s Cristiano Amon in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, Xi insisted that Beijing remained committed to reform.”

“The meeting was proposed by chief executive of US insurer Chubb, Evan Greenberg, said one of the sources who has direct knowledge of the matter,” Reuters reported beforehand. “Other attendees include Stephen Orlins, president of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, and Craig Allen, president of the U.S.-China Business Council.”

The friendly get-together was seen as a Beijing follow-up to the controversial swank dinner leading US-based corporations held for Xi when he visited San Francisco in November. “Business leaders are reportedly shelling out up to $40,000 for a table of eight at the banquet,” Fox Business reported at the time.

A closer look at Beijing meeting instigator Chubb CEO Greenberg tells you all you need to know about the steadfast commitment to China that still exists in elitist US business circles today.

Chubb China Chum

“Mr. Greenberg is engaged in international economic and foreign affairs through his service on the boards of several institutions, including the Board of Trustees of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Board of Directors of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and as Chairman of the National Committee on United States-China Relations,” the executive’s Chubb bio reads.

GettyImages-1155279256 Evan Greenberg

Evan Greenberg (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

All three of those organizations are known for their aggressively pro-China business stances. How aggressive? The Peterson Institute went viral in October 2022 when its president, Adam Posen, shockingly declared that “the fetish for [domestic] manufacturing is part of the general fetish for keeping white males with low education outside the cities in the powerful positions they are in in the US.”

It’s hard to find a more vile attack on white rural Americans than that.

Greenberg is a very active National Committee on United States-China Relations member. In July 2019, more than 30 members of this organization signed an open letter to then-President Donald Trump that appeared in a prominent Washington, DC, newspaper.

State-run Chinese media couldn’t have written the text any better:

“We do not believe that Beijing is an economic enemy or an existential national security threat that must be confronted in every sphere; nor is China a monolith, or the views of its leaders set in stone. Although its rapid economic and military growth has led Beijing toward a more assertive international role, many Chinese officials and other elites know that a moderate, pragmatic, and genuinely cooperative approach with the West serves China’s interests.

“Washington’s adversarial stance toward Beijing weakens the influence of those voices in favor of assertive nationalists. With the right balance of competition and cooperation, American actions can strengthen those Chinese leaders who want China to play a constructive role in world affairs.”

It gets far more disturbing than this.

‘Chinese Military University’

Greenberg’s Chubb bio also reveals that he serves on “the Advisory Board of Tsinghua University School of Economics and Management in Beijing.”

Tsinghua is “considered by the Pentagon to be a Chinese military university,” the Washington Examiner reports.

GettyImages-1170487336 Tsinghua University

Tsinghua University (Photo by Zhang Shu/VCG via Getty Images)

Tsinghua University “holds ‘secret-level security credentials’ for classified military research, trains students for China’s nuclear weapons program, and has allegedly carried out cyberattacks for the Chinese government, according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute,” The Washington Free Beacon detailed. “It is also one of several Chinese universities under the supervision of the communist nation’s State Administration of Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense, a CCP agency that works to deepen university involvement in the defense sector.”

The university also has reportedly been actively involved in the brutal suppression of China’s Uyghur minority.

“Tsinghua scientists led by Nurmemet Yolwas published a paper in 2018 outlining their research in how to train voice-recognition software to recognize the Uyghur language, as the ruling Chinese Communist Party began the mass incarceration of millions of Uyghurs in ‘re-education camps’ in its northwestern region of Xinjiang,” Radio Free Asia reported.

What is wealthy American businessman Greenberg doing tied up with all this? By his own admission, he isn’t losing too much sleep over the matter.

Human Rights Have Nothing to Do With Trade

In June 2022, Greenberg gave two speeches highlighted by the National Committee on US-China Relations (NCUSCR). “His speeches were hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, DC, and by the Economic Club of New York in Manhattan,” a post on the NCUSCR website states.

Greenberg used the occasions to dismiss the notion of morality playing any role whatsoever in global business opportunities.

“China … is the top trading partner for more than 100 countries globally. Every one of America’s closest partners around the world has a deep economic relationship with China. None would be willing to end its economic relationship absent a dramatic Chinese action,” Greenberg asserted. “Given these realities, American interests are ill-served when policymakers put trade in competition with trust or values.

“America’s partners in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere do not welcome China’s assault on individual liberties, but they also do not see trade policy as the venue to adjudicate those differences. Rather, they seek to address differences over values in the political and diplomatic arena.”

Hey, business is business.

“China’s foreign minister Wang Yi met Greenberg and [NCUSCR President] Orlins on [March 26, one day before the meeting with Xi], and said bilateral tensions stemmed from the US ‘misperception’ of China as a strategic threat,” The Financial Times noted.

He needn’t have bothered.

There’s money to be made in China, a lot of it, and US-based multinational corporations are not going to allow less pressing matters such as American national security or a basic concern for human life stand in the way.

 
Read More From Joe Schaeffer

Wednesday, July 7, 2021

If the Left Hates America, How Can They Possibly Be Sane?

America has done more good for more people than any nation in the history of the world.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDdJXy3OAHLJn_MpiNbbpiEfmKMk5o52EaM_ErYTz_AQiD3zo-sQWOUuwWSVBiV4IJ3FlQV6T-I03A9NYvk-Cw_z_XUAGBaqiTjOITYXOGIJAACqAjGX9XDktXKqx-gc3w6FR9l1Ki6Us/w49-h64/My+Picture+2.jpg By Rich Kozlovich

I often have “why” questions. I have always loved reading history, as a result I have often asked; “why did they do that?” History isn’t just about dates, events and places. History is about people and why they do what they do. It's about human psychology, human wants, needs and desires. It is about human flaws and human greatness in action and thinking. That's the beauty and wisdom of history. 

History is the fruition of the actions of millions of people over the course of thousands of years, and those fruits of wisdom, ripened fruits of wisdom, are ours for the plucking.   But in order to pluck those ripened fruits of wisdom we need to read that history, understand that history, and apply it wisely.  As a society we're doing none of that, and our leaders clearly aren't doing it either.  One writer noted the statement "history repeats itself" is wrong.  He says we just fail to learn and follow the lessons of history.  To a large degree, he's right.

As you grow older, and really delve deeply into the history of the world, you find that real history goes way beyond what must be considered the blatant propaganda taught in schools at the lower grades. Perfectly understandable propaganda mind you!  After all, most countries don’t want their children to learn about the unpleasant things that are a part of their heritage until they have learned the good things, the honorable things, the things that make it possible for a society to become whole, especially one such as ours; a diverse society which became the only truly successful melting pot of cultures in the world. Something that was truly alien in almost every other country in the world.

The big difference and the beauty of our culture versus the rest of the world is we have access to the damning information about America.  The kind of information completely hidden from citizens of other cultures about their cultures. We have the opportunity to see all of our warts and scars, repent of them, fix them, and become all the better for it as a society, even if it is in our own personal way. 

We can’t fix our flaws if we're unwilling to see and confront them, and in spite of all the rants about how evil is America, we've sacrificed America's young men and our money to make things right for all Americans, and we've been spit upon for it.

It is still very difficult to get information of the Rape of Nanking in Japan, which has been referred to as the forgotten holocaust of WWII. We don't hear much about it here either because the left controls the schools now and they subscribe to the idea that the only evil ever done in the world was done by Americans. So then, if that was the case, why then was America so successful merging so many diverse cultures?   Because those who came here all wanted to add to the American culture; not change it into the very thing they fled. 

My great grandparents and grandparents came from Serbia. They came here to become Americans who just happened to be Serbian. They didn't come here to be Serbians who just happened to live in America. The other side of my family is Croatian. So I am half Serbian and half Croatian. I tell people jokingly that I'm my own worst enemy, and I've been fighting with myself my whole life. Why? Because the hate, war and violence between them was legendary and went on for centuries. Yet, that age old problem, that went on for hundreds of years in Europe, was solved in less than one generation here, in America! I also have a contingent of Italian family members, a third cousin who is half Filipino, and others who are Hispanic. Only in America! 

But  this only can happen because if we all share a common vision as to how the world should work, and how we should conduct ourselves. My great grandparents and grandparents learned to speak, read and write English so that their children and grandchildren wouldn’t have to pay the penalty they were paying. A penalty they were happy to pay I might add, because they knew it was a penalty worth paying.  They were in America!!!!!!

It wasn’t easy as it is today. My great grandparents didn’t know that my grandmother had to go to school until she was old enough to be in the third grade, which is where they started her. She didn’t speak a word of English. The teacher couldn’t understand her and decided that her name was “Annie”. My grandmother was 90 when she died and there were people who still knew her as Annie for most of that long life. She was never offended. It just wasn’t that important to her compared to the benefits she received for she and her family by just being in America!

She learned to speak, read and write English, and was proud of her accomplishments, she was even a Democrat party committeewoman.  My grandfather worked in the coal mines and ran his own farm providing everything the family needed.  Everything we consumed came from the farm other than flour, coffee, salt, sugar and tea.   So I don’t have a lot of compassion for the whining of lefties over this.  And there's a reason why.  The results! 

One of her children became the president of a United Auto Workers union. Another became an aeronautical engineer working for a major airplane manufacturer with forty engineers working for him, and he never finished high school. Another became a successful small business owner, and many of their grandchildren became business owners.   A grandchild of one of her siblings was a graduate of Annapolis.  Only in America.

These immigrants were on the lowest rung on the social ladder in their homelands, but they were the best that Europe had to offer. Smart, tough, hardworking, religious, self-sacrificing and family oriented. Those are the base components of a stable society.  When any one of them is missing the whole structure erodes; slowly perhaps, but the downward spiral is unmistakable. The sad thing about great grandparents and grandparents is that they die before you are old enough to fully appreciate what great people they truly were.

Today we see people who are descendants of those who worked to make America a great nation and a great people.  Descendants who have lived in the best culture the world has ever known and yet they hate that culture. They rant unendingly against its perceived inequities, screaming for social and environmental justice. Demanding that everyone should live at exactly the same life style as everyone else, irrespective of what they are willing to work for, or willing to work at all.  

They rant and scream with vile fervor that America is a racist nation, in spite of the fact that American capitalism raised more people out of misery, squalor and suffering than any other system the world has ever known, including black Americans.  Name one nation that's offered more opportunities to black people than has America!

Socialism exists primarily in its communist and fascist forms. Fascism as a leftist movement became defined (mostly by Mussolini) in the early 20th century as the right wing of socialism and communism as the left wing, but they are both totalitarian, two sides of the same coin. Both subscribe to the philosophy of the “19th century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel”, who was the “most influential philosopher of the Left -- inspiring Karl Marx, the American "Progressives" of the early 20th century and university socialists to this day” that:

"All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State."

Those socialist and “progressive states” who've have taken on the mantel of Godhood has brought nothing but death, destruction, starvation, mass murder, misery and suffering at a level that is unparalleled in human history. Dystopia is the true child of socialism. Why then to do so many in the western world embrace and praise those who practice this demented philosophy?  Especially among those who are allegedly well educated, and more so among academics!

Since they hate America, that means they hate Americans who practice and believe in American exceptionalism and capitalism. But that leaves them in a quandary. The normal functioning of the human mind is to see patterns.  Patterns allow one to draw conclusions.  That of course means being judgmental, how else can you determine what is true and false. What works and what doesn’t work. What information to discard and what information to embrace. 

Yet, they deliberately ignore the historically proven patterns of success and look for alternatives.   Alternatives they absolutely insist on believing in.  Alternatives that have failed over and over again, how can that be considered sane?  

But this is America.  They're allowed to believe in and promote their alternatives because they're living here, in America!  Here, where they don’t have to face the consequences of their passion for alternative lives or alternative forms of governance.   Here, where they can believe any idiotic thing they wish to believe without being persecuted, and even protected.  Yet they hate the system that permits their thinking and actions, and largely without penalty, and lately even when those actions are clearly criminal. How can we not wonder if they're sane!

A former Muslim man in Afghanistan was going to be executed because he converted to Christianity and refused to give up the convictions of his conscience, to give up his faith. This is from a society that preaches and demands the destruction of anyone who disagrees with them, including those who share the same faith with some differences, as in the Sunni and Shiite sects. Yet these lefties embrace and excuse them as allies.  Allies with whom they have only one thing in common:  Their hatred of Americans, American capitalism and American tolerance!

Do they really believe that if Sharia was imposed on Americans they would be allowed to practice their political philosophy and personal moral passions as they do now? They would be among the first to be killed!   So when I read their views it's impossible to not wonder if they're sane.

A number of years ago there were demonstrations against some world economic summit (I think it was in Seattle, there have been so many I can’t remember for sure) and the policies being outlined there. One National Public Radio interviewer (Yes...I actually listened to NPR) asked a young woman demonstrator what they were against and why. She made her case and then the interviewer asked her, “What alternatives do you offer”? She very confidently and smugly stated that “great minds” were working on this. Remember, this is NPR so I was amazed at his next question. “So then, you have no alternatives?” She wasn’t so smug at this point, but fell back on to her “great minds” claptrap. 

Leftism, in all it's forms and permutations, and their "allies", are part of the same package. There is a reason greenies are called watermelons. The lefties embrace economic and social concepts that have been shown to be so seriously flawed, and that no matter how many times they're tried, they've failed. They eschew concepts that have succeeded over and over again.  No matter how many times they're tried, they succeed, and the left is against them.

  • They rant, rave, demonstrate, destroy property, and attack people (physically and personally) while claiming to be paragons of compassion. 
  • They scream disruptively, and throw pies in the faces of speakers in an attempt to silence their views, while claiming to be the ultimate defenders of free speech. 
  • They illegally occupy public places without permission or compensation. 
  • They leave violence and filth behind. While screaming that they have rights they completely ignore the legitimate rights of others. 
  • They embrace extremist and murderous dictators and tyrannical systems of governance while decrying every action taken to defend the innocent by defunding the police.
  • They embrace energy concepts that have failed over and over again in the past, and even eventually turn against any of the alternatives they support. 

Why? Because they're irrational, misanthropic and morally defective.  As a result, they can never be pleased, no matter how hard anyone tries, because their foundational values of all these misfits are based on hate, anger, envy, greed and violence. Without hate they can't exist. Happy people cannot be haters and haters cannot be happy. As a result there is nothing you do that will ever satisfy them.  

They hate truth:  It defies the narrative of the day.  They hate history: It condemns them.  They eschew compassion:  Leftist dictators murdered 100 million people in the 20th century and green activists are responsible for the deaths of over 100 million people since the 1960's.  They hate solutions that work:  That exposes their incompetence and stupidity since they have no solutions that work. 

The reality is that they are really great at finding fault, but their failure and incompetence at finding solutions is legendary. That's history and that history is incontestable.  Is it unreasonable to wonder if they're even sane?

I read an article (about a Lutheran church that had an event of "guided meditations" "by a high priestess of the pagan fertility goddess Isis." They refer to this as the "fifth annual Faith and Feminism Conference" hosted by the "Ebenezer Lutheran Church in San Francisco, which bills itself as "herchurch." The article goes on to say, "Among the scheduled participants is Loreon Vigne, high priestess of Isis Oasis – a temple, retreat and animal sanctuary Vigne founded in 1978 in Geyserville, Calif. "I personally see Isis as Mother Nature," Vigne says, "and that she encompasses everything with her wings. She's a winged goddess. She encompasses any other goddess from any culture."  

You know.....you just can't make this stuff up. It is one thing when concern about the environment turns into a pseudo-pagan secular religion, and another thing when the media, the universities and government agencies are complicit with this. After all, the kind of Druidic paganism that environmentalism has become has been very subtle. But what is wrong with the minds of those in their own churches (especially their leaders) who adopt this stuff right out in the open?

One the things that the founding fathers never considered was the idea that this nation would be based on anything except Judaic/Christian principles. It was obvious to them that Christian thought was so far superior to every other religious concept that no one would even consider anything else. 

Boy, were they wrong! 

In ancient Israel the Jews adopted local pagan religions practices and pagan gods on an ongoing basis over the centuries. The priests even had pagan images right in the Temple at one point. I used to wonder how such a thing could occur; after all they did have a permanent priesthood that was supposed to have all the knowledge necessary to stand against such actions?

It turns out they were the parties most guilty of these actions. They didn't do this all by themselves either. Between the ruling classes and their society as a whole, this is what people wanted and they went along with and found "reasons" to justify it. I have no doubt that every argument that's heard today about inclusion was used then. 

There is nothing new under that sun and apparently there is no level of gullibility that is too great for humanity to swallow. Going along to get along requires a degree of gullibility and culpability, both of which are first cousins to stupid!  And you can't fix stupid!

How did our culture come to this? Why as a society do we listen to these people? Why do we tolerate the insane things they promote? As a result, as a society, I then have to wonder as to our sanity.  I am not optimistic.

Editor's Note: This is a reprint and update of an article I published in 2011.  That article could have stood alone without change and still appeared as if it was written today.  That's disturbing!  RK

 

Saturday, April 24, 2021

The Bay of Pigs 60th Anniversary, Part II—the Shooting’s Over But the Heroism and Betrayal Continue

Humberto Fontova Humberto Fontova Apr 24, 2021 @ Townhall.com

Outnumbered over ten to one by Soviet led forces and betrayed by their sponsor, these mostly civilian volunteers fought till the last bullet. In three days of relentless close-quarter fighting they made monkeys of the Soviet commanders at the scene and their Cuban lackeys and cannon-fodder, inflicting losses of 20 to one. 

Castro and Che were jittery there for awhile, urging caution in the counterattack. From the lethal fury of the attack and the horrendous casualties their troops and militia were taking, the two Soviets satraps assumed they faced at least 20,000 invading "mercenaries," as they called them. 

Yet it was a band of mostly civilian volunteers they outnumbered laughably. But to hear Castro's echo chamber (the Beltway media and leftist academics), Fidel was the plucky David and the invaders the bumbling Goliath!

(We discussed the battle in greater detail last week here.)

In fact, if JFK wanted some genuine Profiles in Courage he might have looked at the men he betrayed on that heroic beachhead. Some of most jaw-dropping heroics, however, came after the shooting ended, after they’d spent their last bullets and knew no more were coming from their ally, the most powerful nation on earth, the same one that enforced a "no-fly zone" half a country wide on another continent (Iraq) with half the U.S Air Force for a decade—but refused to provide one three miles across, 90 miles away, for half a day with two planes.

At any rate, the battle was over in three days, but the heroism was not.

Now came almost two years in Castro’s dungeons for the captured Brigada, complete with the physical and psychological torture that always comes with communist incarceration. During almost two years in Castro’s dungeons, the freedom-fighters lived under a daily death sentence. 

Escaping that sentence would have been easy: simply sign the little paper confessing they were “mercenaries of the Yankee imperialists” or go on camera denouncing the U.S.  Given these freedom-fighters' betrayal, you might think Fidel and Che Guevara had a cakewalk here.

Hah! None of these men signed the document, or uttered a peep against their “ally.” The freedom-fighters stood tall, proud, defiant, even sparring with Castro himself during their televised Stalinist show trials. “We will die with dignity!” snapped their commander Erneido Oliva (a black Cuban, by the way, Ms. Maxine “VIVA FIDEL!”  Waters” and Jesse, “VIVA FIDEL!” Jackson) at the furious Castroites again, and again, and again. To a Castroite, such an attitude not only enrages but also baffles.

Think about it, amigos: even after that betrayal these men (and boys, some as young as 16-17) refused to utter any anti-American slogan for Castro and Che Guevara’s cameras and propaganda mill. The very slogans that half-wit, grandstanding “woke” celebrities and politicians parrot daily for free publicity, these betrayed men refused to utter even while thinking it might save their lives!

The Castroites also staged a classic Soviet-style show-trial attempting to showcase (for all the world to see) the Bay of Pigs prisoners admitting they were “mercenaries in the pay of the Yankee Imperialists.” And initially they thought they’d get the propaganda bonanza they so desperately desired.  

For this big production the prisoners were thoroughly interrogated beforehand (the KGB had been coaching Castro’s secret police for almost two years by then) to see who’d crack, who’d play along. Only these would get in front of the cameras.

Tomas Cruz, Felipe Rivero and a few other Bay of Pigs freedom-fighters gave every impression of having broken down. They whimpered to their Castroite “interrogators” that they’d be willing to go on camera and denounce the U.S. 

“AHA!”  Fidel and Che snickered while rubbing their hands. “Now we got ‘em!” (Rivero and Cruz were also snickering.)

So the day came. The Stalinist stage was set at Havana’s Sports Arena and the communist cameras rolled. Castro and Che Guevara’s lackey vice President Carlos R. Rodriguez was the opening act. He put the microphone to Felipe Rivero.

"Nobody paid us to do a damn thing!" Rivero blurted…..Whoops! The Castroites’ mouths dropped. They gaped nervously. They looked around. A rumble went through the crowd. 

"We came here to fight communism!" Rivero continued. "Men from every class and race in Cuba volunteered to come here and FIGHT you!"

“Holy s**t! What now?!” the Castroites were frantic! The cameras were rolling but started shifting around nervously. Rodriguez’s lips trembled. He wiped his forehead. He stretched his collar. Some heads would (literally!) roll when the Maximum Leader saw this! The cameras didn’t know where to focus.

"And another thing!" Felipe shouted. "We outfought you!” The Castroites were frantic now, they looked from one to another aghast and cleared their throats. They looked like Democrats during the Ollie North hearings. 

Rodriguez finally caught his breath and with a trembling voice started with the usual commie mumbo-jumbo about "the masses" and "the people…bah…blah…”

"Ok, fine!” Rivero rolled his eyes and waved his hand. "You say you have the people with you? Then hold an election! That’ll really tell us, won’t it!"

Complete pandemonium, amigos. Even the diehard commies in the crowd couldn’t restrain themselves. Che Guevara himself had to snicker. A rumble of laughter, a rustle of claps and hoots erupted from all corners. All this was on Cuban national TV, remember. 

And Cuba – that impoverished and squalid little Third World country Castro’s echo chamber (the mainstream media) always tells us about – besides having net immigration from Europe shortly before the glorious liberation, also had more TVs per capita than Canada or Germany. 

The very island almost shook with a collective roar.

Finally the Maximum Leader himself (Fidel Castro) pranced on the stage. Only he could straighten things out. He had it all figured out. He had an ace up his sleeve. So he approached the black parachutist prisoner Tomas Cruz. "We opened the beaches for you blacks," he sneered. (In 1958 Cuba had a private whites-only country club with a private beach.) "So what on earth are you doing with these Yankee mercenaries?"

Tell it to Obama and the Congressional Black Caucus, Fidel. Tell it to Maxine Waters and Jesse Jackson – they’ll swallow your BS and ask for seconds. But Cruz didn’t flinch. He looked Castro straight in the eye. "I didn’t come here to swim," he glowered. "I came here to fight communism. I came here with my brothers of every race to free my homeland from communism.”

Well, amigos, the Castroites decided to hold these "trials" behind closed doors and with the cameras off after that.

A guilt-stricken JFK finally ransomed the Brigade back from Castro's dungeon. The negotiations took almost two years while the men suffered the mental and physical tortures that always accompany Communist incarceration. One source claims that Castro had agreed to terms seven months earlier. But the Kennedy brothers (both President and Attorney General) feared the Bay of Pigs issue in the news for the November '62 congressional races. They feared the issue of how those men came to be prisoners in the first place might skew the races Republican. So the prisoners were conveniently released Christmas Eve of '62. A few died in prison during those intervening seven months. 

Outrageously, thanks to yet another Democrat administration, Castro might have gotten the last laugh with Rivero. In 1967 Felipe Rivero found himself in a U.S. federal prison. His crime? Organizing attacks from the U.S. trying to overthrow Castro! 

You read that right. The same man accused and jailed by Castro for being a U.S. mercenary and lackey, of being bribed by the U.S. to overthrow communism in Cuba was later jailed by the U.S. for trying to overthrow Communism in Cuba!  LBJ had to honor that Kennedy-Khrushchev Missile Crisis swindle to safeguard Castro, you see.

"We ended up getting exactly what we'd wanted all along," snickered Nikita Khrushchev about the Missile Crisis in his diaries, “security for Fidel Castro’s regime and American missiles removed from Turkey and Italy. Until today the U.S. has complied with her promise not to interfere with Castro and not to allow anyone else to interfere with Castro. After Kennedy's death, his successor Lyndon Johnson assured us that he would keep the promise not to invade Cuba." 

The Brigadistas' ordeal was mostly over by late 1962. But when it came to JFK's lies I'll yield to Bachman Turner Overdrive: "You ain't seen nothing yet! B--ba-ba-ba-BY you just AIN'T seen nothing yet!" 

"I promise to deliver this Brigade banner to you in a free Havana!" That was JFK addressing the recently-ransomed Brigade and their families in Miami's Orange Bowl, Dec. 29, 1962. I guess those people hadn't been subject to enough lies, to enough betrayal. They hadn't suffered enough. And the mothers, widows children-- they hadn't been through enough either. In Camelot's eyes, they deserved more shameless lies. 

Kennedy’s secret deal with Khrushchev to safeguard Castro was made barely a month before JFK made his liberation promises in the Orange Bowl. Yet he addressed those men, their families and compatriots with a straight face. 

Small wonder that these Brigadistas, their families, and most of their compatriots always refused to file meekly into the liberal plantation, like obedient little "hispanics," or “latinos,” with a nice pat on the head by the condescendingly smirking doyens of the Democrat-Media complex. 


Friday, December 6, 2013

American Betrayal: On American Spectator's Christmas Books List

By Diana West on Tuesday, December 03, 2013

A little birdie tells me that the upcoming Christmas Books feature at the
American Spectator will include American Betrayal
on my friend Jed Babbin's list.  Babbin, a noted author and commentator, is also former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, and long familiar to readers of the Spectator, Human Events and National Review.

Jed writes:  Last and certainly not least, American Betrayal by Diana West documents Soviet penetration of the U.S government during World War II and the parallels today to how the “free world” is reacting to Islam. Do not be dissuaded by the controversy that has erupted around the book which, if you insist on complete accuracy, would be characterized...
Read More »

Friday, November 29, 2013

Bukovsky: Judgment in Moscow, Chapter 1

By Diana West on Friday, November 29, 2013

What a publishing coup for the editors at Breitbart News when Vladimir Bukovsky chose to offer them the first chapter of his 1993 book, Judgment in Moscow, for publication for the first time in English. Published in other languages including French (
Judgment a Moscou,1995), Random House acquired the book in the 1990s, but, as Bukovsky lays out below, the deal became contingent on deep, transformative revisions he simply refused to make.  As Bukovsky explains, Random House honcho Jason Epstein was determined to shape Bukovsky's remarkable manuscript based on a trove of ultra-secret Soviet documents to fit the conventional wisdom ... the consensus ... the court history of the Cold War -- never mind the evidence as laid out in these stunning documents themselves. Something else... Read More »

Thursday, November 28, 2013

Bukovsky & Stroilov: "West's American Betrayal Will Make History"

By Diana West on Wednesday, November 27, 2013
After positively reviewing American Betrayal at Breitbart News at the end of September, Vladimir Bukovsky and Pavel Stroilov found themselves subject to a flurry of attacks. They have now responded, not in kind but rather to explain why "a more intelligent debate" over the issues raised in American Betrayal is urgently needed despite what they call "the vehement campaign against the book."

From
Breitbart News:  "West's American Betrayal Will Make History" by Vladimir Bukovsky... Read More »

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

In Defense of Diana West

September 13, 2013 By M. Stanton Evans @ CNSNews

(Editor's Note:  This is how the federal government became so infested with leftists.  In 2013 I posted this piece as a link.  However, given events as they're unfolding, I think it absolutely important to get as much coverage of this as possible, ergo, I've decided to post the entire piece without permission.  If CNSNews or M. Stanton Evans object I will adjust it back to a linked article. Also, for transparency sake, I took a public position defending Diana West during her during the attacks by Radosh and Horowitz.  On line and in my articles.  RK)

Out of the public eye and far from the daily headlines, a fierce verbal battle is currently being waged about the course of American policy in the long death struggle with Moscow that we call the Cold War.
At ground zero of this new dispute is author Diana West, whose recent book, American Betrayal (St. Martin's), is a hard- hitting critique of the strategy toward the Soviet Union pursued in the 1940s by President Franklin Roosevelt, his top assistant Harry Hopkins, and various of their colleagues. Ms. West in particular stresses the infiltration of the government of that era by Communists and Soviet agents, linking the presence of these forces to U.S. policies that appeased the Russians or served the interests of the Kremlin.
For making this critique, Ms. West has been bitterly attacked by writers Ronald Radosh and David Horowitz, Roosevelt biographer Conrad Black, and a considerable crew of others. The burden of their complaint is that she is a "conspiracy theorist" and right wing nut whose views are far outside the mainstream of historical writing, and that she should not have presumed to write such a book about these important matters. 

Though the professed stance of her opponents is that of scholarly condescension, the language being used against Ms. West doesn't read like scholarly discourse. She is, we're told, "McCarthy on steroids," "unhinged," a "right-wing loopy," not properly "house trained," "incompetent," purveying "a farrago of lies," and a good deal else of similar nature.  All of which looks more like the politics of personal destruction than debate about serious academic issues.

From my standpoint, however, what is going on here seems to be something more than personal. Having delved into these matters a bit, I think I recognize the process that's in motion:  the circling of rhetorical wagons around a long accepted narrative about the Second World War and the Cold War conflict that followed.

This narrative  sets the limits of permissible comment about American Cold War policy, bounded on the one side by Roosevelt and Hopkins, representing generally speaking  the forces of good (appeasing Moscow, e.g. , only in order to win the war with Hitler), and on the other by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin, the supposed epitome of evil.  Between these boundaries, variations are allowed, but woe betide the writer who goes beyond them. Ms. West has transgressed in both directions, sharply criticizing Roosevelt/ Hopkins and speaking kindly of Joe McCarthy.

(Full disclosure: I provided a cover endorsement for Ms. West's book, and wrote a book of my own some years ago examining the myriad cases of McCarthy.  Based on that background, I can testify that conventional views about him are almost totally devoid of merit, based as they are on extensive ignorance of the archival record.)

Especially galling to West's critics is her contention that Washington in the war years was so riddled with Communists and Soviet agents as to be in effect an "occupied" city  -- an image that seems to have sparked the greatest anger and most denunciation of her thesis.

By using the "occupied" image, Ms. West is of course not saying Soviet tanks were patrolling the streets of Washington, or that Red martial law was imposed on its cowering citizens.  What she is arguing instead is that Soviet agents, Communists and fellow travelers held official posts, or served at chokepoints of intelligence data, and from these positions were able to exert pro-Soviet leverage on U.S. and other allied policy.  Though ignored in many conventional histories, the evidence to support this view is overwhelming.

It is for instance abundantly plain, from multiple sources of Cold War intel, that Communist/pro-Soviet penetration of the government under FDR was massive, numbering in the many hundreds.  These pro-Red incursions started in the New Deal era of the 1930s, then accelerated in the war years when the Soviets were our allies and safeguards against Communist infiltration were all but nonexistent. The scope of the problem was expressed as follows in an FBI report  to Director J. Edgar Hoover:

"It has become increasingly clear... that there are a tremendous number of persons employed in the United States government who are Communists and who strive daily to advance the cause of Communism and destroy the foundations of this government. Today nearly every department or agency is infiltrated with them in varying degree.. To aggravate the situation, they appear to have concentrated most heavily in departments which make policy, or carry it into effect..."

Pro-Red penetration was especially heavy in such war-time agencies as the Office of Strategic Services and Office of War Information, which were thrown together in a hurry at the outset of the conflict, with little thought for anti-Communist security vetting.  But the problem was acute also in old-line agencies such as the State and Treasury departments, both of which by war's end were honeycombed with Soviet agents.( Making matters worse, anti-Soviet officials and diplomats were in the meantime being purged from their positions.)

Far from being lowly spear carriers on the fringes,  pro-Soviet operatives in case after case ascended to posts of great power and influence. Among the most famous-though only three of a considerable number-were Alger Hiss at the State Department, Harry D. White at the Treasury and Lauchlin Currie at the White House. All of these, as we now know, were Soviet agents, well positioned to affect the course of American policy in matters of concern to Soviet dictator Stalin.

A prime example of such policy impact occurred during the earliest wartime going, in the prelude to Pearl Harbor. At this time, Soviet agents White and Currie maneuvered  to prevent a truce between the United States and Japan, which might have freed up the Japanese military for an assault on Russia, an attack Stalin was desperate to fend off while he was embroiled in Europe with the Nazis.

In this maneuvering,  White worked with the Soviet intelligence service KGB, and in parallel with the efforts of a  Soviet spy combine in Tokyo, headed by the German Communist Richard Sorge.  The Sorge group sought to persuade the Japanese that there was no percentage in attacking Russia-- that there were much more inviting targets to be found down south in the Pacific. One such target turned out to be the American naval base at Pearl Harbor.

In the State Department, while Alger Hiss would become the most notorious Soviet agent of the war years, he was far from going solo. According to a long concealed but now recovered report compiled by security officers of the State Department, there were at war's end no fewer than 20 identified agents such as Hiss on the payroll, plus 13 identified Communists and 90 other suspects and sympathizers serving with him.

Like the FBI report saying "nearly every department" of the Federal government was infiltrated by Communist apparatchiks, these staggering numbers from the State Department security force look suspiciously like the description of a de facto "occupation" given in Ms. West's supposedly unhinged essay.

At the Treasury, there were at least a dozen Communists and Soviet agents, headed by Harry White, who exerted influence on a host of issues.  In late 1943, to cite a prominent instance, White and his fellow Soviet agent Solomon Adler, Treasury attaché in China, launched a disinformation campaign to discredit our anti-Communist ally Chiang Kai-shek, deny him U.S. assistance, and turn U.S. policy in favor of the Communists under Mao Tse-tung.

This campaign, aided by  Adler's State Department Chungking roommate John Stewart Service and other U.S. diplomats in China, succeeded, with results that we are still living with today.  Meanwhile, an identical propaganda campaign was waged by U.S. and British pro-Red officials to discredit the anti-Communists of the Balkans, in order to deliver control of Yugoslavia to the Communist Tito. This, too, succeeded, resulting in the communization of the country and capture and murder by Tito of his anti-Communist rival, Gen. Draza Mihailovich .

In the  summer of 1944, White and his pro-Moscow Treasury colleagues played a crucial role in devising the so-called "Morgenthau plan" for Germany, which would have converted the country into a purely agrarian nation. They were involved as well in plans to turn two million desperate anti- Soviet refugees over to the Russians, and a slave labor proviso that would  herd millions into the Soviet Gulag.

All these projects would be promoted in the run-up to a 1944 Roosevelt- Churchill summit in Quebec, later becoming American policy in Europe. At an in-house meeting just before the summit, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. met with a group of his staffers and praised them for the excellent plans they had developed. Of these advisers no fewer than six would later be identified under oath and in secret security data as ideological Communists or Soviet agents. That  amazing line-up of pro-Moscow assets at a single U.S. Treasury meeting would once more seem to justify the "occupied" description.

As to how such improbable things could happen under FDR, a post-script to the above is  suggestive. Though Roosevelt signed off on the Morgenthau plan at Quebec, when he was later challenged on it by War Secretary Henry Stimson, he said he didn't know how he could have done so-that he "had evidently done it without much thought."  As that response implied, the President at this time was failing badly in his powers, and would fail even more dramatically in the months to follow.

Which leads to a provisional wrap-up of this discussion.  The culmination of the policy debacle of the war years occurred in 1945 at Yalta, where the American delegation headed by FDR made innumerable concessions to the Russians: slave labor for the Gulag as post-war "reparations" to the Kremlin , turning anti-Soviet refugees over to Moscow, Soviet control of Manchuria's ports and railways-presaging the Red conquest of China.  A leading member of the American delegation that agreed to all of this was none other than the now famous Soviet  agent, Alger Hiss.

In court histories and Roosevelt biographies, we're told that Hiss at Yalta was no big deal-an insignificant figure without substantive influence on the proceedings.  As the archival records show, this is grossly in error.  In fact, Hiss in the Yalta discussions was a ubiquitous  and highly active presence, dealing as a virtual equal with British foreign secretary Anthony Eden, and speaking out on numerous issues-China prominent among them-voicing the "State Department" or "United States" position in  backstage meetings.

Scanning these records, it's obvious that Hiss was far more conversant with issues and events at Yalta than was his inexperienced nominal chieftain , Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius Jr. (all of two months on the job). As with Joe McCarthy, our historians might be  advised to consult the primary data on such matters, rather than re-cycling Hiss-was-no-problem comment from secondary sources.

Granted, getting at the primary data takes some digging, as many relevant records have been buried, censored or omitted from official archives.  Presidential secrecy orders, disappearing papers, folders missing from the files, two manipulated grand juries (that we know of) used to cover up the extent and nature of the penetration ; all these methods and more were employed in the 1940s to keep the shocking story from Congress and the public.  And, sad to relate, in some considerable measure the cover up continues now, in court histories that neglect  archival data to repeat once more the standard narrative of the war years.

Diana West's important book is a valiant effort to break through this wall of secrecy and selective silence.  Her work in some respects touches on matters beyond my ken-such as Soviet treatment of American POWs-- where I am not competent to judge .  But on issues where our researches coincide-and these are many-I find her knowledgeable and on target, far more so than the conventional histories compared to which she is said to be found wanting . As the above suggests, her notion of wartime Washington as an "occupied" city, and the data that back it up, are especially cogent.