Wednesday, October 17, 2007

A Perfect Storm of Evil

By Jim Simpson

The Bible talks a great deal about sin, the popular notion being that through God’s vengeance we will burn for an eternity of Hell lest we repent and change. But I believe in the notion that we are punished not so much for our sins, but rather, by our sins. The ugly nature of politics today, and its probable outcome, provides an apt demonstration.

Few would argue, at least among those of us who believe there is such a thing as “morality,” that today’s popular culture is markedly degenerate. We glorify women who dress like tramps and lionize rap stars who treat them as though they were tramps. The magazine racks are obsessed with Brad and Angelina and their latest out-of-wedlock adoption. T.V. news shows showed more interest in Anna Nicole Smith’s sagas than the war in Iraq.

Respect for authority has been replaced by demands for ever-increasing public services, while fewer and fewer adults are willing to take responsibility for themselves and their families. The principled leader – always a scarce commodity – is today on the verge of extinction. Politics has degenerated to little more than a vote auction for promised public giveaways.

There have always been charlatans in politics, but in today’s culture, being a liar is “smart.” The media are in awe of politicians adept at “crafting a message” that will “resonate” with voters. They discuss without irony how this or that candidate has to “moderate” his/her position to appeal to this or that group. They focus exclusively on image – and seem not to understand that there is no relying on someone whose word is not reliable. But if you don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything.

As this moral degeneracy has spread throughout the population, a political party has arisen that both helped to create and concurrently take advantage of it: the Democrat Party. And hiding within that party for many years has been a malevolent, organized underground that has used it as a pathway to power.

In the 1950s, it was called the communist party, and it was responsible for some of the most reprehensible acts of treason in our nation’s history. And while Democrats like Harry Truman fought communism on the world stage, both the FDR and Truman administrations were littered with imbedded Soviet agents. Most notorious were Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White.

Hiss helped write the UN Charter. Is it any wonder that an organization designed by a Soviet agent would wind up routinely hampering U.S. foreign policy and advancing the cause of totalitarian dictatorships? Its fundamental structure has given an undeserved legitimacy to tin pot dictatorships the world over. Hiss advised FDR at the Yalta Conference, where the U.S. surrendered postwar Eastern Europe to the Soviets, plunging those hapless countries into decades of indescribable misery. And we wonder how so many foreign policy decisions have come back to haunt us?

Hiss did time for perjury, White was instrumental in creating the World Bank, a cash cow for the world’s despots, and was appointed to lead the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which he also helped create. While Hiss is the more notorious, White was equally destructive. According to Conservapedia:

White used his position in the Treasury Department to develop a hostile U.S. policy toward Japan. The reason was to distract Japan from their plans to attack the Soviet Union and draw the U.S. into the war as an ally with the Soviet Union. White was the author of an extreme ultimatum that Japan could not comply with in the days just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

White delayed financial support mandated by law to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Chinese government causing the triumph of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese government.

Wikipedia quotes a Senate Internal Security Subcommittee Report:

"The concentration of Communist sympathizers in the Treasury Department, and particularly the Division of Monetary Research, is now a matter of record. White was the first director of that division; those who succeeded him in the directorship were Frank Coe and Harold Glasser. Also attached to the Division of Monetary Research were William Ludwig Ullman, Irving Kaplan, and Victor Perlo. White, Coe, Glasser, Kaplan, and Perlo were all identified as participants in the Communist conspiracy ..."

It goes on to describe White’s assistance to Harold Glasser in greater detail:

White assisted [Glasser], a Treasury executive and NKVD spy, “in obtaining posts and promotions at Treasury while aware of his Communist ties.” Because of White’s backing, Glasser survived an FBI background check. In December 1941 the Secret Service forwarded a report to Harry White indicating that it had evidence Glasser was involved in Communist activities. White never acted on the report. Glasser continued to serve in the Treasury Department, and soon began recruiting other agents and preparing briefing reports on Treasury personnel and other potential espionage agents for the NKVD. After America became involved in World War II, Glasser received appointments to several higher-level positions in the government on White's approval.[

This is only a sampling. I have left out the notorious atomic spies, the Rosenbergs and Klaus Fuchs. There were more, but even these were only the tip of the iceberg. Many doubtless went on undiscovered.

After the 1950s however, many Leftists disassociated themselves with formal membership in the Party. The New Left of the 1960s, for example, was created mainly by children of American communists, the so-called “Red-Diaper Babies.” Most of these never joined the Party, although they remained in sympathy with its goals, if not all its methods.

These people formed the nucleus of the 1960s anti-war movement and it is now an old story that many went on to professorships at colleges and universities, while others made careers in journalism and government. By the 1970s and 80s, their impact was increasingly visible: radicalism was becoming mainstream. A great read on how this was reflected in Congress is National Review’s 1987 article, “Congress’s Red Army.” Its impact is aptly reflected in the following passage:

In 1979 [American Communist Party leader Gus] Hall addressed the national convention of the Communist Party and exulted in the party's new success in forming coalitions with nonmembers. He noted "a decrease in expressions of anti-Communism.' Communists, he observed, "do not have to fight to participate in these movements. In fact, we not only do not have to fight to participate, in most cases we are asked to join and help out.' (Emphasis mine.) He said with satisfaction that Teddy Kennedy "is a lightning rod for the rising current of political independence.'

Since then, the line between formal members of the communist party and fellow travelers of the hard left has become increasingly blurred and the hard left now exerts a virtually vice-grip control of the Democrat Party. And while the goals and tactics of the hard left are virtually indistinguishable from communists, this group has, until now, managed to avoid the still-pejorative label. In a recent series of brilliant American Thinker articles, James Lewis did us all an enormous favor by defying the PC police and giving these people a fitting moniker: Neocommunists.

The goals and tactics of the international communist movement have never changed. But now the movement is peopled to a great extent by Neocommunists who disavow membership in the party, while still working actively to accomplish its goals.

George Soros is a major player in that movement, and his organizations and money have been behind much of the Democrats’ outrageous initiatives in recent years: the horrid immigration bill defeated last spring, the national network of vote registration organizations (that have been convicted of voter fraud – including massive fake registrations, voter intimidation and destruction of republican vote registrations,) the “Global Warming” scam, the anti-war movement and so many others.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are also willing participants in that movement. Democrat legislators, like Henry Waxman, Barbara Boxer, Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer and many more, are “Democrat” in name only. They wouldn’t know the “mainstream” if they were drowning in it. These people have nothing, repeat, nothing to recommend them but they all have one thing in common: an ego so titanic they believe they are entitled to do literally anything.

People view the increasing radicalism of our elected leaders with blasé indifference. As a society we have lost our moral anchors. Thus we cannot see the treachery ahead. A perfect storm is building. Republicans can’t fight off the relentless attacks being waged by the Democrats’ media allies. The American people have become too complacent and ill-informed to see that, while some Republicans certainly are no saints, the Democrats are institutionally corrupt. As Tom Delay told Matt Lauer of NBC “There are scandals that need to be addressed. Republicans address them, Democrats re-elect them.”

Hillary Clinton’s college senior thesis was written about the methods of radical organizer Saul Alinsky, who said: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." Sound familiar? How about the tactics in evidence these past few days against Rush Limbaugh on the “phony soldiers” issue? What about Ken Starr? Remember Linda Tripp? Robert Bork? Clarence Thomas? The list is endless. That one quote encapsulates the electoral strategy of the national Democrat party. However Hillary didn’t agree with Alinsky that changes could only come from outside the system. She saw working within the system as more effective. Hmmm…

What I find more telling is her internship for Robert Treuhaft, longtime prominent member of the American Communist Party. You don’t get those kinds of jobs by being a polite Republican sorority sister. From there she then went on to leadership positions in some of the most notorious Leftist organizations in the United States. Okay, so I can’t point to her name on the membership roster of the American Communist Party as proof. Nevermind. As a Neocommunist, she fits the bill exactly.

People have said that 2008 may be the most important election in our nation’s history. That is an understatement. If Democrats sweep both houses with large majorities, as it appears they might, while Hillary Clinton takes the presidency, what are the likely consequences for our constitutional republic? Will we have to rely on Congressional Democrats to reign her in? Are you kidding? Given the Clintons’ treacherous legacy, do you think she, or her institutionally corrupt Party, is above anything?

I don’t.

Like Marx, Hillary’s “morality” is clearly only that which furthers her cause. Her opportunistic flipflops, her vicious attacks on Clinton opponents and even unfortunate friends, all mark her as someone who cares for nothing but power. She uses the hard left to flex her political muscle now. Would taking the reins of power as President moderate her?

Republican political optimists hope that Hillary’s high negatives in the polls will spell her doom come election time. They are whistling in the dark. They assume: 1. that Hillary will play by the rules and that 2. The mass media won’t help her turn those negatives around.

The assumption that serial criminals like the Clintons would suddenly play fair defies the verdict of our decades long experience with them. In addition to the massive support she will get from Soros-funded ACORN, Project Vote and others, in recruiting both legal and illegal new voters – dead and alive, I do not believe Hillary is even depending upon a majority vote in the general election. She is counting on the recruitment of a third-party candidate to split the republican vote, exactly as her husband did, TWICE. That candidate could be Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City. It might even be Ron Paul. Like Ross Perot before him, he is a Texan. Like Ross Perot before him, he dislikes mainstream Republicans and may be as shortsighted, ignorant and vindictive as Perot was in purposefully assisting a hardcore leftist win the Presidency.

I wouldn’t rely on the media to reveal her machinations either. The only reason both Clintons are not today a defunct historical footnote is the protection and stature they have been accorded by the press to this point. People don’t “love” the Clintons, as the press likes to claim, people adore the wholly fallacious image the press has created for them. She has relied on media support repeatedly to help remake her image and overcome her “negatives.” The fact that they still haven’t completely succeeded bears testament to just how “negative” she really is. The implications of such deeprooted media corruption are truly frightening – but very real. But we haven’t seen anything yet. In the final runup to the election they will pull out all the stops to improve her chances. They want her to win, and can smell victory.

We are at a crossroads. Our national conscience has degenerated to the point that we only dimly recognize our predicament. Finally, and too late, the horrible ramifications of our apathy will be revealed. We will indeed be punished by our various sins of self-absorbed narcissism, of foolish pride – of worshipping false idols. We are not all guilty of these sins, of course. But Burke said: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Lenin said that the organized minority will beat the disorganized majority every time. The Left is very organized, as we have seen repeatedly. Unfortunately, unless we get our collective act together, the Neocommunists who define American political and popular culture will take the rest of us down with them. The Left will prove once again that you don’t need good ideas, just good organization and a ruthless willingness to do whatever is necessary to win. People who believe in the United States of America, people who believe in real justice, in real freedom, We The People, must organize to defeat them. And we must do it NOW. We may not have another chance.

Jim Simpson is a freelance writer and former White House economist/budget analyst.


  1. Ok, I tagged you again, this is an original launch and is specifically geared to bring us new readers, not political junkies, but new folks that can help us with our goals.

    Please do not feel obligated to join in, but we all like more traffic, so if you are willing, have fun with it.

    Rules are here:

    Should be great for our traffic...

  2. I agree with you Jim. Now what? The left has more campaign dollars and more passion. Although you can defeat a movement that has one without the other it's hard to defeat a movement with both. But those of us who love America do not have a choice. How do you suggest we "organize to defeat them" now?


  3. Dear Ben:

    I agree with your assessment. To answer your question, I don't know how we can organize. The great stumbling block is that, while we are for many things, with regard to Hillary and her types, we are really more "against" than "for." We are fighting for the future of this country, but do it in our free time, after taking care of all the responsibilities of living. The Hillarys of the world are free to focus on their goal and they do have a personal vested interest in the outcome: they will be leaders in the brave new world, with all its trappings. We on the other hand, will only continue to have what we have. So we start with a decided disadvantage. The organizing has to come from a Party structure that clearly sees the enemy for what it is and is firmly committed to the fight. Don't know that it will happen. I don't have the resources. Perhaps if we had our own George Soros we could manage. We don't as far as I can tell. Any suggestions?