Tag Archives: Tyranny

Frankly Speaking…..

October, 7, 2010 — pasted from nicedeb

In early 2008, after I had started looking into Obama’s background, I remember thinking, “Wow, as soon as the general public hears about this, it’s going to be curtains for this guy. There is no way! He’s unelectable!”

A case in point:  February of 2008,  Cliff Kincaid wrote a stunning piece for Accuracy in Media, Obama’s Communist Mentor.

Who was Frank? Obama only says that he had “some modest notoriety once,” was “a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago…” but was now “pushing eighty.” He writes about “Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self” giving him advice before he left for Occidental College in 1979 at the age of 18.

(For information on Obama’s Marxist activities at Occidental College, see this 6 part interview with former classmate [and former Marxist] Dr. John Drew, conducted on the B-Cast. Obama was already a committed Marxist by the time he started college, according to Drew.)

This “Frank” is none other than Frank Marshall Davis, the black communist writer now considered by some to be in the same category of prominence as Maya Angelou and Alice Walker. In the summer/fall 2003 issue of African American Review, James A. Miller of George Washington University reviews a book by John Edgar Tidwell, a professor at the University of Kansas, about Davis’s career, and notes, “In Davis’s case, his political commitments led him to join the American Communist Party during the middle of World War II-even though he never publicly admitted his Party membership.”

That was the first time most of us in the conservative media had heard of him, although he had been on Trevor Loudon’s radar screen since March 2007, when he wrote   Obama’s Marxist Mentor. Some of us thought that it was a significant story that would have legs. Unfortunately many bloggers shied away from it because they didn’t want to be seen as “red-baiters”. The MSM had no interest in it, whatsoever. Including  Drudge:

Drudge Plays Role of Censor

While Obama’s far-left support seems to be worthy of news and comment, Matt Drudge of Drudge Report fame has just rejected two paid ads submitted by my group America’s Survival, Inc. about the influence that CPUSA member Davis exerted over a young Obama. The ads featured a photo of Davis and a communist hammer and sickle. They asked, “Who is this man?,” and urged viewers to click to “Meet the mysterious Red Mentor” so they could be directed to two reports on the subject. The ads were “too controversial,” Drudge’s representative told me.

A few lonely voices in the blogosphere pounded the story, though. I mentioned him here, included Davis in my Reds Who Support Obama post, and again Another Commie For Obamie.

At this point, some shill, who claimed to be Mark Davis,  the son of Frank Marshall Davis (on his OFA page), started commenting on my posts under the pseudonym, “Kaleokualoha”.

Kaleokualoha Says:

Every person of integrity will probably agree the slander and libel are wrong, especially when the target is a dead poet who cannot defend himself. Yet this is exactly what is happening. By defaming the character of my father, Frank Marshall Davis, and exaggerating his radical influence on Barack Obama in “Obama’s Communist Mentor” and other AIM reports, bloggers seek to portray Barack Obama as unworthy of becoming President of the United States. While there are legitimate concerns regarding every candidate, their disinformation regarding my father is especially heinous.

They vilify a dead poet who loved the United States, and who was more likely to teach random acts of kindness than disloyalty to young Barack Obama. They deliberately misrepresent the values Obama may have internalized through this relationship, in a transparent attempt to smear Obama’s character. Like weeds in a garden of truth, such disinformation must be removed at their roots. Unfortunately, their Internet brigade is very efficient at spreading this disinformation. Fortunately, their credibility can be destroyed in the eyes of people of integrity, through irrefutable proof of their deliberate misrepresentation.

Some of their most egregious misrepresentations are claims that Davis was a “lifelong member of the Communist Party USA,” and that he was a “Stalinist” because he “stayed with the Communist Party even after the Hitler-Stalin pact” of 1939, and that “his values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin.” These unprecedented claims were made AFTER the release of “Obama’s Communist Mentor,” suggesting they were either fabricated or discovered since February 2008. They should be challenged at their source: Cliff Kincaid (editor of Accuracy In Media in his “Media Excuse Obama’s False Advertising” column) and Bill Steigerwald, associate editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, in a 7 June 2008 interview (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_571431.html)

That’s only about half of one comment. He wrote several long-winded, obfuscating comments on different posts. Here’s part of another one from, AP Whitewashes the Frank Marshall Davis Story:

In June 2008, however, Kincaid starts the “Stalinist” falsehood (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_571431.html). This is where Kincaid explains that he calls Davis a “Stalinist” because “he stayed with the CPUSA after the Hitler-Stalin pact” (1939). This contradicts Kincaid’s February 2008 column, which states Davis did not even JOIN the CPUSA until later. Obviously Davis could not have “stayed with” the CPUSA before he even joined the CPUSA. Obviously, Kincaid’s stated reason is invalid. Obviously, something else changed between February and June 2008, when Kincaid suddenly starts calling Davis a “Stalinist.” Davis suddenly became a “Stalinist” because Cliff Kincaid said so??

I doubt you will find any references to Davis being a “Stalinist” before Kincaid’s new label. Did the FBI or Congressional investigators consider him a “Stalinist”? I don’t think so!

The reason I bring this up is because I just finished reading yet another article in NRO, entitled, “Obama’s Communist Mentor by Paul Kenger, a researcher who, since the early 1990s, has “been absorbed with archives from the Soviet and Communist world — I’ve looked at every kind of declassified holding.”

In recent years, I’ve concentrated on an extraordinary cache of material from the Comintern Archives on Communist Party USA (CPUSA). This material is utterly damning to the American Left, especially in its vindication of the worst fears and warnings of anti-Communists. Not surprisingly, our illustrious “scholars” in the academy are studiously ignoring it.

Kenger has just written a 600 page book, called Dupes, which prominently features Frank Marshall Davis:

After an almost four-year-long sojourn in which I tried to ascertain whether Davis was a progressive duped by Communists, or, conversely, a Communist who duped progressives, I determined the latter. No doubt, this conclusion — which means the leader of the free world was strongly influenced by a Marxist — will bring the unholy wrath of liberals. Yet, they should brace themselves for another kind of anger. Once they read what Davis did and wrote, they might redirect their rage. In truth, Davis’s targets were mainly Democrats, and especially a Democratic icon, Harry Truman. What Davis said about Truman was unbelievably outrageous. Worse, he said it because it was the Moscow line.

***

With the help of two super-impressive researchers, including one living in Hawaii, I procured Davis’s weekly “Frank-ly Speaking” columns for the Record. These writings flawlessly parroted official Soviet propaganda and portrayed the likes of Harry Truman, George Marshall, and other courageous Democrats as colonialist-imperialist-fascist-racist monsters. Davis even denounced the Marshall Plan. As any student of this era knows, only the Soviet Union, via the public voices of Stalin and Molotov, took this absurd position.

In column after column, Davis claimed Truman craved not only a “third world war,” but to “rule Russia.” Davis said that Truman’s “fascism, American style” was motivated by an anti-Communism that was fueled by veiled racism. Davis repeatedly asserted that the Soviet Union not only desired peace — as Stalin seized Eastern Europe, while also killing tens of millions of his own people — but had abolished poverty, unemployment, and even racism.

Such examples from Davis are so voluminous that they constitute the longest chapter in my 600-plus-page book. Summarizing them here is impossible. But here are three telling examples.

The disgusting Stalinist propaganda Davis was spouting in these articles were written in 1950.

As someone who has long studied this period, I recognized Davis’s writing immediately as the crass propaganda pushed by Communists around the world at that time. Congress thought the same thing. Within only months of the appearance of these columns in the Honolulu Record, Davis’s name was appearing in investigations of the Communist movement. Eventually, in December 1956, he was called to testify before the U.S. Senate, where he pleaded the Fifth Amendment. In a Senate report in 1957 titled “Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States,” Davis was plainly listed as “an identified member of the Communist Party.”

***

The real smoking gun, however, is Davis’s declassified 600-page FBI file, which was recently released through a freedom-of-information request by a fellow researcher. A cursory glance at these pages — which include accounts by informants and eyewitnesses — quickly reveals that Davis was a Communist. As evidence for readers, we have isolated and published about a dozen pages from the file in the appendix of my book, including one that lists Davis’s actual Communist-party number: 47544.

That number is consistent with those of the period. Consider the Communist-party numbers of some of the Hollywood Ten figures whom liberals laughably still defend as innocent lambs: John Howard Lawson (47275), Albert Maltz (47196), Alvah Bessie (46836).In sum, a mentor of the current president of the United States was a Communist — and not only a party member, but an actual propagandist for Stalin’s USSR, a man who unceasingly demonized Democratic presidents and their policies and cherished ideals. Even in World War II, Davis was on the wrong side: He was flatly pro-Soviet and anti-American.

You can read Kengor’s entire piece at NRO.

Okay, so it turns out, Kaleokualoha, that your dad was indeed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a card carrying,  propagandizing Stalinist Commie.

The question is whether you are  a progressive duped by Communists, or, conversely, a Communist who duped progressives, (you sure as hell didn’t dupe me)

I’ve determined the latter.

Charles Krauthammer – Annals of executive overreach

Last week, a draft memo surfaced from the Department of Homeland Security suggesting ways to administratively circumvent existing law to allow several categories of illegal immigrants to avoid deportation and, indeed, for some to be granted permanent residency. Most disturbing was the stated rationale. This was being proposed “in the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” In other words, because Congress refuses to do what these bureaucrats would like to see done, they will legislate it themselves. Regardless of your feelings on the substance of the immigration issue, this is not how a constitutional democracy should operate. Administrators administer the law, they don’t change it. That’s the legislators’ job.

Read more via Charles Krauthammer – Annals of executive overreach.

American Thinker: The Prophet of the Ruling Class

A MUST READ ARTICLE ABOUT GOVERNMENT CONTROL

In the past nineteen months, a three-judge panel has agreed to decide whether the gay marriage ban enacted by the voters of California should be overturned. The FCC has attempted to impose net neutrality, is considering reinstating the fairness doctrine to silence talk radio, and now speaks of phasing out “free” non-cable TV. Attorney General Holder has waged a virtual war against Arizona’s attempt to defend itself against unchecked immigration. Congress has created an office of consumer affairs with broad powers to regulate financial and other transactions. An all-powerful, activist director like Elizabeth Warren will be appointed in the coming weeks. A European-style bureaucrat has been appointed to direct the rationing of Medicare and Medicaid services. And the EPA may now decide on whether to ban lead in hunting and fishing supplies.

Read on via American Thinker: The Prophet of the Ruling Class.

Breitbart.tv » Congressman at Town Hall: ‘The Federal Government Can Do Most Anything in This Country’

Oh my! Stark needs to pack it in!  Man have we fallen off the track.  November can’t come soon enough!

Breitbart.tv » Congressman at Town Hall: ‘The Federal Government Can Do Most Anything in This Country’.

FOXBusiness.com – SEC Says New FinReg Law Exempts It From Public Disclosure

Our freedoms continue to erode under this administration.  I find it amazing what’s going on right under our noses and the general public is largely unaware!  Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

via FOXBusiness.com – SEC Says New FinReg Law Exempts It From Public Disclosure.

Senate Passes The Biggest Expansion of Government Since The Great Depression!!

Senate Passes Sweeping Finance Overhaul – WSJ.com.

The same people that got us into this mess are the architects of this new “financial reform”.

Law Remakes U.S. Financial Landscape

Senate Passes Overhaul That Will Touch Most Americans; Bankers Gird for Fight Over Fine Print

By DAMIAN PALETTA And AARON LUCCHETTI

[FinRegNew] Associated PressKey legislators celebrate passing of the bill Thursday.

WASHINGTON—Congress approved a rewrite of rules touching every corner of finance, from ATM cards to Wall Street traders, in the biggest expansion of government power over banking and markets since the Depression.

The bill, to be signed into law soon by President Barack Obama, marks a potential sea change for the financial-services industry. Financial titans such as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Bank of America Corp. may be forced to make changes in most parts of their business, from debit cards to the ability to invest in hedge funds.

Congress approved a sweeping rewrite of rules that touch every corner of finance in the biggest expansion of government power over banking and markets since the Great Depression. David Wessel, David Reilly and Al Lewis discuss the likely impact of Dodd-Frank.

The Senate passed the bill 60-39 Thursday, following House passage last month. Earlier in the day, three northeastern Republicans joined with Democrats to block a filibuster, allowing the bill to squeak through.

Now, the legislation hands off to 10 regulatory agencies the discretion to write hundreds of new rules governing finance. Rather than the bill itself, it will be this process—accompanied by a lobbying blitz from banks—that will determine the precise contours of this new landscape, how strict the new regulations will be and whether they succeed in their purpose. The decisions will be made by officials from new agencies, obscure agencies and, in some cases, agencies like the Federal Reserve that faced criticism in the run-up to the crisis.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has designated 30 “team leaders” to begin implementing its expansive new authority over derivatives, and has asked for $45 million for new staff. The Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and Securities and Exchange Commission are also in the thick of the implementation.

America Is In A Societal Meltdown

July 08, 2010

By Chuck Baldwin

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” So said Founding Father and America’s second President John Adams. And he was absolutely right. And that is what is absolutely wrong with our country today: America is in a complete moral, societal, and cultural meltdown.

Founding Father and America’s first US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay correctly summarized the reason our new nation (and the fight for its liberty and independence) was successful. He wrote in Federalist 2, “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”

In other words, a united constitutional republic can only exist within the framework of certain rather narrow and finite conditions. Remove those conditions and the framework for liberty and limited government falls apart. And the above statements by Adams and Jay succinctly summarize the conditions necessary for freedom’s framework.

“A Moral And Religious People”

At America’s founding, the principles of Christian philosophy and ideology were universally accepted. The vast majority of the colonists were churchgoing, Protestant Christians who firmly embraced and respected the sacred principles taught in the Holy Scriptures. In fact, the reason most colonists placed such a high premium on education was so that children would be able to read and study the Bible for themselves. It is more than interesting that America’s early educators all centered their curriculum upon the Bible. Include in this august list Benjamin Harris, publisher of the New England Primer; the “Father of American Education,” Noah Webster; along with one of early America’s most successful school textbook authors, William Holmes McGuffey.

Beyond that, when we talk about colonial America’s love of worship, we are not talking about what passes for “worship” in modern America. We are not talking about these Disneyland entertainment villages known as mega-churches. We are not talking about espresso Sunday Schools or glorified social clubs. We are talking about a place where preachers were bold and powerful proclaimers of truth and where people went to learn the Word of God (and how to apply it to every walk of life–including politics), not wallow in slurpy, sugary, shallow sermonettes that do nothing to prepare men for Christian warfare.

I challenge anyone to compare any of the sermons by colonial preachers such as Elisha Williams, Charles Chauncy, Jonathan Mayhew, Isaac Backus, Samuel Sherwood, John Witherspoon, Jacob Cushing, Samuel Cooper, Samuel Langdon, John Leland, Samuel Miller, Enos Hitchcock, Ebenezer Baldwin, or Jonathan Edwards with anything preached by Joel Osteen or Rick Warren.

Is it any wonder, then, that one cannot really distinguish the conduct and attitudes of professing Christians from those who make no Christian profession? Is it any wonder that churchgoing “Christians” seem to be as unkind, as deceitful, as lazy, as greedy, as unthankful, and as immoral as those who make no pretense regarding their unbelief? In fact, in some cases, those with no Christian profession put professing Christians to shame in matters of basic morality, decency, and civility. Why? One reason is the fact that the Church as a whole is no longer “the pillar and ground of the truth.” Rather, it is more commonly regarded as being a Big Business enterprise that is focused more on political correctness and entertainment than it is on possessing real conviction or spiritual power.

Add to the collapse of spirituality in America’s churches the collapse of morality in America’s culture. We’re talking about old-fashioned, basic morality. How is it that so many Americans seem to be so ignorant about the simplest moral principles? When did greed and ambition replace a desire for honest character? When did comfort and ease replace conviction for (and understanding of) good government? How is it that even “conservatives” have come to look to Washington, D.C., for answers to State or even personal problems? How is it that the fear of God is no longer relevant when choosing our civil magistrates? How can businessmen continue to sacrifice the sacred principles of liberty on the altar of financial profits? Are money and wealth really more important than liberty and peace? How can politicians blatantly disregard their oaths to the Constitution? How can they continue to grovel before special interest groups–and even foreign interests? How can they–so willingly and easily–violate the liberty principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence?

Without an understanding of (and an appreciation for) basic morality, America will collapse. Money and military might cannot and will not replace the time-tested foundations of morality and fidelity. The collapse of basic morality portends the collapse of America itself.

“One United People”

Contrary to what one hears from the politically correct crowd today, unity–not diversity–is the key to America’s greatness. Jay said that early America was united with the same ancestors, language, religion, and principles of government, manners, and customs. And he was right.

By and large, America was a Christian nation, speaking the same language, reading the same Bible, worshipping the same God, understanding (and respecting) the same form of government (a constitutional confederation of free, self-governing states), and embracing the same concepts of culture (law, nature, manners, etc.).

No more!

Thanks to decades of federal dictation, public school indoctrination, and media and entertainment propaganda, the principles that once united us now divide us. And divided we are! I would even argue that America is hopelessly and helplessly divided. We are no longer united in our understanding of (or appreciation for) Christianity; we are no longer united in our English language; we are no longer united in our respect for our ancestors; we are no longer united in our respect for God’s Word; we are no longer united in our respect for the principles of federalism or constitutional government; and we are no longer united in our appreciation for the fundamental principles of self reliance, morality, and freedom.

In other words, it is “crystal clear” that America is in the midst of a complete and total spiritual, societal, cultural, moral, and political meltdown. And what is also abundantly obvious is that as long as Washington, D.C., continues to lord it over us (and who or what is going to stop it?), it is only a matter of time before the final collapse occurs. And at that point, freedom lovers will be fighting against their own countrymen for their very lives and liberty.

Accordingly, I think all this talk about “saving America” is largely a complete waste of time and energy. Instead, we need to be talking about saving our individual states (and the truth is, probably at least half of the states are beyond repair), saving our families, saving our communities, and saving our individual freedoms. To continue to focus on “saving America” or “changing Washington, D.C.,” etc., is utter foolishness! Washington, D.C., is not going to change; it is beyond redemption. Forget it! Circle the wagons around your State; cement your convictions; prepare your family; ready your resolve; and start planning for life after death–the death of liberty and law in America–because the meltdown of American society and culture has already begun.

An open letter from actor Jon Voight to President Obama:

June 22, 2010

President Obama:

You will be the first American president that lied to the Jewish people, and the American people as well, when you said that you would defend Israel, the only Democratic state in the Middle East, against all their enemies. You have done just the opposite. You have propagandized Israel, until they look like they are everyone’s enemy — and it has resonated throughout the world. You are putting Israel in harm’s way, and you have promoted anti-Semitism throughout the world.

You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today. The Jewish people have given the world our greatest scientists and philosophers, and the cures for many diseases, and now you play a very dangerous game so you can look like a true martyr to what you see and say are the underdogs. But the underdogs you defend are murderers and criminals who want Israel eradicated.

You have brought to Arizona a civil war, once again defending the criminals and illegals, creating a meltdown for good, loyal, law-abiding citizens. Your destruction of this country may never be remedied, and we may never recover. I pray to God you stop, and I hope the people in this great country realize your agenda is not for the betterment of mankind, but for the betterment of your politics.

With heartfelt and deep concern for America and Israel,

Jon Voight

DOJ Attorney Resigns Over Dismissal of Philadelphia Black Panther Intimidation Case

By thomasjeffersonclubblog

Damning editorial by a DOJ attorney who resigned over the dismissed Black Panther intimidation in Philadelphia during the 2008 election. By J. Christian Adams in The Washington Times.

On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.

Read the rest here: Inside the Black Panther Case: Anger, Ignorance, and Lies

MacArthur Defeats Truman: The Real McChrystal Message

FROM THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR:

By on 6.24.10 @ 6:08AM

Harry Truman was no dove.

But Douglas MacArthur made him look like one.

And the political consequences for Democrats of Truman’s legendary dismissal of the iconic hero of World War II — at the height of the Korean War — were both dramatic and long-lasting. In fact, those consequences are part of the political baggage of the American left — and the Obama administration — to this day. It is a history that stirs yet again with the decision of President Obama to fire General Stanley McChrystal in the wake of the now infamous Rolling Stone interview with the General and his aides.

First, the history.

World War II was over, and the world celebrated. Within a month of Truman’s decision to drop two atomic bombs — the brand new weapon of the day — on Japan, the Japanese had finally yielded. General Douglas MacArthur, the hero of the Pacific Theater, had accepted the Japanese surrender onboard the battleship USS Missouri.

MacArthur was quickly installed as, in effect, the American Shogun of Japan in the aftermath of the war. Working effectively to keep the Japanese tradition of the Emperor yet melding it with a solid constitutional underpinning of democracy, the General played no small role in helping the Japanese people recover and thrive as the Asian democracy they have been ever since.

Yet while MacArthur was busy reconstructing Japan, Truman was coming to the recognition that the Soviet Union was turning from an American ally against Hitler to its central dream of imposing a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship on the world. The Cold War had begun.

Americans, still celebrating and trying to resume the joys of a normal civilian life, were finding themselves increasingly caught up in a bewildering if not frightening new world they simply hadn’t seen coming. It wasn’t the peace they thought they had won.

Startling accusations flew along with a host of new names.

Gone were FDR and the bulk of the household names that had filled the newspapers, radio newscasts and newsreels since 1932. In their place were tumultuous allegations of Communist spies in the government, secretly salted throughout the Roosevelt and now Truman administrations. A young California Congressman named Richard Nixon burst on the scene helping a Time magazine editor named Whittaker Chambers expose an ex-FDR aide named Alger Hiss as a Communist spy. A Wisconsin veteran styling himself “Tail-Gunner Joe” McCarthy was elected to the U.S. Senate in the 1946 elections and soon was making accusations of communists in government. Abroad, the United States was finding itself in one crisis after another with Communism. Berlin was blockaded, Greece was under assault, Mao Tse-tung toppled the Chinese government. Winston Churchill pronounced the reality of what he called “The Iron Curtain.” The Russians — with the help of American spies — had gotten their hands on The Bomb.

And inside the Democratic Party an at-first almost invisible fissure began to widen and show itself, separating Truman from self-described left-wing “progressives” as represented by his predecessor as FDR’s vice president, Henry Wallace. The dividing line? How to deal with the Soviet Union and its increasingly relentless drive to remake the world — by murderous force — in the Communist image of Marx and Lenin.

In this new era, on June 25, 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea, stunning both Truman and the world. No slouch in taking action, Truman quickly arranged for the new United Nations — a decision from which the Soviets had deliberately absented themselves — to call for a police action and send member country troops to South Korea. MacArthur, the hero of World War II who had spent much of his career in Asia, was called from Japan to take command.

Which, in his usual and famously imperious fashion, he did. In MacArthur’s world Truman, while president, was little more than the failed haberdasher and crass World War I artillery captain that was the caricature of Truman’s political enemies. The notion that fate would have Truman giving orders to MacArthur simultaneously amused and infuriated.

There were increasing clashes between the two. Most behind the scenes, but increasingly some leaking into the media of the day. Even more irritatingly to Truman — and, in retrospect a sign of the historic division to come — MacArthur was picking up allies among prominent Republican conservatives in Congress.

In particular, the once isolationist-leaning GOP of the 1930s was now focusing on the new Communist threat. And what it perceived as the growing problem internal to the Democrats, as exemplified by Henry Wallace and his “progressives.” The problem? Weakness towards Communism, a philosophy that was, with increasing clarity, seen as a sworn enemy of America, freedom and democracy. A re-start of the war just ended by other means. In the vernacular of a day that was belatedly yet correctly sensitive to the rise of Hitler — Republicans saw this as appeasement. Appeasement of Communism. And this time, the GOP had no intention of sitting on the sidelines as many felt it had during Hitler’s rise to power and war.

So there was strong support for MacArthur’s sentiments as he expressed them in a January 1951 interview with the New York Times, an interview that had this headline:

M’Arthur, Near 71, Bitter Over Reds:
Says He is ready to Fight Them the Rest of His Life.

Read a MacArthur quote at the beginning of the story:

“Democracy — the American way of life — is the most wonderful thing we have and it is worth fighting for when it is threatened.”

Four months later, with Truman fed up over the increasingly public nature of MacArthur’s comments, the condescension he felt his general was showing the presidency and the general’s tendency to freelance diplomacy that went against White House policy, Truman astonished the world.

He fired MacArthur.

At that moment — and more importantly for the rest of the almost half-century duration of the Cold War and now extending into the War on Terror — the template of a central conflict between the Left and Right, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives began to harden.

The Left was perceived as favoring appeasement or negotiation or acceptance of enemies sworn to destroy America. The Progressive Party, Henry Wallace’s soapbox, quickly issued a statement saying that firing MacArthur “makes a profound re-direction to peace possible.” Within days the party that symbolized the ideas that would come to dominate the American Left over the next seven decades — right up until today — was calling a meeting “to chart a course” for “peace” — a peace that was widely interpreted by millions of Americans as appeasement, pacifism, or worse. The Right, on the other hand — anticipating Ronald Reagan by four decades — favored outright victory over the Soviet Union and Communism itself. Period.

The impact of MacArthur’s firing was immediate, a political earthquake.

In California Truman was hung in effigy. The Los Angeles City Council adjourned, furious at it what it called “the political assassination” of General MacArthur. Cars suddenly appeared on city streets carrying homemade banners demanding “Oust President Truman.” Newspapers across the country were flooded with calls of protest. The American Legion, in post-World War II America some four million members strong, was outraged. Incongruously, the Chicago Board of Trade reported that prices for wheat, corn, rye and oats were plunging as a result of the firing. The President’s poll numbers tumbled, finally bottoming on the eve of the 1952 election at 22%.

MacArthur returned, fired, as the conquering hero. Half a million people cheered him on his arrival in San Francisco. Over a million New Yorkers turned out just to see MacArthur ride from Idlewild (now JFK) Airport to the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in Manhattan. Five million turned out for New York’s ticker-tape parade honoring MacArthur, with a record 2,850 tons of paper littering the city afterwards. There was a famous address to a cheering Congress and the memorable line that “Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away.”

That is, effectively, what did happen — to MacArthur. History records that MacArthur’s potential presidential candidacy fizzled. It is commonly held today that Truman did the correct thing in asserting his rights as commander-in-chief.

BUT THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE, a very big political something else, that the media and historians of today always miss about that famous showdown between MacArthur and Truman.

It was a something else so politically potent it would eventually explode the image of Democrats as fearless opponents of American enemies. The once seemingly invincible image created by FDR’s wartime leadership in the greatest war of all time — the fight against Hitler and the Japanese that was World War II — was eviscerated.

MacArthur’s refusal to bend the knee to Communism drew a vividly bright line between the American Left and Right that exists to this day. Damaged in the moment was the perception of Truman’s own adamant opposition to Communism, and his emergence as America’s first hard-as-nails anti-Communist Cold War president. Truman’s appointment of another heroic World War II general, Mark Clark — the David Petraeus of his day — to take MacArthur’s place in Korea ,did nothing to halt the sea-change in American politics that the MacArthur removal signaled.

The steady decades-long decline of the once immutable idea of Democrats as the party of national security had begun. Drop-by-drop, like an acid eating away at metal, the MacArthur firing in retrospect was a turning point, putting the American Left constantly on the political defensive when it came to national security issues.

The first political blow came almost immediately. In November of 1952, Americans rejected Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson, the Democrats’ nominee to replace the by now highly unpopular Truman. In a sign of things to come, they elected retired General Dwight D. Eisenhower — MacArthur’s one-time aide and the commander of D-Day — as president, along with a GOP House and Senate. Eisenhower ran as the anti-Communist’s anti-Communist, selecting the by now famously anti-Communist Senator Richard Nixon as his running mate.

Over and over and over again in the succeeding years, the question of how to deal with America’s Cold War enemies — the Soviet Union, the Communist Chinese, the Koreans, the Vietnamese, Eastern Europe, Berlin, Cuba and Communists in Latin America repeatedly surfaced the idea first writ large by the MacArthur firing: that Democrats could not be trusted with national security. Over time, the Truman Democrats — and their hardline successors JFK and Lyndon Johnson — would lose control of their party to the forces supporting Truman’s old intra-party foe, the pacifist-leaning ex-Vice President Henry Wallace. Their leader: South Dakota Senator George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic nominee who lost a 49-state blowout to Nixon but in the process began the finalizing of the party’s image as one of appeasement and military weakness.

WHY IS ALL OF THIS important politically today? Because the Rolling Stone article shows in vivid detail that the sentiments that first surfaced in the MacArthur firing are still alive, well and exceptionally powerful today in America’s fight against Islamic fascism. The banning of the latter phrase by an Obama administration that deems it politically incorrect is in itself a symbol of the politics launched by the MacArthur firing. Doubtless that kind of political correctness is one source of the derision that was carelessly expressed by McChrystal’s aides to Rolling Stone.

General Stanley McChrystal was wrong to be giving time to discuss his views with Rolling Stone, his aides unimaginably stupid to be so free with a reporter for a magazine with a considerable anti-war reputation. Ironically, the politics of Rolling Stone itself — indeed the magazine’s very existence — are a legacy of the anti-war sentiments that were first bubbling with progressives during the time of MacArthur’s firing.

Without doubt, the essence of what McChrystal so obviously believes — that the answer to al Qaeda is victory, not appeasement or negotiation — is what was once believed by those millions who thronged the streets of San Francisco and New York to cheer Douglas MacArthur. This is the political view that propelled the electoral careers of presidents who sided with MacArthur’s views in one form or another throughout the Cold War, from Eisenhower to George H.W. Bush. It has elected literally hundreds of senators and congressman.

From 1952 on through to the last Cold War election in 1988, the victorious candidate for the presidency was always the one perceived as the more MacArthur-like, which is to say an unrelenting foe of the Soviet Union and its various Communist allies. At a minimum the candidate had to be at least as tough as the other guy. Anything less and the candidate was simply un-electable. Even Jimmy Carter passed that test in 1976, campaigning as a tough ex-Navy officer with scorn for Gerald Ford’s supposed soft views on the Communist domination of Eastern Europe. When events proved otherwise after his election, Carter was out in an Eisenhower-esque landslide for Ronald Reagan. In addition to Carter’s failure in 1980 the MacArthur test was failed successively by Democrats Stevenson (twice), Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis.

Make no mistake.

The firing of General McChrystal — all constitutionally correct — will be hailed in some quarters for that reason.

But what is being missed is the real political message that came through loud and clear in the Rolling Stone McCrystal article.

The message?

That the American military thinks the Obama team is not up to the job of defeating Al Qaeda and winning a war which it is even terrified of calling by name. That those on the front line in a life-and-death struggle with a serious enemy think the President a wimp, the Vice President a blowhard, the national security adviser a “clown,” Ambassador Richard Holbrooke a man consumed by the need for relevance, and that the French act like…well…the French.

The spirit of Douglas MacArthur and his fury at what he perceived as a weakness in fighting Communism resonates through every last word of McChrystal and his impolitic aides. In fact, McCrystal himself, if you read the actual article, is extraordinarily reticent. But combined with the blunt, caustic sentiments of his aides, there is no doubt of what the troops think of the commander-in-chief and his team.

Yes, the history books give Truman high marks for firing MacArthur.

But ever after that dismissal Americans, beginning with the very next election, awarded the vast majority of political prizes of power and influence to those who echoed the heart of MacArthur’s message. Elections were won by those who, in word if not in deed, reminded them of the 71-year-old general’s headline vow: “to spend the rest of his life fighting communism.”

Yesterday, Barack Obama fired General Stanley McChrystal. Obama acolytes will hail him as another Harry Truman. Forgetting one very, very important political point at Obama’s peril. For decades to come after that fateful day in April of 1951, as winning and losing candidates came and went, there was always one very significant constant in the political results.

MacArthur always defeated Truman.

Letter to the Editor

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author.