EVIDENCE THAT COULD HAVE exonerated Ed Steele was withheld from the jury by the judge. In a pre-trial hearing on the admissibility of evidence, two audio experts testified that the FBI recordings contained numerous audio signatures (aberrations) that strongly indicated the recordings might have been tampered with. One expert, Bennett Walsh, a former New York City detective with years of experience with audio recordings, said flatly the recordings were tampered with.

The other expert, George Papcun, PhD (pictured), an internationally known expert with solid scientific credentials, said there was an unusually high number of electronic transients and other discrepancies which could indicate tampering with the recordings. His reputation is bolstered by his knowledge of “voice morphing,” a technology that allows the creation of synthetic speech from digital “voice prints” of the person whose speech they seek to duplicate. It allows the “cloning” of a person’s voice, and the ability to have the subject “say” whatever the counterfeiters wish.

According to Robert McAllister, counsel for the defense, arrangements were made to fly Dr. Papcun by private aircraft from a vacation in the south Pacific to Boise to testify on May 4, the last day of the trial. According to McAllister it was possible for him to arrive at the courthouse by 9:00 AM.

However, McAllister reported that the judge ruled that Dr. Papcun would only be allowed to testify if he was in the court room by 8:30 AM. This information can be verified by McAllister.

Ed Steele was denied his right to call witnesses critical to his defense. Is this a demonstration of a “fair trial,” or is it a lynching? The answer should be obvious to any thinking person.

via National Vanguard

Read the original posting at Free Edgar Steele

IN AN EFFORT to find justice and because we eschew oppression, we now have the absolute proof that the US government, for whatever reason, has fabricated its case against Edgar J. Steele, a First Amendment Idaho Lawyer. Steele (pictured) has been defending the falsely accused; many for free. If we do not turn this around now, this trend will impact our children and grandchildren.

In spite of the efforts of Edgar Steele’s new defense attorney, Robert T. McAllister, of Colorado, to get some time to prepare a defense, Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the Idaho Federal District Court is insisting that the Steele Case, based on false charges of murder-for-hire of his wife, Cyndi Steele, go to a jury trial in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho next Monday, March 7, 2011. Cyndi Steele was the victim of a real attempted murder-by-pipe-bomb last June. She has looked at the government’s evidence and proclaimed that her husband is innocent and sees that the entire government case is fabricated. New evidence, just discovered, reveals that the government recordings of Mr. Steele’s voice supposedly hiring a hitman, were fabricated. Even though this is fraud, there is a question whether the judge will permit a defense expert to testify in order to prove it!

The reason for this message is because Edgar J. Steele is facing the trial of his life. At age 65, any sentence is a death sentence. He and his wife Cyndi have three adult children and one grandchild who love him very much and he loves them. Most important, though, is that Edgar J. Steele in innocent.

Former Chief Criminal Prosecuting Attorney (in both N. District of Illinois and Colorado) turned defense attorney McAllister began his representation of Edgar Steele on February 7, 2011, so he has been involved as the attorney for Edgar for less than a month. The government, as is their regular practice, is withholding critical evidence which, by law, should have been shown to the defendant months ago; this is a law violation by the government. There is no one to prosecute when the government breaks the law (see the 201 cases of innocent people falsely charged in USA Today article of September 23, 2010 by Brad Heath).  We saw the US government withholding evidence in the David Hinkson case in 2005, resulting in a 43-year prison sentence, an LDS person who is meek and mild, a scientist and inventor who literally never harmed anyone in his life and never had so much as a parking ticket before he was attacked by the US government.

Well, they’re at it again; the US government fraud on the innocent is in full swing, like a shark feeding frenzy. The FBI and US Attorney’s Office in Idaho are seeking to bring down another innocent person, Edgar Steele, and send him to prison, because he is an advocate for the US Constitution and individual rights.

What is interesting is that, in the Edgar Steele case, the government is following the same pattern it used in the David Hinkson case (which pattern reads like the KGB play book of dirty tricks against anyone who does not buy into the politically correct agenda). As it turns out, in thousands of other cases, the government has manufactured evidence by using the FBI to create a crime.

Though we have absolute proof that the audio tapes presented by the government as evidence in the Edgar Steele case are frauds, specific things need to happen in order for Edgar J. Steele to receive the justice: 1) the judge must allow the defense to present to the jury evidence that the tapes were fabricated; and 2) the jury must have the opportunity to see the US government has fabricated this case against Edgar J. Steele.

Our own freedom is at stake, for if they can fabricate a case out of whole cloth against the Edgar Steeles of this world, they can do it to you and me and our loved ones; it will only be a matter of time.

THE EDGAR STEELE DEFENSE FUND, an Idaho non-profit corporation wishes to address a recent prosecution motion which effectively asks for an all-expense paid trip to Ukraine, claiming it is related to Mr. Steele’s case.

Once again, the prosecution has it wrong. In pursuing the Ukrainian connection to my husband, First Amendment lawyer Edgar Steele (pictured), the government is grasping at straws because there is no motive for the alleged murder-for-hire. The government knows that, as my husband’s legal assistant, I was fully aware that the Ukrainian woman was suspected to be a part of a “Russian-Bride” scam which cheated one of his clients out of thousands of dollars. By communicating with this woman, my husband was working a case to bring down the people involved in stealing from Americans. Now, instead of doing her job, Assistant US Attorney (AUSA) Traci Whelan, is seeking an all expense trip abroad and has turned this into a Media-Op.

When my husband was first arrested, the FBI claimed his “motive” was to cash in on our life insurance proceeds. When I told them that we had canceled our life insurance years ago, the FBI claimed my husband had a private investigator following me who supposedly had pictures of me with a “boyfriend.” Oops, the FBI lied again. There was no private investigator, no pictures and no boyfriend. Now the government is using my husband’s investigation of a human trafficking ring to claim he had a girlfriend. This is just another example of the FBI using fraud to prosecute the innocent. As we all have learned from recent reports, the government has prosecuted thousands of innocent people on fabricated evidence over the past 14 years.

In response to AUSA Traci Whelan’s comment: “If the defendant could not control his actions and that is why he hired a hit man, what is to stop that from happening again?” First, my husband was weak from four surgeries and the prescription drugs taken during his recovery, so he didn’t see Larry Fairfax taking advantage of him. Second, he did not hire Larry Fairfax or anyone to be a hit man. And, third, AUSA Whelan well knows that Larry Fairfax is a liar because he lied to the FBI by not disclosing that he had attached a bomb to my car in June when he promised to “come forward” with all his criminal activity. AUSA Whelan has seen the theft report and knows that Fairfax stole $45,000 in silver savings from my husband and me. AUSA Whelan also knows that Fairfax was covering up his theft by blaming my husband in a supposed murder-for-hire scam. AUSA Whelan even told my attorney and me that Fairfax had confessed he was trying to “scam” us. So what does it take to get AUSA Whelan to do her job? She has the real criminal and she knows who his accomplices are but she will not properly charge either with the serious crimes committed by them, thus allowing them to continually put my life and the public in danger.

I’m standing up for my husband because he is innocent. It was the FBI that was tampering with my testimony, trying to persuade me to accept one of their many versions of this case. But I took the time to look at the evidence, without accepting anyone else’s perspective, in order to make up my own mind. After I looked, I realized that it was the FBI who knew there was a bomb on my car many days before I found it attached to my muffler on June 15th. Did the government say anything to me or do anything to warn the public? No!

The same day I found the bomb, a US Marshal told me that the government was not going to provide me any protection. This was the official word!!! At that point, the government supposedly didn’t know who had put the bomb on my car; because, supposedly, Larry Fairfax had not come forward with that information yet. But, all the same, I was being denied protection.

At that time, I told the government that I was worried about this bomb coming from some hate group because my family has had numerous death threats over the years. The FBI knew about these threats and ignored them even though the calls were traced back to the phone lines of the ADL (Anti-Defamation League). Now this same government that refused to protect me is going to give Larry Fairfax, who attempted to murder me, a soft plea deal of an 18 month sentence. The government also refuses to arrest or charge the Fairfax accomplices with their crimes. Since I am the victim of an attempted murder by Fairfax and his gang, I want to know what will it take to get the government to do its job?

Donations of any size for the defense of Mr. Steele are greatly appreciated and are still being accepted by the Edgar Steele Defense Fund. More information can be obtained at www.free-edgar-steele.com, or checks and money orders can be mailed to the Edgar Steele Defense Fund at P.O. 1255, Sagle, Idaho 83860. For further information call Robert Magnuson at 509-290-7466.

Read more at Free Edgar Steele

Here’s a classic satirical look at the network TV schedule a quarter century ago. Except for the names, things haven’t changed much, have they? Let’s petition for reruns of these “classics.”

by Cholly Bilderberger

HERE’S A VERY INSIDE peek at coming attractions on television. Titles and story lines are firm; casting is tentative.

NBC: This troubled network, under the direction of Grant Tinker, is going all out to avoid being third — and a distant third — in the ratings. A few of the pleasant surprises coming your way:

Anne Frank Might Have Been Alive and Well in New York. This little what-if tugger-at-the-heartstrings shows us Anne Frank (Linda Gray) today, as she might have been had not you-know-what happened. She is divorced, with two children (Gary Coleman and Gary Burghof), and runs a very successful interior decorating business. She is dating Mossad agent Schlomo Horowitz (McLean Stevenson). In the pilot, she, Schlomo and the kids trap a Nazi war criminal (a cameo part, Sir Laurence Olivier) who is trying to take over her business in order to infiltrate the Knesset, which she has been asked to redecorate.

Trapper Lev. Brings to the tube the life of the legendary Lev Goldstein, who preceded Lewis and Clark into the upper reaches of the Missouri, and crossed the Rockies into the Northwest. Lev (Merlin Olsen) battles prejudice as well as the wilderness. In the pilot he takes on a Shoshone chief (John Gielgud) who is virulently anti-Semitic, and shows him the error of his ways in hand-to-hand combat. The chief becomes one of Lev’s strongest supporters (they kill a bear together), and his daughter Sockabawaya (Loretta Swit) will be the love interest. She will either convert later, or turn out to have been a Jewish baby captured (somehow) by the Shoshones. This is for the adults as well as kids, and will show everyone what the Old West was really like when the myths are cut away.

Genocide! Based on the movie of the same name produced by Simon Wiesenthal, and narrated by Elizabeth Taylor and Orson Welles. Strong meat, but a must for today’s viewer. The year is 1938. Abraham (“Abe”) Rubenstein (James Garner), a cuckoo clock maker from the Black Forest, is taken from his shop to the local Gestapo headquarters, where he is accused of carving anti-Nazi sentiments and Hebrew symbols in the complicated scrollwork of his clocks. Abe will eventually get to Dachau, but first will have considerable foreplay with the Gestapo. He will escape, be recaptured, escape again, and so on. (Shades of The Fugitive!!) The Gestapo colonel is played by Sir Laurence Olivier, and there is a lovely blonde German girl (Marlo Thomas in a wig) who befriends Abe and helps him in his first escape.

Elm Street. A nostalgic look at Middle Western America in the late 1930s. Judge Arthur Hollins (Elliott Gould) and his wife Gloria (Gilda Radner) are calm on the surface, but quite torn up inside. An elderly Jewish friend (Jimmy Stewart) tells them what is going on in Europe, especially with the Jews, and they do not believe him until he runs some film shots of Kristallnacht, which he took the summer before. When they get the message, their first thought is to let everyone know what they have seen. But they meet with indifference, and someone (the Sheriff is a prime suspect for the audience) has stolen the film.

Candy Man. A reformed black pusher (Ben Vereen) and a reformed white supremacist (Alan Alda) join forces to rid the ghetto of crime. Fast-moving, lots of one-liners. A showcase for young black actors. When the ghetto kids finally decide to be constructive, they put on a musical, I’m Descended From Thomas Jefferson!, which is bound for Broadway. The love interest (for both principals) is Cindee Sandee (Sally Struthers), the child of a mixed marriage.

Specials:

Happy Birthday to George Burns! Three hours, everyone in show business.

Hello to Milton Berle! Two hours. Most of the big names in show business welcome Milton back for the night.

Goodbye to Frank Sinatra! The memorable singer says farewell and talks about his blue eyes.

Anti-Semitism and the Law. An ambitious examination of the steadily mounting incidents of anti-Semitism in the United States and what can be done about them. College credits.

CBS: A different approach here, with emphasis on human values:

Genocide! Based on the movie of the same name produced by Simon Wiesenthal, and narrated by Elizabeth Taylor and Orson Welles. A fresh look at new material. In the pilot, Claus von Mannerheim (Tab Hunter), a young German aristocrat, discovers that he is Jewish, and slated for immediate deportation to Dachau. Another German aristocrat, who is definitely not Jewish (Gene Wilder), offers to hide him at Schloss Mehlstein, the family country estate. Claus meets a rabbi (Lee Majors) who instructs him in his faith and circumcises him in the stable. Both Claus and the rabbi will end up in Dachau. Only one of them will survive. Love interest will be the rabbi’s niece (Loni Anderson), a beautiful Jewish girl, who has been ravished by a German Junker (Ed Asner).

Bronco Sam. Based on the fact that most of the early cowboys were black, this is the story of one of them, Sam Fotheringhay (Omar Sharif), the first bronco buster in West Texas. Sam, a gentle and cultured cowboy, is constantly attacked for his color and his religious beliefs (he is an agnostic) by a mob led by a corrupt, racist sheriff (Don Rickles). The pilot includes a fight between Bronco Sam and the sheriff. The love interest is the beautiful half-breed mine owner (Veronica Hamel), who is drawn to Bronco Sam because he knows the story of her people, which is, of course, the story of his people.

Ragtime. A spin-off from the book and motion picture of the same title. This continues the nostalgic look back to turn-of-the-century America. J.P. Morgan (George Burns) makes life intolerable for obscure Paul Boniface (John Belushi), who is black but doesn’t know it. Famous figures of the time are recreated in cameo roles: Teddy Roosevelt (Henny Youngman); his daughter Alice (Bette Midler); Lenin (Bob Hope); Stalin (Chuck Barris, who’s the sleeper of the season); and many more. Chaim Weizmann (George Plimpton) comes all the way from Europe and his Zionist obligations to implore J.P. Morgan to let Paul Boniface lead his own life. J.P. refuses and Chaim sends for Sigmund Freud (Bob Newhart), who finally makes the great but tunnel-visioned financier see the light. This action extends over several episodes, naturally.

Muscles. A show devoted to the world of iron pumping, with a special twist. Jake Dastlinger (Robert Wagner) is an aging Jewish body builder who wants one last shot at the Mr. Israel crown. Along with his devoted but bewildered WASP wife (Lily Tomlin), he moves to California in order to work out with experts. There he is chilled to discover that a Nazi war criminal (Sir Laurence Olivier) in hiding in Los Angeles is spreading the gospel of Aryan superiority. It’s a stupendous task for Jake, but he outwits the “Aryan” champion (Jack Klugman) and goes on to Israel.

Specials:

We Love You, George Burns! Three hours, everyone in show business.

Paisan! A lovingly detailed look at Frank Sinatra’s Sicilian roots. This six-hour special will run on succeeding Sundays, and is narrated by ol’ Blue Eyes himself. The production team has located many of his Sicilian relatives — simple farmers and workers who have retained the Sinatra history in the oral tradition, and tell tales dating back to 1139, to the time of Umberto Sinatra, the singing goatherd.

Young Golda. Golda Meir (Cheryl Tiegs) as a young woman. She already has a fierce sense of fair play and commitment to the ideals of Zion.

The Rise of Anti-Semitism. Eight hours, in succeeding two-hour segments in prime time. A long, hard look at the increasing anti-Semitism throughout the world, but especially in the United States. Experts suggest that we enact laws with stiff penalties for anti-Semitic acts and statements. Jack Lemmon, Jane Fonda, Elliott Gould, Dustin Hoffman, Milton Berle, Elliot Richardson, Averell Harriman, Frank Sinatra, Elizabeth Taylor, Gregory Peck, Laurence Olivier, and many, many others. College Credits.

ABC: This organization is going all-out to maintain its image as a leader in quality television.

First Strike! A series based on true stories from the files of Mossad. In the first episode, Mossad agents assassinate a group of German scientists who are plotting to take over the world. The Mossad leader (Rock Hudson) congratulates his men on behalf of civilization. He and his wife (Susan St. James) then fly back to Israel from Germany in time to host a cocktail party for Henry Kissinger (Henry Fonda). One mad German scientist (Richard Dreyfuss) survives, and we know that he will be brewing trouble in sequences to come.

Hell-For-Leather. A Civil War show, based on the incredible exploits of Union cavalry leader Phil Sheridan (Walter Matthau) and his intrepid men. The cast includes an aging Jewish scholar (Carroll O’Connor), who has become Sheridan’s principal aide and mentor, and an Indian scout (Mel Tillis). Many racial clichés are disposed of. The love interest will be supplied by two older Southern belles (Barbara Feldon and Janet Leigh). Robert E. Lee (Ben Gazzara) and Stonewall Jackson (Phil Silvers) are shown in the first episode as decent but uninformed. Nathan Bedford Forrest (Jim Nabors), who later founded the Ku Klux Klan, is revealed as deeply bigoted even then. Abraham Lincoln (Tony Randall) and U.S. Grant (Dean Martin) make cameo appearances.

Genocide! Based on the movie of the same name produced by Simon Wiesenthal, and narrated by Elizabeth Taylor and Orson Welles. A novel slant. Rebecca Nussbaum, a young Jewish girl (Sissy Spacek) and her mother (Loretta Lynn) and the matchmaker, or yenta, from their village (Dolly Parton) decide to outwit the Germans and stay out of the gas chambers. They become an all-girl Alpine dance-and-song team and travel all over wartime Germany entertaining the troops and helping other Jews escape. In the pilot, when they are playing in Nuremberg, they barely avoid discovery by Julius Streicher (Mike Farrell). A cameo appearance by Eva Braun (Stephanie Powers) enhances this episode. The whole show is a deliberately lighthearted approach to genocide, but the essential horror of the times is not forgotten.

Green Valley. The warm story of an Israeli kibbutz on the Golan Heights. A Jewish mother (Mariette Hartley) moves to the valley from New York City with her two children, seeking peace and understanding. She finds it in Moshe Avatar (John Davidson), the dynamic leader of the settlers, and they inspire the others to ward off attacks by the Arabs, led by Arafat (Mickey Rooney). Menachem Begin (Gregory Peck) makes a cameo appearance. The product demonstrates why the Golan Heights are important to security everywhere.

Specials:

George Burns, You’re God! Three hours, everyone in show business.

Sinatra, the Women. The women in Frank Sinatra’s life.

Anti-Semitism, the Creeping Threat. Sixteen hours, in succeeding segments in prime time. An in-depth inquiry into increasing cases of anti-Semitism in the United States. The host (Archibald Cox) will interview experts throughout this country and ask for solutions. Those to be interviewed include all members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Simon Wiesenthal, Elie Wiesel, Bill Cosby, Elizabeth Taylor, Hank Aaron, sixty Holocaust survivors, and Richard Pryor. Solutions will call for laws with stiff penalties for anti-Semitic acts and statements.

In addition to the above, the commercial networks plan reruns of Holocaust, with college, high school and grade school credits.

Public Television: Doesn’t have the viewers of the big three, but is an influential opinion-maker. Among the offerings:

Gas! A panel discussion of the Nazi extermination policies. Guests will include Jane Fonda, Lillian Hellman, John Galbraith, George Plimpton, Frank Capra, Jimmy Cagney, Orson Welles, Wink Martindale, Anthony Hopkins, John Gielgud, Sir Laurence Olivier, John Ritter, Suzanne Somers and James Garner.

Shakespeare and All That. A British import in which Elizabethan England is shown to have been a hotbed of anti-Semitism, with Shakespeare himself and Elizabeth I among the few holdouts. The few anti-Semitic incidents in the great playwright’s works (Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, for instance) are shown to have been only sops to contemporary opinion and were not meant to be taken seriously. Drake and Raleigh are exposed as raging racists.

Huey Long. An in-depth study narrated by Lillian Hellman, showing how close we came to a fascist dictatorship.

The King Years. Narrated by Dick Cavett. Homage to the tremendous influence of Martin Luther King, Jr. Tributes from important figures in this country and abroad, including Margaret Thatcher and Helmut Schmidt.

Breezy. Another British import. Breezy Bates and his family are Jamaicans living in London, and their natural high spirits contrast sharply with the dour racism of their neighbors. This 39-part series is hilarious and sobering by turns. Introduction to each segment by Lady Antonia Fraser.

Eeny, Meanie . . . ! A dynamic children’s program, designed to show how racism starts. As one of the white children says in the first episode, “The word ‘Meanie’ is not in that old verse by accident. Racism is the meanest sort of thing a kid can do.” The children discover the important roles of black and Jewish people in American history. Abraham Lincoln’s black heritage is discussed openly.

Anti-Semitism and You. A weekly feature in which the increasing anti-Semitism in the United States is pinpointed, and a panel discusses the laws which should be enacted to put anti-Semites behind bars. The panel will include most of official Washington.

As you can see, it’s going to be an exciting TV year! Enjoy!

Original article at National Vanguard

Read more at Jamie Kelso’s online Instauration archive

by Kevin Alfred Strom

HERE IS AN AMAZING four-part video series (43 minutes total and well worth the time) by the painter Scott Burdick. Don’t be put off by the fact that Burdick goes out of his way — way, way out of his way — to show traditional Western art, some of it his own, that depicts non-Whites. It’s as if he’s saying “see how non-racist I am,” to deflect attention from the fact the the rising Art Underground he depicts is substantially Whiter than rural New Hampshire. He nevertheless masterfully skewers the modern art establishment and their hatred for beauty — and their literal banishment of it from their galleries, museums, and literature. With calm logic he analyzes the common characteristics of the paintings that are sought out by these culture-distorters, and those that they reject.

It isn’t abstract versus representational art — it isn’t nudity, or the human form or its absence — it isn’t fine-grained versus rough materials; none of these determine what is accepted and what is rejected. In the “intellectual” theories (with Jewish / Frankfurt School roots, though Burdick doesn’t say so) that must be internalized by anyone wishing to rise in the modern art world today, it is beauty itself that must be rejected and ugliness or nothingness which must be praised, especially if the artist pays obeisance to the “intellectuals” and their “theories.”

EDGAR J. STEELE has been entrapped by a legal system that presumes his guilt in the face of false charges. Ed, my husband, has been in jail and solitary confinement for three months in Spokane, Washington because of false allegations that he masterminded a murder-for-hire plot to kill me and my mother. I have never believed that Ed was involved in such a plot! Ed has defended the politically incorrect for years; people who, were it not for him, never would have had representation. Those who oppose Ed hate the truth and have threatened to harm Ed, me and our family in the past. Clearly, he is a political prisoner of the USA — and, quite literally, he is fighting for his life.

Here is the bottom line: Without experts to prove that false government tape recordings are only imitations of Ed’s speech patterns (using voice cloning technology); and without experts to present the truth about alleged explosives, Ed will be “sent to the gallows” for something he didn’t do. We have an opportunity to prevent this great injustice. This is not the first time the government has made false criminal allegations against innocent people. Thus, it is our choice whether we want to be a part of the movement to stop this kind of government-sponsored insanity. Let me tell you, we sincerely need your help.

I humbly ask for your assistance, as I am now financially strapped and unable to raise the amount of money necessary to provide a proper defense for my husband. Any financial gift you can make will go directly to the Edgar Steele Defense Fund, to be placed in an attorney’s trust account and to be used exclusively for Ed’s defense. Contributions of $50 and $100 will be greatly appreciated as we try to make our goal of $250,000 needed to pay both attorney fees and the legal costs of this case. Time is critical as we need to have a new attorney on board soon who will work for Ed.

Edgar needs an attorney who is willing to challenge the FBI’s conduct and show that the government is wrong. Edgar can’t move forward without your help in funding his defense. Your kind financial assistance will help us to engage a qualified attorney (who has already been contacted) who believes in Ed’s innocence and will work vigorously to protect Ed’s rights and confront the government.

These are tough financial times. But please take a moment to think about my husband, sitting in a jail cell, day after day, with no hope, not even able to help in his own defense. And I can’t visit with him to give him hope or moral support, because the judge has entered a very unfair “no contact” order.

Even the smallest donation will go a long way to help win this case and expose the corruption behind the false charges. It may even help others who face false accusations by the government.

Please make your contribution check payable to:

The Edgar Steele Defense Fund
PO Box 1255
Sagle  ID 83860

Funds will be held in an attorney’s trust account.

Or, go online and pay with your credit card through Paypal at:

http://www.free-edgar-steele.com/?page_id=70

My sincerest and most heartfelt thanks for your time in considering this plea for help,

Cyndi G. Steele

A Simple Quiz

by Mark Graffis

EDITOR’S NOTE: Being able to score an “A” on this simple quiz should be a requirement before one is permitted to vote in any national election. — Kevin Alfred Strom.

1. In which of these countries are Christians permitted to pray or wear religious symbols in the schools?

A. France

B. United States

C. China

D. Iran

2. In which of these countries do Christians enjoy the most religious freedom?

A. China

B. France

C. United States

D. Iran

3. During the past 20 years, which of these countries’ governments have killed the most civilians of other countries?

A. Syria

B. Iraq

C. Iran

D. United States

4. In which of these countries have the most people died for their religious faith?

A. Syria

B. United States

C. Iran

D. China

5. Which of these countries possesses the least number of weapons mass destruction?

A. United States

B. Britain

C. China

D. Iran

6. Which of these countries possesses the most weapons of mass destruction?

A. Iran

B. China

C. Britain

D. United States

7. Which of these countries does not possess the atomic bomb?

A. United States

B. Britain

C. Israel

D. Iran

8. Which of these countries’ governments is not conducting a campaign of ethnic cleansing?

A. China

B. Sudan

C. Israel

D. Iran

9. Which of these countries’ armed forces have not attacked another country for the past 29 years?

A. United States

B. Israel

C. Britain

D. Iran

10. Which of these countries’ armed forces have not attacked another country during the past year?

A. United States

B. Israel

C. Britain

D. Iran

11.  In the past 30 years, which of these countries has killed the most Americans?

A. Syria

B. Pakistan

C. Iran

D. Israel

(The answer to each question is D.)

Joseph McCarthy: His efforts to expose and remove Communists from the U.S. government caused forces far wider than Communism itself to viciously attack and destroy him.

There are profound lessons for us today in the saga of this misled hero.

by Scott Speidel, Florida State University

* * *

“Average Americans can do very little insofar as digging Communist espionage agents out of our government is concerned. They must depend upon those of us whom they send down here to man the watch-towers of the nation. The thing that I think we must remember is that this is a war, which a brutalitarian force has won to a greater extent than any brutalitarian force has won a war in the history of the world before.

“You can talk about Communism as though it’s something ten thousand miles away. Let me say it’s right here with us now. Unless we make sure that there is no infiltration of our government, then just as certain as you sit there, in the period of our lives you will see a Red world.

“Anyone who has followed the Communist conspiracy, even remotely, and can add two and two, will tell you that there is no remote possibility of this war which we are in today — and it’s a war, a war which we’ve been losing — no remote possibility of this ending except by victory or by death for this civilization.”

* * *

THOSE WORDS were spoken 40 years ago by U.S. Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy, Republican of Wisconsin, a man who since has been demonized unjustly. Since McCarthy’s time the subversion of our nation has proceeded steadily, and his warning to us resonates more and more clearly as truth, now that death for this civilization is in view.

Joseph McCarthy’s fame as an anti-Communist began with a speech he delivered on February 9, 1950, to the Republican Women’s Club in Wheeling, West Virginia, in which he said that there were at least 57 known Communists in the U.S. State Department, and that the State Department knew they were there.

Dean Acheson

McCarthy’s charge was credible, because President Harry Truman’s Secretary of State at the time, Dean Acheson, was well known as a man sympathetic to Communism and Communists. As far back as the 1930s Acheson had worked as a lawyer on behalf of Stalin’s regime, prior to the diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union by the United States, and recently he had ignored reports about the Communist Party connections of his protege at the State Department, Alger Hiss. Acheson also had been the chief U.S. advisor at the Yalta Conference, in February 1945, which consigned eastern Europe to Communist rule, and he presided over the drafting of the United Nations Charter. In the State Department Acheson fostered the careers of Communists and stifled the careers of anti-Communists.

Furthermore, as Ohio’s Republican Senator Robert Taft said at the time, “Pro-Communist policies of the State Department fully justify Joe McCarthy in his demand for an investigation.”

Grand Scale of Subversion

Franklin Delano Roosevelt ("FDR")

Communist infiltration of the U.S. government had occurred on a grand scale during the reign of Franklin Roosevelt. Congressman Martin Dies, Democrat of Texas and chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities from its inception in 1938 until 1945, had warned Roosevelt in 1940 that there were thousands of Communists and pro-Communists on the government payroll, but FDR refused to take action, saying:

“I do not believe in Communism any more than you do, but there is nothing wrong with the Communists in this country. Several of the best friends I have are Communists. . . .

“I do not regard the Communists as any present or future threat to our country; in fact, I look upon Russia as our strongest ally in the years to come. As I told you when you began your investigation, you should confine yourself to Nazis and Fascists. While I do not believe in Communism, Russia is far better off and the world is safer under Communism than under the Czars.”

Under the circumstances, McCarthy’s charge that there were 57 known Communists in the State Department seems very modest.

A Maverick for the Truth

McCarthy had been a maverick from the beginning. In 1949 he had dared champion the cause of German prisoners of war held in connection with the alleged “Malmédy massacre.” In truth, what had happened near the Belgian town of Malmédy in December 1944 was unclear at the time, part of what U.S. General Thomas T. Handy, who in 1949 was the commander in chief of U.S. forces in Europe, called “a confused, mobile, and desperate combat action.” It is known now that a number of American soldiers who had surrendered there to the Germans were shortly thereafter killed in cross fire when their captors, who were marching them to a rear area, were engaged by other U.S. units. When their bodies were found by U.S. forces afterward with their hands tied behind their backs, however, it appeared that they might have been deliberately killed.

After the war, Germans who had taken part in the fighting at Malmédy were turned over to U.S. Army Colonel A.H. Rosenfeld and his Jewish underlings for “interrogation.” The prisoners were arbitrarily reduced to civilian status so that they would not be protected by the Geneva Convention, and brutal torture was used to extract confessions. When 18-year-old prisoner Arvid Freimuth hanged himself after repeated beatings rather than sign a “confession,” the prosecutors were permitted to use as “evidence” the unsigned statement which they themselves had contrived.

McCarthy dared to speak against this officially sanctioned lynching, when almost no one else had the courage to do so. By fearlessly championing the underdogs, the defeated and vilified Germans, and speaking out against the actual atrocities committed by self-righteous aliens in American uniform, the Senator demonstrated the rare moral courage that later propelled him into the forefront of the struggle against Communism.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Raymond Baldwin, Republican of Connecticut, was assigned to investigate the charges of torture, but whitewashed them instead. On July 26, 1949, Senator McCarthy withdrew in disgust from the hearings and announced in a speech on the Senate floor that two members of the Committee, Senator Baldwin and Senator Estes Kefauver, Democrat of Tennessee, had law partners among the Army interrogators they were supposedly investigating. This was in several ways a preview of things to come.

The Jews showed instant hostility toward anyone who interfered with their campaign of vengeance against the conquered Germans, and so they began turning their big guns in the media against McCarthy: a December 1949 poll of news correspondents covering the United States Senate already had reporters branding McCarthy “the worst Senator” — a high honor indeed.

Patriotic Motivation

James Forrestal: a patriot who fought subversion, and who died under mysterious circumstances.

When McCarthy had arrived in Washington as a freshman Senator in 1946, he had been invited to lunch by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal. McCarthy writes:

“Before meeting Jim Forrestal I thought we were losing to international Communism because of incompetence and stupidity on the part of our planners. I mentioned that to Forrestal. I shall forever remember his answer. He said, ‘McCarthy, consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If they were merely stupid they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor.’ This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since.”

Considering the destructive policies that thrived in Washington, McCarthy concluded that to fight Communism effectively it was not enough to denounce Communism in general; anyone — even a Communist — could claim to oppose Communism. The Senator decided that it was necessary to identify those responsible for treasonous policies and then accuse them on the basis of what they actually had done, not on the basis of the ideas to which they paid lip service.

A special investigating subcommittee chaired by Senator Millard Tydings, Democrat of Maryland, was set up purportedly to investigate McCarthy’s claim that Communists and pro-Communists were being harbored in the State Department. In reality, as Tydings himself admitted, the purpose was to silence McCarthy. Tydings boasted, “Let me have McCarthy for three days in public hearings, and he will never show his face in the Senate again.” Tydings’ effort to discredit the upstart patriot would be heavily aided by the major media.

One of the reporters present at the hearings was Elmer Davis, a prominent radio commentator who had been head of the Office of War Information (OWI). McCarthy noted:

“Many of the [principals in the] cases I was about to present had once been employees in the OWI under Davis and then had moved into the State Department. As I glanced at Davis I recalled that Stanislaw Mikolajczyk, one of the anti-Communist leaders of Poland, had warned the State Department, while Davis was head of the OWI, that OWI broadcasts were ‘following the Communist line consistently,’ and that the broadcasts ‘might well have emanated from Moscow itself.’ There could be no doubt how Davis would report the story. . . .

“At one of the other tables I saw [left-wing, muckraking columnist] Drew Pearson’s men. I could not help but remember that Pearson had employed a member of the Communist Party, Andrew Older, to write Pearson’s stories on the House Committee on Un-American Activities and that another one of Pearson’s limited staff was David Karr, who had previously worked for the Communist Party’s official publication, the Daily Worker. No doubt about how Pearson would cover the story. . . .

“As I waited for the chairman to open the hearing I, of course, knew the left-wing elements of the press would twist and distort the story to protect every Communist whom I exposed, but frankly I had no conception of how far the dishonest news coverage would go.”

In the case of Owen Lattimore, the testimony of McCarthy’s chief witness, ex-Communist Louis Budenz, was widely misrepresented. Lattimore was a scholar on Far Eastern affairs employed by the State Department as a consultant; he had advised the State Department that Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-Tung was merely “a liberal agrarian reformer” at a time when Washington was still unsure how to react to Mao’s efforts to overthrow the Chinese government. In McCarthy’s words:

“[Budenz] . . . testified that . . . [Lattimore], who had been employed by the government, consulted for years by State Department officials on Far Eastern policy, and looked to by newspapermen and magazine editors for news on Far Eastern trends, had been a member of the Communist Party.”

Reporters, Some of them Honest

Joseph R. McCarthy, who earned the nickname "Tail-gunner Joe," shown here during his military service.

Many newspapers and wire services so twisted Budenz’s testimony about Lattimore, however, that it was not clear to most Americans that Lattimore had indeed been identified positively as a Communist.

One honest reporter, Dave McConnell of the New York Herald Tribune, wrote in the May 16, 1950, edition of his now defunct paper that “you have to use a sieve to strain out the bias in the McCarthy stories published in many papers.”

“Tail-gunner Joe,” as McCarthy was nicknamed by the press, was seen by many as a national hero. A Gallup poll taken May 21, 1950, showed that among the general public he had four supporters for every three detractors. In a later Gallup poll, taken in January 1954, 50 per cent. of the public viewed him favorably, and 29 per cent. viewed him unfavorably. McCarthy was the one man in Washington, D.C., who bucked the bipartisan pressure to be polite to America’s enemies and to “get along by going along.” He was the one man who took anti-Communism seriously and was willing to do something about it.

An issue of The American Mercury magazine. Young people who haven't studied literature may never have heard of it, but it was once one of the most well-known periodicals in the United States. Founded by the brilliant and iconoclastic H.L. Mencken in the 1920s, it remained a thorn in the side of pious frauds and political hacks until its last issue in 1980, featuring the work of writers such as Ernest Hemingway, Ezra Pound, Revilo Oliver, and Karl Hess. According to its publisher, J.B. Matthews, its circulation was purposely suppressed by Jewish magazine distributors who refused to carry it for political reasons.

At the time conservative writer Harold Lord Varney wrote in the American Mercury:

“McCarthy is where he is today because he satisfies the deep national hunger for an affirmative man. In a Washington of vacillating, irresolute, pressure-group-cowed politicians, he stands out in sharp relief as a man sure of himself. His unshaken self-confidence is shown by the opponents he has tackled: they have been Marshall, Acheson, Tydings, Conant — men in the full tide of their authority. And he has never lost a major Washington fight. . . .

“He sometimes gets too far out in front of public opinion, but so far public opinion has always followed him. . . .

“Because McCarthy has been willing to act as the shock absorber of the main stream of pro-Communist abuse, the careers of all [other] anti-Communists have been made easier. . . .

“One far-reaching consequence of [McCarthy's fight] has been its impact upon the American world of ideas. The climate of American public discussion has been amazingly cleared since McCarthy began to fight. . . . The long grip on the nation’s communications media exercised by the literary Reds and Pinkos has been broken. . . .”

This is all very different, of course, from today’s popular conception, which was molded by the controlled media. Little is said of McCarthy’s popularity, which even Eisenhower dared not challenge directly. Instead, we are led to believe that McCarthy was a brutal tyrant who somehow managed to run roughshod over everyone’s civil liberties and give the entire country a very bad case of claustrophobia for several years, all of this as chairman of a Senate subcommittee.

McCarthy’s Methods

Joseph McCarthy speaks on KFAB. According to professor Revilo Oliver, a CIA officer told McCarthy in 1950 "Senator, you said there were 57 known Communists in the State Department. If you had access to the files of my agency, you would know that there is absolute proof that there are ten times that many. But Senator, you do not realize the magnitude and the power of the conspiracy you are attacking. They will destroy you -- they will destroy you utterly."

Make no mistake about it, McCarthy did cause considerable discomfort to some people: to the alien subversives and traitors whose ultimate goal was and still is the New World Order. It was these people who, in their effort to silence McCarthy, ironically characterized him as an enemy of free speech. The First Amendment, of course, had been drafted precisely to protect men like McCarthy, who dared to identify treason in high places.

There were undoubtedly, however, some sincere, patriotic Americans who agreed with McCarthy’s aim of removing Communists from government, but who found his method, with all of its sensationalism and public-relations gimmickry, distasteful. McCarthy’s method was, as he himself explained, a last resort:

“I have followed the method of publicly exposing the truth about men who, because of incompetence or treason, were betraying this nation. Another method would be to take the evidence to the President and ask him to discharge those who were serving the Communist cause. A third method would be to give the facts to the proper Senate committee which had the power to hire investigators and subpoena witnesses and records. The second and third methods . . . were tried without success. . . . The only method left to me was to present the truth to the American people. This I did.”

People who criticized McCarthy’s public accusations merely as being in poor taste clearly did not appreciate the gravity of the situation and the necessity for taking action. Also it should be noted that McCarthy had not wanted to read his original list of 57 subversives publicly, but the Tydings Committee required it of him. According to the Congressional Record of Feb 20, 1950, p. 2049, McCarthy protested on the Senate floor:

“I think . . . it would be improper to make the names public until the appropriate Senate Committee can meet in executive session and get them. . . . It might leave a wrong impression.”

Unfortunately, “the wrong impression” was exactly what the Tydings Committee wished to promote. In other words, contrary to the reputation for “recklessness” that was applied to him, McCarthy exercised his First Amendment right with great care.

Republicans Without Honor

Like some resurrected Paul Revere or latter-day Cicero, it was he who sounded the alarm, who let the American people know that their government had been subverted by alien interests; and it was the shadow government of “globalists” who wished to silence him, so that their power and their pernicious influence would remain hidden from the American people.

International Communism and international finance — the twin thrusts of Jewish power — were both ill-served by the attention McCarthy drew to the issues of loyalty and subversion.

Dwight David Eisenhower

In the 1952 elections the Republicans captured both houses of Congress and the Presidency, largely due to McCarthy’s influence. McCarthy became chairman of the Senate’s Government Operations Committee and its Subcommittee on Investigations. The new President, however, was a pet of the New World Order clique, and he would succeed where Truman had failed in discrediting McCarthy.

In the discrediting of McCarthy, there is no doubt that there was a conspiracy at work. We know this because men who were privy to the conspiracy later wrote books about it. The activities of the conspirators were, of course, necessarily subtle; Eisenhower himself studiously avoided even mentioning McCarthy’s name in public, and the media coverage was almost unbelievably biased. Thus, for the general public, the arrangements which brought down McCarthy were a mystery, though in essence they were very simple: McCarthy was maneuvered into an awkward position, the major media portrayed him as unfavorably as possible, and his colleagues deserted him.

Continue reading ‘The Destruction of Joe McCarthy, part 2″

Roy Cohn and David Schine: agents of destruction given huge publicity by the media as "McCarthy's Men"

by Scott Speidel, Florida State University

read part 1 of this article

Fear of “Anti-Semitism” Provides an Opening

MCCARTHY’S REPUTATION was destroyed chiefly by the feud that two staffers on his Subcommittee on Investigations, Roy Cohn and G. David Schine, conducted against the United States Army, contrary to McCarthy’s wishes.

Under pressure from influential Jewish columnist George Sokolsky and the Jewish president of the Hearst Corporation, Richard Berlin, both purported anti-Communists, McCarthy announced on January 2, 1953, that 26-year-old Roy Cohn would be the chief counsel of the Investigations Subcommittee. Cohn, the son of New York Supreme Court Judge Albert Cohn, had been well served by his Jewish connections in the past, having been hired as an assistant U.S. attorney immediately after passing the New York bar examination. Cohn himself later admitted that he was hired by McCarthy primarily because he was a Jew:

“There was a growing slander abroad in the land . . . that McCarthy was a Jew-hater . . . and he wanted to deflect it. I was the obvious answer, and the alternative — [Robert Kennedy,] the son of the well-known, well-documented anti-Semite Joseph P. Kennedy, the former pro-Hitler ambassador to the Court of St. James — was the last person McCarthy needed to head his committee.”

It probably need not be stressed that the Jews themselves were the source of this “slander” that McCarthy felt obliged to counter.

Thus, McCarthy was stuck with Cohn; privately he expressed the fear that if Cohn resigned for any reason the charge of “anti-Semitism” immediately would be raised against him again.

Furthermore, with most of the news media already solidly against him, McCarthy was desperate for some favorable press coverage. Illinois Republican Senator Everett Dirksen commented, “Cohn was put on the Committee by the Hearst press, and Joe doesn’t dare lose that support.”

Roy Cohn: His initial fame came from his fateful association with McCarthy; later in life he became known as a spectacularly unethical New York attorney and homosexual habitué of Manhattan's Studio 54 discotheque.

Cohn, who died of AIDS in 1986, was a homosexual, and rumor of the perversion became widespread after Cohn had brought another young Jew, G. David Schine, onto McCarthy’s staff. According to Cohn himself in his autobiography, Cohn and Schine were then rumored to be “Jack and Jill.” This rumor was undoubtedly a great embarrassment to McCarthy, since the controlled media had not yet succeeded in making homosexuality fashionable, and homosexuals were among the security risks to be investigated.

At Cohn’s insistence, Schine was accepted as an unpaid “chief consultant” on Communism. Schine’s credentials for this position were that he had authored a pamphlet, Definition of Communism, which his wealthy parents had allowed him to distribute in their hotel chain. This pamphlet gave incorrect dates for the Russian Revolution and the founding of the Communist Party, confused Marx with Lenin, Stalin with Trotsky, and Kerensky with Prince Lvov, and got Lenin’s name wrong. The Jewish millionaire-playboy was thus highly qualified, in Cohn’s view, to be a consultant.

Influential Washington Post columnist Drew Pearson broadcasts via Washington DC's WMAL radio: a self-styled muckraker, many on Capitol Hill feared his scandal-mongering column.

McCarthy hoped that he could save himself from accusations of “anti-Semitism” with Roy Cohn, and if necessary, with Dave Schine. But the day McCarthy accepted these two Jews as his assistants was the day his downfall really began.

As the son of a Jewish multi-millionaire, Schine had avoided the draft for the Korean War by getting himself classified 4-F. As soon as he became a staff member of McCarthy’s committee, however, at the instigation of left-wing journalist Drew Pearson the Army reclassified Schine 1-A and drafted him. Thus, the stage was set for Roy Cohn to involve McCarthy in a dispute with the United States Army.

Army-McCarthy Hearings: Dragged Against His Will

It is clear that McCarthy was dragged into this dispute against his will. Army lawyer John Adams relates:

“Senator McCarthy spoke out quite freely about his irritation over Schine. He told me that the individual is of absolutely no help to the committee, was interested in nothing but the photographers and getting his picture in the papers, and that things had reached the point where he was a complete pest. McCarthy stated to me quite emphatically that he was anxious to see this individual drafted, and . . . he hoped . . . we would send him as far away as possible ‘to get him out of [his] hair.” . . . “Send him wherever you can, as far away as possible. Korea is too close.’”

Cohn raised hell with the Army, first threatening revenge for the drafting of Schine, then agitating for special treatment for his putative boyfriend. John Adams stated in a January 21, 1954, meeting in Attorney General Herbert Brownell’s office that demands for the names of Army loyalty-board members usually were preceded by flare-ups over the reassignment of Schine. McCarthy was not happy about this behavior, and he privately complained that Cohn was indeed carrying out a vendetta against the Army on account of Schine.

McCarthy had instructed Adams on December 17, 1953, that, having learned the extent of the interference Cohn and Schine were causing for the commanding general of Fort Dix, he wished the Army to discontinue all special treatment for Schine. Subsequently, the alleged anti-Communist Jew, columnist George Sokolsky, contacted Adams repeatedly, continuing to urge special treatment for Schine. On February 12, 1954, Sokolsky went so far as to tell Adams that he, Sokolsky, would “get them to drop all this stuff they are planning for the Army [i.e., McCarthy's investigation of Communist subversion in the Army],” if a special assignment were arranged for Schine. It seemed that Sokolsky was more concerned about the comfort and convenience of one fellow Jew than about the national security of the United States — or he was deliberately exacerbating the animosity between the Army and McCarthy.

Meanwhile, in late January 1954 a story in the New York Post featured Fort Dix recruits complaining that Schine lived among them like a visiting dignitary — and Joseph McCarthy was taking the blame.

Secretary of the Army Robert Stevens said that he was wary about “discriminating against” Schine, because Schine was a Jew. Likewise, McCarthy said that he was afraid to fire Cohn, “because [I] might be accused of being anti-Semitic.” Here we have the Secretary of the Army and the chairman of a Senate committee, both paralyzed by fear of being called “anti-Semitic,” allowing 26-year-old Roy Cohn and the utterly inconsequential G. David Schine to walk all over them.

It was not only the fact that McCarthy had felt the wrath of the Jews when he had spoken out against the barbarous treatment of German prisoners five years earlier that made him wary of offending them again. His investigations into Communist subversion were turning up a vastly disproportionate number of Jewish Communists, and he was afraid that the Jews would believe he was hunting Jews rather than Communists.

By using the threat of investigation as a weapon to coerce the Army into giving special treatment to his friend Schine, Cohn had tainted the legitimacy of McCarthy’s patriotic work. Cohn was creating exactly the impression of reckless disregard for fairness and propriety that McCarthy had wished to avoid.

McCarthy had apparently hoped that the alleged anti-Communist Jews with whom he dealt were what they claimed to be. With their involvement, however, all his efforts met with grief. If the Senator had taken account of Jewish traits — especially their bent for deception, which goes far beyond anything encountered in the Gentile world — then perhaps he would have braved the charges of “anti-Semitism” rather than tolerate Jews on his staff.

"Conservative" columnist George Sokolsky

The anti-Communist credentials of Jewish columnist George Sokolsky, for example, who had recommended Roy Cohn, were invented rather late in life. In 1917, at the age of 24, Sokolsky had gone to Russia with a large number of other Jews, filled with ardor for the prospect of world Communism and hoping to lend a hand to the Bolsheviks in fastening the Communist yoke on the Russians. For a while he edited the English-language Communist newspaper Daily News in Petrograd; then he left for China to practice his journalistic skills on behalf of the revolutionary leader Sun Yat-sen, who was working to set up a Communist government in China and was receiving aid from the Soviets. In 1931, claiming disillusionment with the methods of Bolshevism, he returned to the United States, where he used different methods.

As a right-wing columnist for the Hearst newspapers, Sokolsky was well-placed to accomplish much for the Jewish obsession with the New World Order by misdirecting the anti-Communist movement into blind alleys, false hopes, and confusion — and away from the truth. Considering these facts, are we justified in believing his claim that he had completely changed his ideals and in the 1950s was fervently against what he had been fervently for earlier in Russia and China? A clue may be provided by Sokolsky’s 1935 book, We Jews, in which he lamented the fact that Jews are not even more cohesive than they are. Certainly, no race-conscious Jew could have genuinely supported McCarthy’s efforts to root Communists out of positions of influence in American life, since he would have understood that exposing Communism meant exposing Jews.

Similarly, Roy Cohn, who called Sokolsky his “rabbi,” was another member of the far left who claimed a miraculous conversion: as late as 1949 he was openly calling anti-Communism a “witch-hunt” and said that Alger Hiss was a victim of a “right-wing conspiracy.” Given the legendary cohesiveness of the Jewish people and the Jewishness of Communism, one is justified in viewing these overnight conversions with suspicion.

There is more than Roy Cohn’s youthful attachment to leftist causes to make us suspicious of his motives: his father Albert Cohn had been the first judge appointed by Franklin Roosevelt after the latter became governor of New York. Thus, the Cohns were firmly attached to the very clique that had fostered what McCarthy called “twenty years of treason.”

It looks very much as if McCarthy, who wished so much to avoid crossing the Jews, allowed himself to be swindled in the age-old game of Good Jew/Bad Jew.

Ike and McCarthy

The man whom Eisenhower had appointed Secretary of the Army, Robert Stevens, head of the J.P. Stevens textiles business, was staunchly anti-Communist, having witnessed the pernicious influence of Communists in exacerbating labor disputes. Stevens was even distrustful of New Deal supporters. He was thus appointed not as a member of the New World Order clique around Ike, but merely as a valuable (if misguided) Republican booster. Stevens had apparently taken Eisenhower’s anti-Communist campaign rhetoric at face value.

Upon assuming office in February 1953, Stevens requested a briefing on the Army’s Loyalty and Security Program: “The presentation should set forth what steps are to be taken to prevent disloyal and subversive persons from infiltrating the Army, and what steps have been taken to discover and remove such persons who may have found their way into the Army Establishment.” So concerned was Stevens about combatting subversion that he asked advice from J. Edgar Hoover, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Finally, when Stevens heard that McCarthy was concerned about security risks in the Army, he rushed a telegram to him, offering his assistance in the investigation.

McCarthy’s staff announced on September 10, 1953, that there was very serious evidence of espionage at Fort Monmouth. The evidence was an extract of a report from J. Edgar Hoover to the head of Army Intelligence. The document mentioned 35 Fort Monmouth employees as security risks, most of them Jews of Russian origin who had been in contact with the atom-bomb spies, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Stevens instructed the commanding general at Fort Monmouth: “Cooperate! See to it that they interview anyone they wish to.”

During the investigation at Fort Monmouth, however, attention was diverted to nearby Camp Kilmer. This was the case of the Jewish Communist Irving Peress. Peress, an Army dentist who was proved to be not only a member but an organizer of Communist groups, had sworn a false oath upon receiving his officer’s commission. Worse, when the matter was exposed Peress was promoted and later given an honorable discharge, thus escaping the jeopardy of a court-martial. The Peress case was a tremendous embarrassment to the Army, because it showed that security in the Army was a mere formality which was easily circumvented.

McCarthy’s confidential informant on the Peress case was General Ralph Zwicker. A hearing in New York City was arranged, and General Zwicker was called to testify as to the identity of the Pentagon official who had ordered Peress’ honorable discharge. On the very morning of the hearing, however, Zwicker received an order from John Adams not to reveal the official’s name. McCarthy did all he could to persuade Zwicker to talk in spite of the order, but he failed.

Thereafter the press made a great fuss over McCarthy’s rough treatment of Zwicker and the “insult to the uniform.” It was alleged that McCarthy had without cause accused Zwicker of shielding subversives.

Secretary Stevens decided not to allow General Zwicker or other Army officers to testify further. Says William Ewald, a Department of Defense official at the time: “A cheer went up: from anti-McCarthyites within the Administration itself, from editorial writers far and wide, from liberals coast to coast.” Especially noteworthy was a telephone call to Stevens from Marshall Plan administrator Paul Hoffman in California — at whose residence Eisenhower was then vacationing. This congratulation was inferred to represent the attitude of that champion McCarthy-hater, President Ike.

Anna M. Rosenberg: she pushed for racial integration of the U.S. military.

Eisenhower’s friend Hoffman was married to Anna Rosenberg, who had been Truman’s Jewish Assistant Secretary of Defense in 1950 and had been diligent in promoting liberal programs in the Army and the other armed services. She, more than anyone else, had forced full racial integration on the services.

Unlike Ike, however, Secretary Stevens was not an implacable foe of McCarthy and anti-Communism. Although he thought Roy Cohn was awful, he said he saw McCarthy as a “reasonable” man. In a conference with the majority members of McCarthy’s subcommittee, an agreement was reached and Stevens signed a document that stated this accord. The anti-McCarthy interpretation of this event has been that Secretary Stevens did not understand what he was doing. More likely, Stevens did not understand what Eisenhower was doing. Nor did the American people understand!

Stevens said of the media’s explosively hostile reaction to his reconciliation with McCarthy, “I think I have been absolutely crucified. . . .” Furthermore, he showed naiveté by saying that he thought the press had “misunderstood” the agreement.

Eisenhower decided to have Secretary Stevens “admit an administrative error” and renege on the agreement. A repudiation of Stevens’ agreement with McCarthy was composed, and Stevens was made to read it publicly.

Meanwhile, President Eisenhower’s staff, without Stevens’ knowledge, had instructed Stevens’ subordinate John Adams to compile a written record of Cohn’s and Schine’s behavior. Adams, a holdover from the Truman administration, apparently was considered more politically reliable than the conservative Stevens.

On March 8, 1954, when Secretary Stevens was asked about the record of improper pressure by Cohn and Schine (which John Adams had leaked to the press a few days earlier) he said, “I personally think that anything in that line would prove to be very much exaggerated. . . . I am the Secretary, and I have had some talks with the committee and the chairman . . . and by and large as far as the treatment of me is concerned, I have no personal complaints . . . .”

On March 10, although Stevens had not even been aware of the Schine chronology two days earlier, he was pressured into approving a version heavily “revised” by Defense Department attorney Struve Hensel. It was called the “Stevens-Adams chronology,” although Stevens had only just learned of it. Under pressure, the Secretary of the Army was now lending his name to a document that he had said would be “very much exaggerated.”

The Army-McCarthy Hearings Commence

In late April 1954 the Army-McCarthy hearings began. The Army had accused McCarthy and Roy Cohn of using improper pressure, evidence of this being the so-called “Stevens-Adams chronology.” McCarthy counter-charged that the Army was trying to discredit his committee and stop its investigation of the Army.

An anti-McCarthy cartoon, one of many by Jewish Washington Post cartoonist "Herblock," portraying McCarthy as an ugly, lying, monster-like figure. (Click on the image for a larger version.) In reality, and as found in the hearings, McCarthy's charges were true, and his evidence was not doctored. But the media simply declared otherwise.

During the hearings Stevens was the Army’s “star witness.” He “stonewalled” the subcommittee, giving vague, unresponsive, and often self-contradictory testimony. It became clear to McCarthy that Stevens was acting under orders from Eisenhower’s staff. The Army’s case, however, already had been blown sky-high, and McCarthy essentially vindicated, when Senator Everett Dirksen, a member of the McCarthy Subcommittee, testified that the Army’s counsel John Adams and Eisenhower’s administrative assistant Gerald Morgan had approached him on January 22, 1954, seeking to stifle part of McCarthy’s investigation of the Army. Dirksen testified that Adams had mentioned the Army’s file on Cohn and Schine, dropping a “hint” that these files might be very damaging if they were “issued and ventilated on the front pages” of newspapers.

At this point, John Adams, not wishing to be the lone scapegoat for Eisenhower, and, furthermore, living under the possibility of a prosecution for perjury, revealed that he had been told to compile the chronology on Cohn and Schine by members of Eisenhower’s staff in a secret meeting in the Attorney General’s office the day before approaching Dirksen.

The White House was now clearly implicated in a conspiracy to shield subversion in the government. On May 17 Eisenhower, in an obvious attempt to prevent his own role from being investigated further, issued what became known as the “iron curtain” order. Eisenhower claimed that it was a Constitutional principle that the President could forbid his subordinates from revealing any information to the Congress.

On May 27, after several more days of vague, unresponsive, and sometimes conflicting testimony from Stevens, McCarthy responded in exasperation to Eisenhower’s gag order: “The oath which every person in this government takes, to protect and defend the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that oath towers far above any presidential security directive.” He urged federal employees to come forward with any information they might have about corruption and subversion in government.

The next day Eisenhower had his press secretary convey to the media a statement that likened McCarthy to Hitler: a comparison that was not meant to flatter McCarthy. Edward R. Murrow and other media figures took their cue and began echoing that line.

McCarthy, however, was expressing essentially the same idea which Theodore Roosevelt had expressed half a century earlier, when the latter said:

“It is patriotic to support [the President] insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. . . . In any event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth–whether about the President or anyone else.”

And of course, the truth was exactly what Ike feared. Was this not the Eisenhower who had carried out Operation Keelhaul after the Second World War, in which anti-Communist Russians, Hungarians, and others were forcibly repatriated to a certain death under Communism? Was this not the Eisenhower who deliberately starved to death over a million German prisoners of war? And was this not the same Eisenhower who later sent paratroopers into Little Rock to enforce racial integration with bayonets?

Regardless of the legal result, biased media coverage made the Army-McCarthy hearings a propaganda victory for the pro-Communists. Army counsel Joseph Welch, through hyperbole and histrionics, managed to convince a large portion of the public that a few peripheral issues he raised during the hearings were serious embarrassments to McCarthy.

The Army-McCarthy hearings: Welch, left; McCarthy, right

Welch, the Television Cameras, and the End

Attorney Joseph Welch: Though he had little of substance to say, his carefully-crafted media image and accomplished TV histrionics sealed McCarthy's fate.

For example, Welch insisted for the television cameras that part of an FBI report listing subversives at Fort Monmouth was “a carbon copy of precisely nothing” and “a perfect phoney,” even though FBI Director Hoover said that he had written it. Similarly, Welch dramatically accused McCarthy of introducing a “doctored” photograph into evidence: it was a quite genuine photograph, which merely had been cropped and enlarged for the sake of clarity. The media played up Welch’s accusations and ignored McCarthy’s explanations.

Welch was much more an actor than a lawyer: later, in 1959, he starred in a major Hollywood production, Anatomy of a Murder, alongside Jimmy Stewart and Lee Remick. In any event, during the Army-McCarthy hearings the Senate hearing room was his stage, and he played his role to the hilt. When McCarthy pointed out that a member of Welch’s own law firm, Fred Fischer, had been a member of the National Lawyers’ Guild, an organization cited as a Communist front by the Attorney General, Welch waxed maudlin and sobbed the famous line, “Have you no sense of decency at long last?” Later, outside the hearing room, Welch wept again for the benefit of the news photographers. (Welch’s goading of McCarthy and tearful denouement may have been planned in advance; see Appendix below. — Ed.)

Joseph Welch also found more legitimate venues for his acting talent.

As reported by the media, Welch was a man of great humanity who was shocked that McCarthy would be so ignoble as to attempt to ruin Fischer’s career with his accusation, while McCarthy was a heel for even raising the matter. The fact that McCarthy’s charge was perfectly accurate seemed to make no difference at all to the media.

And so it was with other episodes in the hearings. One contemporary observer, Harold Varney, noted in the American Mercury:

“Unfortunately, the anti-McCarthy press was not honest enough to admit publicly that the Senator had been vindicated. The smearers continued to parrot the smears, just as if the disproof were not before the country.”

The masters of the controlled media were determined to “get” McCarthy, and they did. They had not directed as much hatred on any public figure since Adolf Hitler.

By September many of his supporters in the Congress, ever sensitive to the direction of the political wind, had thrown in the towel. McCarthy’s Senate colleagues stripped him of his committee chair in November. On December 2, 1954, the Senate voted 67-22 to condemn him for “conduct contrary to Senatorial traditions.” The condemnation permanently ended his effectiveness as a legislator.

* * *

Additions and annotations by Kevin Alfred Strom; originally published in 1994; American Dissident Voices broadcast series title “Joe McCarthy: Tragic hero.”

APPENDIX

The Set Up: Welch and McCarthy

MANY BELIEVE that Welch set up McCarthy through his breaking of a pre-hearing agreement and threatening to expose Cohn and Schine as homosexuals. According to writer Brian Burns:

The quote, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” was asked of the notorious Senator Joe McCarthy by Attorney Joseph Welch at the climactic moment of the Army-McCarthy Hearings, a 55-day spectacle that riveted the attention of the nation in the spring of 1954.

A grandfatherly, bespectacled man with a fondness for neckties, Walpole’s Welch was the lead counsel for the Army during the hearings, which aired live on the ABC and DuMont networks.

Welch’s memorable excoriation of McCarthy came as the bullet point of a tearful and impassioned speech in which he blasted McCarthy for his “cruelty and recklessness.” It was a moment that would forever alter the lives of both men….

Welch, an attorney at the Boston law firm of Hale and Dorr, was hired to represent the Army….

The penultimate confrontation with the Wisconsin senator came on June 9, while Welch was needling Cohn in cross examination about the contention that there were 130 known Communists working in Army labs throughout the country.

After stewing for a while in the background, McCarthy finally interjects after Welch playfully asks Cohn why he doesn’t just have the FBI get all of the Communists out of the Army by sundown.

McCarthy tells Welch that one of his co-workers at Hale and Dorr, “a young man named Fischer,” had belonged for three or four years to the National Lawyers Guild, an organization that was named “years and years” ago as the legal bulwark of the Communist party.

Since Welch was so interested in ferreting out Communists, he should be made aware of the fact that Fischer was a member of his own firm, McCarthy said. Welch’s response was brutally effective.

Welch: ‘Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Fred Fischer is a young man who went to the Harvard Law School and came into my firm and is starting what looks to be a brilliant career with us. When I decided to work for this committee, I asked Jim St. Clair, who sits on my right, to be my first assistant. I said to Jim, “Pick somebody in the firm to work under you that you would like.” He chose Fred Fischer, and they came down on an afternoon plane. That night, when we had taken a little stab at trying to see what the case was about, Fred Fisher and Jim St. Clair and I went to dinner together. I then said to these two young men, “Boys, I don’t know anything about you, except I’ve always liked you, but if there’s anything funny in the life of either one of you that would hurt anybody in this case, you speak up quick.”

‘And Fred Fisher said, “Mr. Welch, when I was in the law school, and for a period of months after, I belonged to the Lawyers Guild,” as you have suggested, Senator.

‘He went on to say, “I am Secretary of the Young Republican’s League in Newton with the son of [the] Massachusetts governor, and I have the respect and admiration of my community, and I’m sure I have the respect and admiration of the twenty-five lawyers or so in Hale & Dorr.”

‘And I said, “Fred I just don’t think I’m going to ask you to work on the case. If I do, one of these days that will come out, and go over national television and it will just hurt like the dickens.” And so, Senator, I asked him to go back to Boston.

Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad…It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I would do so.

‘I like to think I’m a gentle man, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me.’

McCarthy: ‘Mr. Chairman, may I say that Mr. Welch talks about this being cruel and reckless. He was just baiting; he has been baiting Mr. Cohn here for hours, requesting that Mr. Cohn before sundown get out of any department of the government anyone who is serving the Communist cause. Now, I just give this man’s record and I want to say, Mr. Welch, that it had been labeled long before he became a member, as early as 1944.’

Welch: ‘Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild. And Mr. Cohn nods his head at me. I did you, I think, no personal injury, Mr. Cohn?’

Cohn: ‘No, sir.’

Welch: ‘I meant to do you no personal injury, and if I did, I beg your pardon. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?’

Welch’s stirring condemnation was the beginning of the end for McCarthy, who would be censured by the Senate later that year.

Following his censure McCarthy returned home to Wisconsin, where he died of complications from alcoholism in 1957. He was only 48.

Welch, on the other hand, found himself a national celebrity. His exposure of McCarthy’s bluster earned him high praise from the media and various civic organizations and his stirring speech secured him a permanent place in the annals of history.

…While there is little question of the effectiveness of Welch’s condemnation, recent evidence has suggested that it may not have been as spontaneous as it seemed to those who watched it unfold live on the air.

A number of historians now believe that McCarthy may have blundered his way into a carefully planned trap.

One of the strongest advocates of this theory is Nicholas von Hoffman, who describes the encounter from Cohn’s perspective in Citizen Cohn (The Life and Times of Roy Cohn. Doubleday). Von Hoffman writes that despite the animosity between the two parties, Welch and McCarthy agreed before the trial that several areas would be off limits.

Welch agreed that he would not mention Cohn’s avoidance of the draft during World War II. In return, McCarthy’s camp agreed that they would not bring up Fischer’s membership in the Lawyer’s Guild.

Von Hoffman and several other sources suggest that the agreement also extended to Cohn’s sexual orientation. Though he denied it to his dying day, Cohn was widely known as a homosexual, especially to the Washington insiders that packed the hearing room each day.

According to several sources, it is possible that Welch had intentionally provoked McCarthy earlier in his cross examination by showing Cohn a picture that had been doctored by the McCarthy camp prior to being submitted as evidence.

After Cohn offers no explanation for how the altered picture came to be, Welch playfully asks him if it might have been created by a pixie. McCarthy angrily jumps in.

McCarthy: ‘Will the counsel for my benefit define — I think he might be an expert on that — what a pixie is?’

Welch: ‘Yes, I should say, Senator, that a pixie is a close relative of a fairy. Shall I proceed, sir? Have I enlightened you?’

At this point, according to sources, the room erupted in laughter. It was a dig at Cohn’s expense, but it wasn’t a direct violation of the agreement, a subtle point that may have been lost on McCarthy.

Von Hoffman quotes from Michael Straight, who wrote about the moment in the New Republic.

“As law the comment was improper; as humor it was unjust; as drama it was beyond anything that the theatre could conceive or reproduce.”

Was this dig, and Welch’s subsequent needling about getting all the Communists out by sundown, designed to lure McCarthy into making a foolish attack on Fischer?

There seems to be some legitimacy to this argument, especially when one considers the way that McCarthy later reacts.

McCarthy: ‘Mr. Chairman, may I say that Mr. Welch talks about this being cruel and reckless. He was just baiting; he has been baiting Mr. Cohn here for hours…’

Cohn, a talented if unscrupulous lawyer in his own right, is smart enough not to respond to Welch’s thrust and later tries to dissuade McCarthy from pursuing his inquiry into Fischer, though it is to no avail.

Welch: ‘Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild. And Mr. Cohn nods his head at me. I did you, I think, no personal injury, Mr. Cohn?’

Cohn: ‘No, sir.’

Yet McCarthy insists on pursuing the issue, sealing his own fate at the hands of Welch’s eloquence.

Without asking Welch himself, it’s difficult to know how much of his speech was real and how much was part of a carefully designed plan. This anecdote recounted by von Hoffman seems to suggest that it was a bit of both.

“Welch had tears in his eyes as he delivered the last line; they were rolling down his cheeks as he left the center area; he passed a young reporter named John Newhouse who had been late and had to accept standing room by the door. As Welch went by, tears still coursing, he looked at Newhouse and winked.”

go back to part 1

One of the 60 previously unpublished Abu Ghraib photographs that the U.S. Government has been fighting to keep secret in a court case with the American Civil Liberties Union. From the Sydney Morning Herald, Australia.

A READER WRITES that, in his opinion, the questions Jesse Ventura asked about waterboarding were the least uncomfortable that could have been asked. And, he adds, we can’t “descend to the moral level” of Saddam Hussein, since we’ve already passed that point:

“Why is the subject of torture being confined to waterboarding? Other forms were used in Iraq, as everyone knows.

“And in terms of increasingly ‘resembling Saddam Hussein,’ he was convicted for the murder of 148 people committed a year before the U.S. began supporting him.

“Where does the civilian death count in Iraq and Afghanistan stand today? Even though death figures become suddenly vague, unlike those of Saddam, it is certainly more than 148 people who have been murdered as a direct result of federal orders. Claiming all were ‘terrorists’ is the same justification Saddam used. Claiming ‘casualties of war’ is bogus: No declaration of war exists outside of federal and commercial media spin and lingo.

“Taking a snapshot of downtown Baghdad a year before and then a year after Saddam fell from power, given both forms of central power sat in palaces, which picture would look more conducive to public happiness? It seems to me that if the U.S. federal government more resembled Saddam in Iraq, it would be a change for the better.”

Benjamin Harrison Freedman

Benjamin Freedman’s warning is one of the most important documents of the 20th century.

by Benjamin H. Freedman

listen to the speech (43 minutes; mp3)

Introductory Note:

Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company.

He broke with organized Jewry after World War II, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish power structure which dominates the United States.

Mr. Freedman’s testimony is especially important because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times.

This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley’s patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman’s essential message to us — his warning to the West — is more urgent than ever before. – Kevin Alfred Strom

A JEWISH DEFECTOR WARNS AMERICA
a speech by Benjamin H. Freedman

From a letter by Benjamin Freedman in the Revilo Oliver archives

HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep.

The First World War

What happened? World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.

Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week’s food supply — and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn’t want to play war anymore, they didn’t like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: “Let’s call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.” England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that — seriously. They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.

Stalemate in 1916; Zionists Offer to get USA into the War

Benjamin Freedman was attacked by the Jewish establishment, as in this 1955 issue of the American Jewish Committee's magazine, Commentary

While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and — I am going to be brief because it’s a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make — they said: “Look here. You can yet win this war. You don’t have to give up. You don’t have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.”

The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They told England: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.”

In other words, they made this deal: “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.”

1955 Commentary article mentioning Benjamin Freedman

Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It’s absolutely absurd that Great Britain, that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war. However, they did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that — I don’t know how many here remember it — the United States, which was almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain’s ally.

I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn’t like the Czar, and they didn’t want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!” But they poured money into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they’d been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies’ hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.

USA Railroaded into World War I; Balfour Declaration

Arthur Balfour, author of the infamous declaration

The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis, saying “Go to work on President Wilson. We’re getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war.” That’s how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room. There was absolutely no reason for World War I to be our war. We were railroaded into — if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into — that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. That is something that the people of the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War I.

The Balfour Declaration

After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let’s have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.” They didn’t know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn’t know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain’s promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. I don’t think I could make it more emphatic than that.

Versailles

Propaganda to make us hate those whom the Zionists wish us to war against did not begin with Iraq: a poster from WW1, illustrating the common but utterly false characterization of Germans as so-called Huns threatening women

That is where all the trouble started. The United States got in the war. The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When the war ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know.

Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations who claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, so that was the game! That’s why the United States came into the war.” The Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and were determined to get it at any cost.

Effect on Germans when they understood Jewish Activity

That brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Ballin, [Albert Ballin - RW] who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd’s and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers — the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. The Germans felt: “Well, that was quite a sellout.”

Further demonization of those whom the Zionists wished us to hate: World War 1 poster

It was a sellout that might be compared to this hypothetical situation: Suppose the United States was at war with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: “Well, let’s quit. We offer you peace terms. Let’s forget the whole thing.” And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man’s imagination cannot encompass. Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we had thought were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, then, in the United States against Chinese? I don’t think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn’t be enough convenient lampposts to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.

Well, that’s how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They’d been so nice to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they had sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than the fact that they wanted Palestine as a so-called “Jewish commonwealth.”

Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you read about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923 wrote in all their papers — and the press was filled with their statements — that the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by Jewish intercession in bringing the United States into the war. The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn’t that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said “Shema’ Yisroel” or “Our Father.” Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat.

Freedman says World War I was started against Germany

But it had nothing to do with home and country -- just as the current wars have nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Click to see a larger version of this WW1 poster and note the emotional triggers: the wife fingering a cross, the child, the grisly souvenir of a dead man's helmet.

And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for which Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution consisted of 300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred separate little political entities. And between that time, between the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years they became one of the world’s great powers. Their navy was rivaling Great Britain’s, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody, they could make better products. What happened as a result of that?

There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap down Germany. There isn’t one historian in the world who can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically.

German Camps in 1933

When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew whom Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners, who wrote back that he found them in very fine condition. They were in excellent shape, with everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to comprise about 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, and Masons, and others who had international affiliations.

Germans fought Jewish Control

Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht

Some background is in order: In 1918-1919 the Communists took over Bavaria for a few days. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and a group of other Jews took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia and that he was going to meet the same fate as the Czar. So he fled to Holland for safety, for security.

After the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, the Jews were still working, trying to get back into their former status, and the Germans fought them in every way they could without hurting a single hair on anyone’s head. They fought them the same way that, in this country, the Prohibitionists fought anyone who was interested in liquor. They didn’t fight one another with pistols. Well, that’s the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans, and there were only 460,000 Jews. About one half of one per cent of the population of Germany were Jews. And yet they controlled all the press, and they controlled most of the economy because they had come in with cheap money when the mark was devalued and bought up practically everything.

The Jews tried to keep a lid on this fact. They didn’t want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.

The Germans took appropriate action against the Jews. They, shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned them. The same way that we would shun the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.

1933: Jews Declare “Holy War” (and Trade War) on Germany

After a while, the Jews of the world called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended this meeting in July 1933. And they said to Germany: “You fire Hitler, and you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist or no matter what he was. You can’t treat us that way. And we, the Jews of the world, are serving an ultimatum upon you.” You can imagine what the Germans told them. So what did the Jews do?

In 1933, when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of Jews in Amsterdam, the conference broke up, and Mr. Samuel Untermyer, who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference, came to the United States and went from the steamer to the studios of the Columbia Broadcasting System and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he in effect said, “The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them. That will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business.”

And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany’s food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany’s population would have to starve. There was just not enough food for more than one third of the population.

Now in this declaration, which I have here, and which was printed in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that “this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the National Recovery Administration,” which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless he followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, and which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of that time.

Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn’t find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words “made in Germany” on it. In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted if anyone came in and found a dish marked “made in Germany,” they were picketed with signs saying “Hitler,” “murderer,” and so forth, something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South.

At a store belonging to the R. H. Macy chain, which was controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews, a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked “made in Germany.” Well, they were cotton stockings and they may have been there 20 years, since I’ve been observing women’s legs for many years and it’s been a long time since I’ve seen any cotton stockings on them. I saw Macy’s boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying “murderers,” “Hitlerites,” and so forth. Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.

Naturally, the Germans said, “Who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and make our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?” They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews. Why should a German go in and give his money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott that was going to starve Germany into surrendering to the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.

“Kristallnacht” and Rearmament

The boycott continued for some time, but it wasn’t until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot a German official, that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.

Now I don’t like to use the word “anti-Semitism” because it’s meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I’ll have to use it. The only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible for World War I and for this world-wide boycott. Ultimately they were also responsible for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive. In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided that Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. And the Germans decided they were going to keep it Christian if possible. And they started to re-arm. In November 1933 the United States recognized the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized that “Our turn was going to come soon, unless we are strong.” The same as we in this country are saying today, “Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong.” Our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars for defense. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other countries of the world.

Nuclear War for Israel?

For this country now to be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. Our nuclear bombs had a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT, when they were first developed. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.

What do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. Why might such a war take place? It will take place as the curtain goes up on Act 3: Act 1 was World War I, Act 2 was World War II, Act 3 is going to be World War III. The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. That is just as true as I am standing here. Not alone have I read it, but many here have also read it, and it is known all over the world.

Zionist wars can happen again

What are we going to do? The life you save may be your son’s. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you don’t know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren’t permitted to know it. Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other insiders knew it.

Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was “confidential man” to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the finance committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer.

So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson’s brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby.

That is how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. They sent our boys over there to be slaughtered. For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their “commonwealth.” They’ve fooled you so much that you don’t know whether you’re coming or going.

Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, “Gentlemen, any witness who you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony.” I don’t know what state you come from, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness told one lie, disregard his testimony.

History of ‘Jews’

What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don’t call them Jews myself. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are.) The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world’s population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars. They were a warlike tribe who lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe. They set up a large Khazar kingdom of 800,000 square miles. At the time, Russia did not exist, nor did many other European countries. The Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe — so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That’s how big and powerful they were.

They were phallic worshippers, which is filthy and I do not want to go into the details of that now. But that was their religion, as it was also the religion of many other pagans and barbarians elsewhere in the world. The Khazar king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith — either Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism, which is really Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out “eeny, meeny, miney, moe,” he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion.

He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and schools, and his people became what we call Jews. There wasn’t one of them who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, “You want to help repatriate God’s Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral home, don’t you? It’s your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and you kneel and you worship a Jew, and we’re Jews.” But they are pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish were converted.

It is as ridiculous to call them “people of the Holy Land,” as it would be to call the 54 million Chinese Moslems “Arabs.” Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, from Mecca and Mohammed’s birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million Chinese decided to call themselves “Arabs.” You would say they were lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported to the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants. They hadn’t become a different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.

These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. Because their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the matter. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the Khazars became what we call today Jews.

Now imagine how silly it was for the great Christian countries of the world to say, “We’re going to use our power and prestige to repatriate God’s Chosen People to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land.” Could there be a bigger lie than that?

Because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, and because they have the ministers in the pulpit and the politicians on the soapboxes talking the same language, it is not too surprising that you believe that lie. You’d believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn’t call black black anymore — you’d start to call black white. And nobody could blame you.

That is one of the great lies of history. It is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world.

Kol Nidre: Evidence of Disloyalty

Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so sacred to them?

I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I’m not here to be a rabble-rouser. I’m here to give you facts.

When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or effect.

And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an oath, vow, or pledge, you are to remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from fulfilling them. How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916. We are going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason.

*   *   *

Subsequent research has shown that the “Khazar hypothesis,” i.e., Freedman’s and Arthur Koestler’s idea that Ashkenazi Jews are almost entirely of Khazar descent, is wildly exaggerated. For example, Science News for October 3, 1998 stated “Wider genetic studies of diverse present day Jewish communities show a remarkable genetic cohesiveness. Jews from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, North Africa and European Ashkenazim all cluster together with other Semitic groups, with their origin in the Middle East. A common geographical origin can be seen for all mainstream Jewish groups studied. This genetic research has clearly refuted the Khazar story — Khazars: a pre-10th century Turko-Asian empire which reportedly converted en masse to Judaism. Researchers compared the DNA signature of the Ashkenazi Jews against those of Turkish-derived people, and found no correspondence. …The DNA tests results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.”

The demise of the Khazar hypothesis doesn’t much vitiate Freedman’s argument that the “blood right” of Jews — who do show some degree of mixture with their host populations and who are probably less related to the original inhabitants of “Israel” than are the Palestinians — to take over Palestine is a sham. And, of course, it doesn’t at all affect his insider revelations of Zionist intrigue. – Kevin Alfred Strom

This article was transcribed and prepared for publication by Kevin Alfred Strom, with additional work by Rae West.