Happy Birthday, Chairman Mao?





Photo credit: roberthuffstutter (Creative Commons)

The reporting on China’s commemoration of the 120th birthday of Mao Zedong all seemed to come from the same angle. Festivities were “understated” (Associated Press). Events were “scaled back” (Reuters). The following headline, which ran on the Fox News website over the AP story, is typical: “China marks Mao’s 120th birthday with low-key celebrations.” The story opens: “China’s leaders bowed three times before a statue of Mao Zedong on the 120th anniversary of his birth Thursday in carefully controlled celebrations that also sought to uphold the market-style reforms that he would have opposed.”

Forget for now the “market-style reforms.” Only three times? How “muted”! That, by the way, was the word CNN used to describe the occasion.

But there’s something wrong with this media picture. Imagine if, on Adolf Hitler’s upcoming 125th birthday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel were to bow three times in front of the Nazi mass-murderer’s statue. Would journalists convey how “ambivalent” (Voice of America’s word for post-Mao China) post-Hitler Germany was about Hitler these days? Hardly. They would most likely write in unconcealed horror over the twisted but enduring appeal of Nazism. Why are we not equally repelled when Chinese leaders bow in front of a statue of a communist mass-murderer? (I examine this double standard at length in my book, American Betrayal.)

The New York Times and CNBC ran headlines wishing “Happy Birthday, Chairman Mao”; but, again, don’t expect similar felicitations on Hitler’s birthday. It’s communists who always get a pass – or a yawn. “Communist Party feeling uneasy about Mao ahead of his birthday celebrations,” the Washington Post reported. With my imaginary Merkel example in mind, the paper’s update would read: “Nazi Party feeling uneasy about Hitler ahead of his 125th birthday.” Somehow, though, it’s hard to imagine news editors being so blasé.

Then again, there is no Nazi Party today, and Hitler is a universal symbol of evil. Why? In defeat, Nazi Party leader Hitler and his slaughters were exposed, judged, and condemned. Nothing of the kind has ever happened to communism; and in China, of course, Mao’s Communist Party won the war. Despite Red China’s successful entry in recent decades into the world market, it remains a totalitarian dictatorship, ruled by the same Communist Party that Mao led and seized power with in 1949.

Also missing from the typical retrospective is the fact that Mao’s seizure of power had crucial American help. During the FDR and Truman administrations, agents and fellow travelers working on behalf of Stalin inside the federal government and related institutions tried to influence U.S. policy to favor the communists over the anti-communist leader and U.S. ally Chiang Kai-Shek. Such influence operators, for example, included Soviet agent Lauchlin Currie, a top White House aide to FDR entrusted, among other portfolios, with China policy.

Aside from the events leading to the Korean War, these communist proxies helped launch Mao’s dictatorship, which stands out for amassing the highest body count in history. At least 65 million people perished due to this man and his monstrous programs of collectivization and “re-education.” Despite the Red Army death squads, concentration camps, and the largest state-created famine in history, Mao and those who bow to him today are somehow still spared the ash heap of history, not to mention the widespread contempt we freely express for Hitler. Why?

It gets worse, and dangerously so. The stigma of association with Nazism remains, but there is no stigma of association with communism. That means there is no stigma either attached to the collectivist policies communists enacted - policies that eliminated freedom and killed 100 million people worldwide.

Consider, for example, the current president of the European Union, Jose Barroso. He led a revolutionary Maoist party in Portugal in the 1970s. That’s long after most of the tens of millions of Mao’s victims had perished, but no big deal. It’s impossible to imagine Barroso in public life today if that party of his had been Nazi, not Communist. Meanwhile, seven out of 27 commissioners who rule the European Union today previously served in Communist parties. As the rights and laws of nation-states in Europe come under EU central control, we have to ask ourselves: Who was it that won the Cold War again?

Of course, the relentless pull of the communist orbit isn’t just in China or Europe. Never having been discredited a la Nazism – on the contrary, having been advanced by armies of agents and sympathizers deep into our institutions – communist, collectivist ideas and policies march on here, too.

As Obamacare kicks in, consider that nationalizing medicine was one of the early programs the Bolsheviks enacted on seizing power after the Russian Revolution. Reaction to this historical fact, of course, is as “muted” as Mao’s birthday party. We have a president whose early mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a notorious communist and apologist for Stalin and Mao, but ho hum. Imagine, though, if Davis had been an apologist for Hitler instead. Such a piece of presidential biography wouldn’t be so easy to ignore. As Davis biographer Paul Kengor discovered, Davis even had close associations via communist front groups with relatives and mentors of Obama confidantes Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod. Again, if these political ancestors of the president’s brain trust went back to the German Bund, that would be an issue to this day.

But not communism. We only shrug a little over the “scaled back” Mao party in China. Does it matter? In the Roosevelt years, we had Lauchlin Currie in the White House doing what he could to shape events that would ultimately bring Mao and the Communist Party to power in China. In the Obama years, we had another top White House aide, former communications director Anita Dunn, telling schoolchildren that Mao was one of her favorite philosophers.

It isn’t full circle. But “ambivalence” and “muted” reactions to these markers are still dangerous.

 

This commentary appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission. 

Photo credit: roberthuffstutter (Creative Commons)





Video: Unfinished Work After The Fall Of The Berlin Wall





This panel discussion was held on December 13, 2013 at the Heritage Foundation with the 75th Attorney General of the United States, Hon. Edwin Meese III; Judge Henry Saad, Michigan Court of Appeals; Hon. Becky Norton Dunlop, VP, The Heritage Foundation; Joel Anand Samy, Co-Founder, International Leaders Summit, Senior Advisor, Heritage Fondation and Natasha Srdoc, Co-Founder and Chairman of Adriatic Institute for Public Policy.

Today, there is a void of US principled leadership that Ronald Reagan exemplified in dealing with communism; and that lack of US leadership allows the rogue states of Austria and Liechtenstein and mafia states of the Balkans to flourish without the rule of law, independent judiciaries, protection of property rights, freedom of speech, and media freedom. With political leaders on the European continent being complicit, the situation can only get worse.

The Adriatic Institute provides a detailed analysis of the coexistence of organized crime, terrorist groups, and political colossal corruption in the Balkan region, facilitated through money laundry by the Liechtenstein royal family, Prince Michael von Liechtenstein, and Austria’s financial institutions. How does this affect us in America?

The most recent US State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Report 2013 for Croatia states: “Women and girls from the United States, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and other parts of Eastern Europe are subjected to sex trafficking in Croatia.” “Children are exploited in prostitution on the Adriatic Coast, particularly during the peak tourist season. “

While our soldiers have been dying in Afghanistan and Iraq, the perilous Balkan route with heroin, arms, and human and organ trafficking has been flourishing. The Balkan route originates in Afghanistan, where 75% of the world opium is produced (and trafficked via Iran, Turkey, and the countries of the Balkans to Western Europe). Reports reveal that Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas are financed by proceeds from drug trafficking.

Yet another victim of the coexistence of organized crime and political corruption in the Balkans – a female journalist was brutally assaulted with a baseball bat in Montenegro on January 4, 2014. Journalist Lidija Nikcevic suffered serious head injuries. On December 26, 2013, Vijesti’s office (that of a newspaper in Montenegro) was damaged by a bomb explosion. Media persecution in NATO member states Albania and Croatia, an aspirant NATO member state–Montenegro–and the rest of the Balkans continues. The Balkan mafia states cannot be dismantled from within.





Ripping Off the “Progressive” Mask





Photo credit: Kevdiaphoto (Creative Commons)

In a column on the “remarkable lives” of some people who passed away in 2013, Republican strategist Karl Rove writes that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, in concert with Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and Pope John Paul II, “transformed the world.” He’s right that Reagan, Bush, Thatcher, and the Pope did transform the world. In saying that Thatcher stood up to Soviet communism, however, he neglected to mention that the Soviet Communists fought back, attempting to assassinate Pope John Paul II. The Soviets lied about their involvement in this plot.

Referring to Nelson Mandela, Rove says he “spent 26 years in prison before emerging to end apartheid and serve as the first president of a multiracial South African democracy.” However, Mandela’s debt to Soviet communism, which armed his movement, went unmentioned in Rove’s Wall Street Journal column. Rove also failed to note that the communists who run South Africa today counted Mandela as one of their own. The “democratic” South Africa of today is effectively a one-party state, and the white minority is under siege and facing genocide.

Rove writes that Mandela went “on trial for his life,” neglecting to mention that he was convicted of terrorism and could have been hanged for his crimes. Instead, Mandela received a prison sentence. The white government was actually quite lenient and offered to release him if he would renounce violence and terrorism. He never did. His terrorism cost innocent lives.

Karl Rove should know better, and probably does. He apparently has his own reasons for shading the truth. Those reasons include appearing to be “moderate” in one’s public comments and accepting certain myths about public figures. That means, in Mandela’s case, accepting his false claim that he never joined the Communist Party of South Africa.

It is a sad fact that telling a lie these days has become more convenient than telling the truth. This is a terrible commentary on those with access to our major media.

Consider the coverage of the inauguration of Bill de Blasio as New York City’s mayor. The term “progressive” is used in most accounts to describe him and his backers. De Blasio accepts that term. Yet, by any objective measure, he is a dedicated Marxist, and has been for most of his life. For example, he never disavowed his support for the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua. He claims to have honeymooned in communist Cuba, when such a trip was illegal. His wife was a member of a Marxist collective.

As if to demonstrate that his views haven’t changed, one of de Blasio’s inauguration speakers was the entertainer Harry Belafonte, who performed at a “concert for peace” in communist East Germany in 1983. He claims he did not join the Communist Party USA, but acknowledges in his book My Song: A Memoir that he used to attend lectures in 1947 at the Jefferson School in New York City. He says the Jefferson School “openly billed itself as an institute of Marxist thought affiliated with the American Communist party.” He says he heard such speakers as I.F. Stone, the so-called “independent journalist” later unmasked as a Soviet intelligence agent.

At the time he attended lectures at the Jefferson School, Russia “seemed to be leading the way” internationally in achieving a “classless society,” Belafonte writes in his book.

Belafonte also endorsed and raised money for Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren when she was running for that office. The Massachusetts GOP tried to make that an issue, but the media paid no attention.

When it comes to children, the truth has to be concealed as well. Indeed, this target audience has to be “educated” intensively to become young recruits to the “progressive” movement.

Consider that a firm called Bluewater Productions has released a new “tribute comic book biography” on Nelson Mandela, insisting on page nine that Mandela was “never a communist himself” but only worked with the communists. The fact is that the South African Communist Party and the African National Congress have both acknowledged his membership on the SACP’s central committee. Mandela lied about it all his life.

Bluewater publisher Darren G. Davis calls the comic book “a great tool for kids to read about him in a different medium.” He adds that, “Our biography comic books are now taught in schools and libraries for students and reluctant readers.”

I asked Davis why the comic book lies about Mandela’s membership in the Communist Party. He told me, “I will check with the writer on that and get back to you on it.” That was over two weeks ago. Clearly, they have no justification for this striking omission.

It would seem to be important for our young people to understand the role that communism played, and continues to play, in national and world events. After all, this philosophy killed more than 100 million people, made millions more economically destitute, and continues to deny freedom to more than one billion people worldwide.

If used in schools and libraries, this comic book will deceive “students and reluctant readers” about how communism has come to power in South Africa. What purpose is served by that? It will enable the same forces to make even more gains around the world, including in the United States, by operating as “progressives.”

Part of Rove’s column was devoted to remembering two conservative businessmen, Bob Perry and Harold Simmons, who died in 2013 and were “passionate about their state and country and were generous donors to conservative candidates and causes, including American Crossroads.”

Rove is referring to his own political campaign organization, which refused to call President Obama a Marxist when buying millions of dollars of advertising against him during the 2012 presidential campaign. As a result, Obama and the George Soros-funded “progressives” won.

Rove says about Perry and Simmons, “These two self-made men never forgot that from those to whom much is given, much is required.” But the $300 million that went to Rove in 2012 was mostly wasted.

What the country desperately needs are donors willing to underwrite the organizations that are not afraid to tell the truth about the dangers we face. Being polite and politically correct when the survival of our nation’s democratic institutions and traditional values are at stake is nothing less than national suicide.

The “progressives” have to be exposed as the hard-core Marxists they are.

 

This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

 

Photo credit: Kevdiaphoto (Creative Commons) 





Stephen Colbert And Me





Photo credit: MikeBrowne (Creative Commons)

My New Year’s resolution is a repeat: never to trust the Big Media again. Except that the Big Media now include people like Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart.

I waited over a year for a Stephen Colbert story about me to appear. When it didn’t, they didn’t even send my kids the free T-shirts they promised. Can you get any lower than that?

“America’s ballsiest pundit,” as he is described, failed to deliver.

This isn’t sour grapes. It’s just a warning to conservatives. I didn’t let myself get set up.

When I traveled to New York City in October 2012 for an interview with one of Colbert’s producers, I had no illusions about his politics. I knew he was on the left. The former sidekick to Jon Stewart not only has his own Comedy Central show, but coordinated his “Keep Fear Alive” rally with Stewart’s “Restore Sanity” rally in 2010.

But humor is better than meanness, and both the Stewart and Colbert shows can be funny at times. So I thought I’d play along, hoping to score a few serious points.

The book, From Cronkite to Colbert, actually serves as a college journalism textbook, based on the premise that comedians like Colbert have become some of the most important sources of legitimate news. In effect, they have become the new media power brokers.

Perhaps his clout has been overestimated. Colbert’s sister, Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, lost her bid for a seat in Congress in a special May 2013 election, losing to disgraced former Republican South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (54 to 45 percent). Stephen Colbert had even campaigned for her.

I was told Colbert’s producers wanted to discuss communism and Russian espionage. Knowing it was the Colbert show, I sent them a humorous video AIM had done about the Moscow-funded propaganda channel Russia Today (RT). I also sent a serious report on the KGB’s role in terrorism.

I sat down with a producer, on camera, for an hour before briefly meeting Colbert on the way out.

The subject was Russian boars. The producer wanted to know if I thought the proliferation of this species of wild pig, now being hunted in such places as Michigan and North Carolina, was a Russian plot by Vladimir Putin. Get it?

Rather than being a total sap and playing completely along with the gag, I tried to turn the tables, mentioning Paul Kengor’s book on Frank Marshall Davis, The Communistand leaving a copy. The book describes the influence that the Communist Party member had on President Obama.

Although they were looking for a funny angle—the invasion of Russian boars—I instead talked about Russian moles, some of them in government. In technical jargon, I went “off-script.”

I thought we should talk about Russian moles instead of Russian boars. Moles like Davis. Or, I suggested, the secret Russian agent Anna Chapman, who was arrested in New York City in 2010 and expelled for spying. (She recently proposed marriage to NSA leaker Edward Snowden).

Perhaps it was not what they intended. But I thought it was a serious point being made in a somewhat humorous way. It was something they could work with.

So I waited month after month, being led to believe the piece was being edited for airing.

Finally I got the news:

“Hi Chris [sic],

“The piece in which you were interviewed has been shelved indefinitely. Thanks so much though, for your participation. We’d be happy to send your kids a T shirt—what’s your address?

“All the best, Megan [Gearheart].”

All I got out of the affair was some coffee, donuts, and sandwiches, and a train ride to and from New York City. My kids never got their T-shirts.

I still love New York City, and travel to and from there regularly. My family and I just saw “Newsies,” about the revolt against the Big Media of the day staged by the poor kids selling the papers.

Joseph Pulitzer tried to crush the revolt, in part by eliminating any mention of the strike in his papers.

The lesson of my experience with Colbert: If they can’t make fun of you, your story will end up on the cutting room floor.

Such is the nature of modern-day journalism. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.

 

Photo credit: MikeBrowne (Creative Commons)





Backlash To Pro-Mandela Coverage





Photo credit: Paul Jacobson (Creative Commons)

British comedian Rowan Atkinson makes people laugh as the humorous “Mr. Bean.” But his brother, Rodney Atkinson, a political writer and commentator, isn’t laughing about the attempt by the media to make Nelson Mandela into a savior of South Africa.

He is quoted in the London Daily Telegraph as saying, “Mandela and his ANC [African National Congress] were about to turn South Africa into a Marxist, communist country when they were bought off by the American Democratic Party and big multi-national business who showered the new black rulers with wealth and power, and, above all, with favorable international media coverage, in the lead on which was, of course, the BBC, despite its treatment by that other genocidal racist Marxist, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.”

It’s true that leading Democrats, such as former President Bill Clinton, have been raising money for the Nelson Mandela Foundation.

Meanwhile, Jim Allister, who represents a unionist political party in Northern Ireland, said, “I think the uncritical hysteria following the death is verging on propaganda.” He added, “Mandela had been blessed with a long life, drawn to a close only by natural causes—something brutally denied to the victims of his ANC and the victims of the IRA, which his ANC so avidly supported!”

On December 6, he posted this comment: “When Baroness Thatcher died the BBC fell over itself to show balance; Mandela dies and BBC eschews anything approaching balance.”

The British Daily Mail reports that the BBC aired more than 100 programs about Mandela in one week, and that a total of 1,834 viewers and listeners had complained “as the airwaves continue to be flooded with tributes disrupting radio and TV schedules.”

The BBC responded, “Nelson Mandela was one of the most important world leaders of the 20th century whose long and complex life story represents a moment of historical change for people in South Africa and around the world. His death was something we regarded as sufficiently significant both to break into our scheduled coverage and extend our news programs. His political and cultural influence was global and as both a UK and international broadcaster it is important that we reflected that, and the range of reactions to his death, to all our audiences.”

Some complaints are being directed against U.S. media coverage of Mandela, who was depicted even by some conservative commentators as a George Washington-type figure or a freedom fighter.

Going beyond this fawning coverage, NBC’s usually reliable foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, turned in a strangely positive story about a rising South African political figure by the name of Julius Malema, who has singled out white people for racist treatment and confiscation of their property.

Engel reported, “When Julius Malema was a teenager he was in the crowd cheering for Nelson Mandela. Now he’s running for president as champion of the have-nots. His plan is a radical redistribution. White South Africans, just 10% of the population, own most of the land.” Malema told Engel, “They [the whites] must give a portion of their land to black people.”

Malema is the head of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), which Engel forgot to mention is openly Marxist-Leninist. He used to run the Youth League of Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC). The group is a self-declared “radical, leftist, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movement with an internationalist outlook anchored by popular grassroots formations and struggles.”

The EFF manifesto includes “Expropriation of South Africa’s land without compensation for equal redistribution in use.”

A recent EFF event featured banners declaring the “Honeymoon is over for white people in South Africa,” and, “To be a revolutionary you have to be inspired by hatred and bloodshed.”

Rather than portray Malema as a serious threat to the white population, Engel depicted the whites in charge of the “white-owned farms” as backward thinking and fanatical in their determination to protect their land through force. Some were labeled as “white extremists” for training with weapons for self-defense.

The EFF also has a foreign policy that declares, “…we call on the Apartheid state of Israel to end its racist occupation of Palestinian lands, and join on the call for the international isolation of the Israel through boycotts, divestment and sanctions until they end the occupation. Furthermore, we join the international call on the release of the Cuban Five and lifting of the trade embargo on the Cuba and its people. We also believe that all economic sanctions on Zimbabwe must be lifted and the people of Zimbabwe must be given a chance to enjoy in the wealth of nations.”

The Cuban Five are Castro’s spies imprisoned in the U.S.

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, under fire for human rights violations and even accused of genocidereceived “thunderous applause” from thousands of black people who turned out for the Mandela memorial service.

Instead, however, media attention has focused on a sign-language interpreter who was a fraud, and a “selfie” photograph joined in by Obama.

The prospect of “white genocide” in South Africa, however, is a non-story.

 

This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

 

Photo credit: Paul Jacobson (Creative Commons)