South Africa “Joined At The Hip” To Cuba





Photo credit: pdinnen (Creative Commons)

If President Obama’s handshake with Cuban dictator Raul Castro is news, Castro’s featured presence at the Nelson Mandela memorial service and what the South African government said about him are equally newsworthy. South Africa was described as “joined at the hip” to Cuba and in its debt for “liberation.”

Yet, this part of the memorial service has been carefully edited out of most of the “mainstream media” coverage of the event.

The service was organized and orchestrated by officers of the African National Congress (ANC), the ruling party of South Africa that operates as a front for the South African Communist Party. Baleka Mbete, ANC’s chairperson, introduced Raul Castro’s speech by saying, “Comrades, we will now get an address from a tiny island—an island of people who liberated us, who fought for our liberation in Cuito Cuanavale—the people of Cuba.”

Cuito Cuanavale refers to the foreign intervention of thousands of Cuban military troops on behalf of communist Angolan government forces in Africa under the guidance of Soviet military officers during 1987 and 1988. This was a critical time when communist forces backed by the Soviet Union, Cuba, and China were determined to crush the non-communist pro-freedom movement UNITA (The National Union for the Total Independence of Angola).

As part of his effort to turn the tide against communism in Africa and elsewhere, the “Reagan Doctrine,” President Ronald Reagan strongly supported UNITA and its leader, Jonas Savimbi.

In the end, the communists solidified control of Angola, assassinated Savimbi (shot 15 times, twice to the head and once to the throat), and then took over Namibia and South Africa as the white population—fearing extinction in the face of the onslaught—made deals with the communists.

Mandela, in commemorating the 20th anniversary of the battle in 2008, referred to it as “a turning point for the liberation of our continent and my people.” This helps explain why the Cuban regime is held in such high regard by the South African government. The ANC and SWAPO (the South West Africa People’s Organization) communists in Namibia greatly benefitted from the Cuban imperialistic intervention. Of course, Mandela’s communist movement also enjoyed the support of Libya and the PLO.

After Raul Castro’s speech, during which he highlighted Mandela’s visit to Cuba to meet with and thank Fidel Castro, ANC deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa said, “Thank you President Castro. We thank you for all the support and help that we continue to get from the people of Cuba during our years of struggle, and our countries continue to be joined at the hip in the areas of development…”

AIM noted in our column about current South African President Jacob Zuma that he traveled to Cuba in 2010 to receive the top Communist award from Raul Castro himself. Zuma also told a meeting of young communists in South Africa, “Work begins today in earnest to improve the quality of life of all our people and to build Cuban-style patriotism and internationalism within our ranks.”

Of the 6 “foreign dignitaries” listed on the official Mandela memorial service program as giving a tribute to Mandela, five are known Marxists: Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff (a former terrorist herself); Chinese Vice President Li Yuanchao; Namibian President Hifikepunye Pohamba; Cuba’s Raul Castro; and, of course, President Obama. The other speaker was President Pranab Mukherjee of India, described as a “close friend” of Marxists in India who has “remained a friend” of the Communist Party of India during his political career and leadership in the United Progressive Alliance. Indeed, he has been labeled a “communist agent.” The Indian delegation to the memorial service included Sitaram Yechury of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M).

Earlier in the memorial service, Andrew Mlangeni, identified as a Mandela “family friend,” spoke on Mandela’s behalf. Now considered an “elder statesman” in the ANC, he had studied“military science” and “guerrilla theory” in China. The Stephen Ellis book External Mission confirms that Umkhonto we Sizwe, which became the military arm of the ANC, was launched by the South African Communist Party after negotiations with Chinese Communist mass murderer and dictator Mao Tse-tung. The cover of the book, which also reveals that the East German secret police trained the ANC’s security personnel, shows a photograph of Mao Tse-tung meeting with SACP leader Yusuf Dadoo, a Muslim Indian South African communist.

Mandela ran Umkhonto we Sizwe, which carried out violence and terrorism, and he went to prison as a result. He was never a “political prisoner.” He refused to renounce violence in order to be released early. He could have been hanged for his conviction for terrorism.

Although Mandela is being widely praised for his spirit of “forgiveness” and “reconciliation,” the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), led by Mangosuthu Buthelezi, was never fully accepted as a legitimate partner and actor in South African politics by Mandela’s ANC. The IFP advocated the abolition of apartheid, or racial segregation, but refused to engage in violence and terrorism against innocent people. It also had an anti-communist orientation.

“The armed struggle, and Inkatha’s refusal to engage it, had driven a wedge between our organizations,” Buthelezi says. “Propaganda against me and Inkatha was rife and there were many attempts on my life.”

But the U.S. government under Obama is in complete support of the South African government and provides an estimated $500 million a year in foreign aid to the regime.

The United States ambassador to South Africa, former Democratic Party operative and radical organizer Patrick Gaspard, recently announced that American taxpayers would provide an additional $100,000 in U.S. government funding for the purpose of the “preservation of documents” relating to Mandela. The money was given to the Nelson Mandela Centre of Memory, the official home of the Nelson Mandela Foundation. This is the same group offering a poster featuring a quotation of Mandela under an image of communist murderer and Castro henchman Che Guevara.

In supporting South Africa, the U.S. is supporting Cuba. Obama’s handshake with Castro only confirms this fact.

 

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

 

Photo credit: pdinnen (Creative Commons)





2 in 3 Americans Doubt American Dream





lazy american dream

The U.S. grew to be the greatest nation in history by allowing its citizens to capitalize on their own potential. A free market system provided incentives for entrepreneurs to start at the bottom and, with dedication and hard work, gain both affluence and influence. This radical departure from previous class-based cultures evened the playing field by providing equal opportunity to all.

Unfortunately, as government intervention has eroded our liberties, so too has our collective faith in the American Dream been undermined. According to a recent Bloomberg poll, just one out of every three Americans believes such success is realistically achievable.

While many choose to blame the very free market that makes success possible, the poll includes a somewhat encouraging adjunct. More respondents believe our nation would be better suited if the government stays out of the market than think we need even more bureaucratic intervention.

Of course, among the lowest earners, more than half feel that additional laws would somehow improve their lot in life.

Over the past several generations, the American Dream has been redefined by lowering the bar for everyone. Instead of encouraging meaningful education and a strong work ethic, our government literally markets welfare programs designed to confine recipients to a life of economic slavery.

Opportunity still exists in America, though, and risk-takers continue to exploit our ample resources in a quest to achieve their personal dream. Instead of being celebrated, these achievers are routinely trashed by leftists who thrive on class warfare propaganda. Political science professor Janet Gornick, for instance, wants to revert to a time in American history in which the wealthy were allowed to keep just 10 percent of the money they earned. The rest, of course, went to fund wasteful government largesse.

“You’re not going to kill the economy by increasing the tax rate on those who benefit the most from the country’s infrastructure,” she claimed. One wonders how she would explain the unparalleled economic growth that accompanied Ronald Reagan’s post-Carter tax cuts.

In fact, punishing success will only result in less aspiration toward said success. This would ultimately result in a population of takers almost entirely reliant on government handouts. Far from the American Dream, such a scenario constitutes the objective of the power-hungry political class.

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at tips@westernjournalism.com





Liberals Using Mandela’s Death To Smear Reagan





Ronald Reagan SC

The whole world mourns Nelson Mandela. Rightly.

But, as usual, some politically and historically challenged liberals have seen the passing of a great man of history as a chance to take more cheap potshots at Ronald Reagan.

One human rights attorney, Gay McDougall, made a fool of herself on “Good Morning America.”

She claimed that while many Americans were urging our government to use economic sanctions to pressure South Africa to end apartheid in the 1980s, “Ronald Reagan wanted to solidify, you know, U.S. support for apartheid.”

That was a pretty dumb thing to say for a 66-year-old who attended Yale Law School. But at least McDougall wasn’t pretending to be a fair and balanced TV news reporter the way Andrea Mitchell does.

Mitchell bared her liberal biases — and historical amnesia — to the world during her report on Mandela’s death on the “Today” show.

Instead of concentrating on praising Mandela, Mitchell felt she had to remind her viewers that “The U.S. wasn’t always on Mandela’s side.”

Then she pointed out that “President Reagan supported the apartheid regime, a cold war ally, even as protests broke out on college campuses across America demanding that the U.S. punish the regime….”

Mitchell went on to say that Congress, including some key Republicans, had to override my father’s veto of the South African economic sanctions “that helped break the apartheid regime.”

Truth, accuracy, fairness, political balance, historical perspective, the complex geopolitics of the Cold War?

Mitchell, like McDougall, didn’t bother with that complicated stuff.

It was all about race. And Ronald Reagan was, as usual, called on stage to play the bad guy.

It’s the only role my father gets when the lefty news and entertainment media do their dirty historical work. The latest example was the movie “The Butler,” last summer’s liberal fantasy about Eugene Allen, the real-life White House butler.

But let’s give Mitchell the benefit of a few doubts she doesn’t deserve.

Maybe she forgot that Mandela was also in jail during the JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations.

Maybe it slipped her mind that those presidents didn’t push for economic sanctions to force the end of apartheid in South Africa.

Apartheid was a horrible system of oppression. But until it ended, the Cold War was more important to American presidents.

They had to keep their eyes on the bigger global picture. That meant supporting the racist regime of South Africa, our only important ally in the region during a time when Moscow was busy inciting revolutions there.

It’s unfair and simplistic for the media to single out my father and smear him for being soft on apartheid because he vetoed Congress’ economic sanctions against South Africa.

My father detested apartheid and wanted to see it end. But he thought economic sanctions — which hurt South Africa’s poorest black citizens the most — would be counterproductive.

Andrea Mitchell doesn’t remember. But after my father’s veto of the sanctions was overridden by Congress, he said the debate wasn’t about “whether or not to oppose apartheid but, instead, how best to oppose it and how best to bring freedom to that troubled country.”

Ronald Reagan did not kiss up to South Africa’s leaders; he was in their face.

One of his first moves was to send his close aide William Clark to tell Prime Minister Pieter Botha to his face how much my father abhorred apartheid.

Later, my father appointed the first black ambassador to South Africa, Edward Perkins.

And in 1986, he said that as a necessary step to achieving political peace in South Africa, all political prisoners, including Nelson Mandela, “should be released to participate in the country’s political process.”

Ronald Reagan called apartheid “a malevolent and archaic system totally alien to our ideals.”

Given the realities of the Cold War, and contrary to the selective memories of Andrea Mitchell and her friends, he did the best he could to help Nelson Mandela put an end to it.





Video: A Special Thanksgiving Message From Ronald Reagan





Enjoy a special message from the Gipper. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!





Who Killed the Kennedys? Ronald Reagan’s Answer…





Ronald Reagan SC

This year marks not only the 50th anniversary of the shooting of John F. Kennedy but also the 45th anniversary of the shooting of Robert F. Kennedy, which occurred in June 1968. Was there a common source motivating the assassins of both Kennedys—that is, Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan?

That renowned political philosopher Mick Jagger speculated on a source. “I shouted out ‘Who killed the Kennedys?’” asks the lyrics in the 1968 song by The Rolling Stones. “When, after all, it was you and me.” The song was titled, “Sympathy for the Devil.” It was, The Rolling Stones suggested, the Devil who had killed the Kennedys, along with his accomplices.

I must say I can’t disagree with that one—a rare area of agreement between me and Mick Jagger.

There is, however, a more earthly answer. And it was provided, surprisingly, by a rising political star in the immediate hours after the shooting of Bobby Kennedy. That star was the new governor of California, Ronald Reagan.

RFK was shot in Governor Reagan’s state. Reagan was no stranger to Bobby Kennedy. He had debated him a year earlier on national television, which didn’t go well for RFK, with Reagan clearly outshining him. Kennedy told his handlers to never again put him on the same stage with “that son-of-a-b—-.”

That debate occurred five years after Bobby Kennedy had intervened to get Reagan fired from his long stint as host of the top-rated GE Theatre on CBS—a fact unknown until it was revealed by Michael Reagan in his excellent book, The New Reagan Revolution. Typical of Reagan, he harbored no bitterness toward RFK. That was quite unlike Bobby Kennedy, a man who personally knew how to hold a grudge.

On June 5, 1968, Reagan was full of nothing but sympathy for RFK. He appeared on the popular television show of Joey Bishop, one of the extended members of Frank Sinatra’s Rat Pack. Bishop and Reagan were old Hollywood friends, and Bishop extended the governor a platform to address the shooting. A transcript of Reagan’s appearance on that show was grabbed by his young chief of staff, Bill Clark, who died just a few months ago. Clark shoved it in a box that ended up in the tack barn at his ranch in central California. It lay there until I, as Clark’s biographer, dug it out three decades later.

That rare surviving transcript reveals a Reagan who spoke movingly about RFK and the entire Kennedy family. Condemning the “savage act,” Reagan pleaded: “I am sure that all of us are praying not only for him but for his family and for those others who were so senselessly struck down also in the fusillade of bullets…. I believe we should go on praying, to the best of our ability.”

But particularly interesting was how Reagan unflinchingly pointed a finger of blame in the direction of Moscow. Reagan noted that Kennedy’s killer, Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian Arab and also a communist, had shot Kennedy because of his support of Israel during the Six Day War that had occurred exactly one year earlier. On that, we now know beyond dispute what Reagan knew then: That war had been shamelessly provoked by the Kremlin.

Looking to exploit divisions in the Middle East and further exacerbate America’s foreign-policy problems at the time (we were mired in Vietnam), Soviet officials cooked up false intelligence reports claiming that Israeli troops had been moved into the Golan Heights and were readying to invade Syria. They peddled the malicious, phony information to Egypt and other Arab states for the explicit purpose of creating a military confrontation with Israel. The Israeli leader, Levi Eshkol, immediately denounced the accusation, telling the Soviet ambassador to his face that there were no Israeli troops there whatsoever, and offering to personally drive him to the Golan at once. Acting on orders, the ambassador flatly refused, shouting “Nyet!” at Eshkol and storming out of the prime minister’s residence. The Egyptians, too, checked their intelligence sources and found no evidence of Israeli troops in the Golan. Nonetheless, the pieces were in motion, and one thing dangerously led to another until everything spiraled out of control. Within mere weeks, the Six Day War was on—precipitated by the Kremlin. The egregious depths of Soviet disinformation spawned a major Middle East war.

RFK supported Israel in that war. Sirhan Sirhan never forgave him for that. He killed him for that.

Again, Ronald Reagan knew about the Soviet role in instigating the conflict, which he apparently pieced together via various reports at the time. As a result, he linked Bobby Kennedy’s assassination to the USSR’s mischief in the Middle East. “The enemy sits in Moscow,” Reagan told Joey Bishop. “I call him an enemy because I believe he has proven this, by deed, in the Middle East. The actions of the enemy led to and precipitated the tragedy of last night.”

Moscow had precipitated the Six Day War in June 1967, which, in turn, had prompted RFK’s assassin in June 1968.

But Reagan wasn’t finished positioning blame where it deserved to be placed. Eight days later, on July 13, 1968, Reagan delivered a forgotten speech in Indianapolis. Both the Indianapolis News and Indianapolis Star reported on Reagan’s remarks, but the only full transcript I’ve seen was likewise located in Bill Clark’s private papers. In that speech, Reagan leveled this charge at international communism, with an earlier Kennedy assassination in mind: “Five years ago, a president was murdered by one who renounced his American citizenship to embrace the godless philosophy of communism, and it was communist violence he brought to our land. The shattering sound of his shots were still ringing in our ears when a policy decision was made to play down his communist attachment lest we provoke the Soviet Union.”

Reagan was spot on. As many conservative writers are currently noting, liberals in the immediate moments after the JFK assassination sought to blame everything but Oswald’s love of communism, love of the Soviet Union, and love of Castro’s Cuba as motivations for what he did. Some blamed the climate of alleged “hate” and “bigotry” and “violence” in Dallas for the shooting. They ached to blame the right, fulfilling James Burnham’s timeless maxim: “For the left, the preferred enemy is always to the right.” Amazingly, they attempted to label Oswald a “right-winger,” which was utterly upside down. He was a left-winger, as far left as one could get. Oswald was a completely committed communist. He was head over heels for Castro’s Cuba in particular. He adored Fidel. After defecting to and then leaving the Soviet Union after a long stay there, he went back to Texas (with a Soviet wife) and then tried everything to get to Havana and serve the revolution there. JFK and Fidel despised one another; each wanted the other dead. Guess who Oswald sided with on that one?

The Warren Commission later agonized over the possible motivations of Oswald. In the end, it determined that it “could not make any definitive determination of Oswald’s motives.” To its credit, the commission “endeavored to isolate the factors which contributed to his character and which might have influenced his decision to assassinate President Kennedy.” It listed five factors, which appear on page 23 of the huge commission report. Among the five, the fifth underscored Oswald’s “avowed commitment to Marxism and communism,” and noted specifically his ardor for Moscow and Havana.  The commission concluded that this did indeed contribute to Oswald’s “capacity to risk all in cruel and irresponsible actions.”

Nonetheless, Oswald’s passion for international communism, from Russia to the Western Hemisphere, has been downplayed by the American left and many Americans generally from the literal moment we learned that John F. Kennedy had been shot.

One American who was never blind to that motivation was Ronald Reagan. More than that, Reagan wasn’t naïve to the role of international communism in the shooting of RFK either.

For the record, this is not to say that Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan acted as conscious, deliberate agents trained and ordered by the Soviets or the Cubans, though some—such as Ion Mihai Pacepa—have examined that possibility in depth. Their actions, however, cannot or should not be separated from the malevolent force of international communism, which unquestionably played a role in their ultimate deadly actions.

 

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College, executive director of The Center for Vision & Values, and New York Times best-selling author of the book, “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.” His other books include “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism” and “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.”

 

Editor’s note: This article first appeared at American Spectator.