Archive for January, 2013


January 28, 2013

Sporting his new hat as the head of the Heritage Foundation, former Sen. Jim DeMint said Saturday said on January 26, 2013, that conservatives should not rely on the GOP establishment to deliver the movement’s message. He said it is time to take matters into their own hands. Excerpts from Washington Times below:

Addressing the National Review Institute’s “Future of Conservatism” summit, Mr. DeMint said that conservatives must take charge of the way the movement is perceived.

“Conservatives have given the sole distribution rights of our ideas, our beliefs and our values – at least in the political sphere – to the Republican party,” the South Carolina Republican said. “We are on the outside looking in hoping they will take some of our ideas and adopt them. It is time to flip that around.”

Mr. DeMint said conservatives cannot expect lawmakers to run on their ideas if they represent people who oppose them.


January 27, 2013

The Washington Times on January 26, 2013, reported that Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has some advice for fellow Republicans in the House: Stop reading The New York Times. Excerpts below:

Sparking applause from the crowd gathered at the National Review Institute’s summit, Mr. Cruz said he is confident that the nation is “on the verge of a rebirth of conservatism” and that the first step in that direction is for members of House GOP to cancel their subscription to the Old Gray Lady.

“The next two years of headlines from The New York Times: ‘The Democrats are right, abandoned conservative principles,” Mr. Cruz said.

Mr. Cruz said the GOP-controlled House over the next two years will serve as the “last bastion standing between us and oblivion” and said conservatives must stand together to stop President Obama and Senate Democrats from pushing through tighter gun laws, new spending and new regulations.

“They are feeling emboldened right now, and if conservatives stand together, we can stop that, and stopping bad things that will harm this country, and harm Americans, is a major victory for the next two years,” Mr. Cruz said.

Mr. Cruz said Republicans should not shy away from accepting a temporary government shutdown in the coming fights over the continuing budget resolution and the debt ceiling, saying it might be the only way to get Democrats to curtail government spending.

“President Obama has indicated sadly that he has no interest of being Bill Clinton, that he has no interest in tacking to the middle,” Mr. Cruz said. “He has no interests in compromising with anybody, and the only way we are going to restrain the out-of-control spending and debt that is threatening our future is to use those leverage points [the continuing resolution and debt-ceiling debates] to force real solutions.”


January 25, 2013


Washington Times on January 22, 2013, published a review of a new book on the disasters of social democrats in Europe by Nile Gardiner, who started by quoting: “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess,” declared Margaret Thatcher in a television interview before she became Britain’s prime minister. “They always run out of others people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.” The Iron Lady’s words rang true back in 1976 as Britain faced bankruptcy under the Labor government of Harold Wilson. They are just as relevant today as economies across Europe are reeling from decades of mismanagement, heavy overspending, excessive government regulation and over-taxation.

The eurozone crisis has shaken the very foundations of the European Union over the past three years, and will continue to do so for years to come.

The French government’s 75 percent marginal income tax rate on anyone earning more than $1.32 million a year is sheer folly for a country with a public debt standing at 91 percent of gross domestic product, that badly needs to attract investment. France’s entrepreneurs have begun fleeing the country in droves-
Worryingly, President Obama is sounding a lot like President Hollande when it comes to raising taxes, and his endless class warfare rhetoric is Hollandesque as well. French ministers are even citing the Obama administration’s bailouts as inspiration for their own nationalization endeavors.

This is why Samuel Gregg’s excellent book, “Becoming Europe,” is so timely. It should be on the desk of every member of the House and Senate who cares about the future of America as a prosperous and free nation.

“Becoming Europe” is a meticulously researched and well-argued thesis that lays out what is at stake for the world’s superpower, as it faces a stark choice between European-style decline or a return to the original vision of America’s Founding Fathers, as well as the classical liberal teachings of Alexis de Tocqueville, Friedrich von Hayek and Adam Smith.

I agree with Mr. Gregg’s assessment. As Gallup polling consistently shows, America is still at its core a conservative nation, one that cherishes the foundations of individual liberty.

Nile Gardiner, a former aide to Margaret Thatcher, is the director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation.


January 25, 2013

Fox News on January 23, 2013, published a commentary by Rabbi Abraham Cooper. He noted that a very wise man once quipped, “Historians have enough trouble predicting the past, so don’t ask me to predict the future.” The same holds true for predicting elections, and Israel’s voters did not disappoint. Netanyahu was the assured winner. Excerpts below:

Beyond Iran’s genocide-threatening Mullahtocracy, Netanyahu owes much of Middle Israel’s support to Mahmoud Abbas, Egyptian President Morsi, Hamas , 60,000 dead Syrians and US President Barak Obama. The signals they have sent means for most Israelis, that their dangerous neighborhood still demands a tough-talking prime minister.

Spurning the direct negotiations memorialized in the 1993 Oslo agreement, Palestinian Authority’s Mohamed Abbas in effect shredded those accords by going directly to the United Nations tosupport its unilateral declaration of statehood.

Instead of recognizing his Jewish neighbor’s storied history in the Holy Land, he leads a campaign to deny there ever was a Solomon’s Temple, or prophets named Isaiah or Jeremiah who walked the streets of ancient Jerusalem.

He and his allies are hard at work urging the UN to have holy places including Rachel’s Tomb – Jewish since Biblical days, two thousand years before Mohammed – declared Palestinian historical sites.

By naming streets after Palestinians who blew up Israeli schoolchildren Abbas’ Palestinian Authority has convinced many Israeli taxi drivers that it can’t bring itself to recognize Jewish neighbors as human beings, let alone become partners for peace.

…Abbas’ final signal of who he is and what he really represents is what he said to his own people. Tens of thousands of Palestinians are caught between a murderous Syrian dictator with a penchant for slaughtering his subjects, and jihadist rebels who don’t like Palestinians. Israel offered them safe passage to the West Bank and Gaza, to literally save their lives, with the only proviso they renounce claims to a right of return to Israel proper. Abbas reaction? “It is better they die in Syria than give up their right of return.”

Hamas, which hurled 8000 rockets into Israel’s south since Israel’s Gaza withdrawal, can also be credited with pushing Israelis to the right. Two of those rockets were game changers. The first targeting Israel’s progressive center, Tel Aviv, sent many shocked citizens in Israel’s heartland running for cover and Bibi’s embrace. The other was aimed on a Sabbath eve in the direction of Jerusalem’s Western Wall, the Dome of the Rock and Arab neighborhoods in Israel’s capital. Hamas’ brutal message was blunt: Nothing and no one would stand in the way of their goal—Holy sites and Arab communities be damned—we aim to destroy Israel and kill the Jews.

Some Americans also unwittingly contributed to Mr. Netanyahu’s dominant position. A consortium of liberal Protestant denominations petitioned Congress on October 5th, to cut back military aid to Israel.

And finally, there is President Obama himself, who still smarting from what he perceived as Netanyahu’s interference on behalf of Mitt Romney in the US presidential election, may have wanted to return the favor. When he said “Israel doesn’t know what its own best interests are,, President Obama only succeeded in angering Israelis whose 18-year-old sons and daughters daily endanger their lives protecting Israel’s borders.

…a Palestinian leadership shows up interested in a final deal with a new Arab state living in peace and full recognition with its Jewish democratic neighbor, Israel will respond quickly and enthusiastically.

This essay was co-authored by rabbi Yotzchok Adlerstein, the director of Interfaith Affairs for the Simon Wiesenthal Center
Rabbi Abraham Cooper is associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. Follow the Simon Wiesenthal Center on Facebook and on Twitter.


January 24, 2013

The Washington Times on January 23, 2013, reported that Clinton teetered on the verge of tears and laughed out loud. She pounded a table with her fists and snapped at lawmakers performing in Congress.

And once again, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton accepted blame for the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya…

…moments later, Mrs. Clinton clashed with a string of Republican senators as she tried to explain and defend the Obama administration’s inaccurate initial characterization that the Benghazi attack began as a protest to a U.S.-made Internet video that denigrated Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.

Her voice rising in anger and frustration, Mrs. Clinton challenged Sen. Ron Johnson directly when the Wisconsin Republican questioned what he said were the administration’s shifting accounts of the attack and its genesis.

“Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?” Mrs. Clinton said, her hands chopping the air at the witness table.

The Wisconsin Republican had asked why, five days after the Benghazi attack, the Obama administration’s ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, appeared on a string of news talk shows with assertions that the attack began as a protest against the YouTube video “Innocence of Muslims.”

Mr. Johnson — who pushed what has for months been a Republican charge that Mrs. Rice had been “purposefully misleading the American public” with her appearances on the talk shows — asked Mrs. Clinton directly why “we were misled that there were supposedly protests” outside the Benghazi mission before the attack.

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” Mrs. Clinton shot back as the exchange grew heated.

State Department officials did not immediately question survivors of the attack about whether there had been a protest, Mrs. Clinton said, adding that the FBI was preparing to investigate the assault.

In some of the most pointed exchanges of the day, Rep. Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Republican, accused Mrs. Clinton during the House hearing of letting the consulate in Benghazi “become a death trap, and that’s national security malpractice.” Mr. Duncan was one of a number of GOP lawmakers who noted that no one at the State Department had been fired for the failures at Benghazi.

As far back as the night of the attack, when smoke was still clearing over the Benghazi compound, Republicans have raised questions about the relatively light security at the post in a town known to have large numbers of armed militants. On Sept. 11, it was guarded by five armed diplomatic security officers, four armed members of a friendly Libyan militia and a small force of unarmed local security guards.

The State Department internal report said that was totally inadequate in the face of dozens of heavily armed extremists who attacked that night.

Benghazi — the cradle of the 2011 Libyan revolution that toppled dictator Moammar Gadhafi — had become in the months before the attack a hotbed of Islamic extremism and the site of a number of small or unsuccessful terrorist attacks against Western diplomatic and aid targets.

In a series of increasingly urgent electronic messages, U.S. diplomats on the ground in Libya asked for more security, but their requests were turned down or ignored in Washington.

The State Department report said that constant congressional cuts to the State Department annual budget requests caused senior managers to deny requests for additional funding.

Republicans noted that State Department officials had testified repeatedly during recent months that their decisions in the months preceding the Benghazi attack were not based on budget concerns.

“Robert Baldre, your chief financial officer for diplomatic security, stated, and I quote, ‘I do not feel that we have ever been at a point where we have sacrificed security due to lack of funding,’” Rep. Steven Chabot, Ohio Republican, told Mrs. Clinton.


January 22, 2013

Below is the text of a Bill introduced in the South Carolina Senate on January 16, 2013, by Senators Corbin, Davis, Bryant and Bright:

S. 247
General Bill
Sponsors: Senators Corbin, Davis, Bryant and Bright
Document Path: l:\council\bills\bbm\10803zw13.docx
Introduced in the Senate on January 16, 2013
Currently residing in the Senate Committee on General
Summary: South Carolina Unorganized Militia
Date Body Action Description with journal page number
1/16/2013 Senate Introduced and read first time (Senate Journal-page 14)
1/16/2013 Senate Referred to Committee on General (Senate Journal-page 14)
View the latest legislative information at the LPITS web site
(Text matches printed bills. Document has been reformatted to meet World Wide Web specifications.) 
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Article 1, Chapter 1, Title 25 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
“Section 25-1-80. (A) Pursuant to the provisions of Section 25-1-60, an able-bodied citizen of this State who is over seventeen years of age and can legally purchase a firearm is deemed a member of the South Carolina Unorganized Militia, unless he is already a member of the National Guard or the organized militia not in National Guard service.
(B) The unorganized militia will be under the supervision of the Governor, as Commander-in-Chief, and the Adjutant General and shall be regulated through the actions of the General Assembly.
(C) The powers and duties of the South Carolina Unorganized Militia include:
(1) The militia may be ordered to active duty pursuant to the provisions of Section 25-1-1890.
(2) A militia member, at his own expense, shall have the right to possess and keep all arms that could be legally acquired or possessed by a South Carolina citizen as of December 31, 2012. This includes shouldered rifles and shotguns, handguns, clips, magazines, and all components.
(3) The unorganized militia may not fall under any law or regulation or jurisdiction of any person or entity outside of South Carolina.
(4) A member may resign at any time from the unorganized militia, at which time he will resume his civilian status.”
SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.


January 21, 2013

“Geopolitics” and “geopolitical” are terms widely in use today, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Geopolitics, a term first used in 1901 by the Swedish professor and MP, Rudolf Kjellén, is not about power. Kjellén was active during the First World War. He understood that a new era was coming. The old system that existed before the First World War had broken down. Rival power blocs were rising. Modern technology was entering the world stage. The Swedish geopolitician and others concluded that stability was over and the hubris of Europe was coming to an end. What remained was everlasting struggle. A global survival plan was needed.

The Western social model was dissolving in the period after the First World War. This was well understood by Theodor Herzl, who could be termed a forerunner of modern geopolitics. In his Diaries one can find that in one way or another Herzl must have been influenced by the existing geopolitical debate. The Jews needed their own space to survive in the coming contest of the extremists. From the Old World powers he thus tried to extract the Jewish state. Modern technology could transform the destinies of all peoples. Swamps could be drained, illnesses cured, all was possible. In many ways the modern wonder of Israel but also for instance the newborn Japan after the Second World War, is the proof. A state can have limited natural resources but still create wonderful wealth.

Herzl did understand that if possible order should be preserved. In this sense he was still a man of the nineteenth century. International approval of Zionism was needed to protect the Jewish people. So in the end the founder of Zionism was hoping for peaceful settlements of disputes, free trade, freedom of thought and conscience. Also, and perhaps most important of all, free speech was the fundamental cornerstone of this democratic process.

As the importance of geopolitical thinking is growing a strong Israel to a great degree has Herzl to thank for lasting insights in global geopolitics.

A peace process has been under way between Tel Aviv and the Palestinian Entity. This is important but the question is if true peace can come as long as Iran is working to create nuclear weapons in order to be able to destroy Israel. As long as this threat continues it is doubtful if there can be real progress of the peace process. A solution to the problem of Teheran and its extremist leader likely has to be found first. How can Israel negotiate under the threat of nuclear annihilation, a second Holocaust.


January 21, 2013

The Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights recently issued an important ruling on freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. While it contains some positive language regarding the wearing of religious symbols, the ruling is deeply worrisome with regards to the freedom to act according to one’s individual conscience.

Four cases were decided on. All four applicants were Christians, all from the UK, all suffered severe sanctions or even dismissal from their jobs because of their Christian faith and conscience. The Court joined the four cases into one single judgment.

The cases of Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin vs. United Kingdom concern religious freedom and the wearing of religious symbols at the workplace. Shirley Chaplin worked as a nurse in a government-run hospital and had worn a small cross on a necklace without incident for more than 30 years. She was asked to take off her cross, which she refused. Her request to be allowed to continue to wear it was refused on the ground that it could cause injury if a patient pulled on it. She was removed from her position and eventually lost her employment. Nadia Eweida worked at a check-in counter of British Airways and wore equally a small cross on a chain around her neck. She was dismissed from her job, given the reason of BA’s uniform code, which permits the wearing of a Sikh turban or a Muslim headscarf, but not a Christian cross.


January 21, 2013


After around half a century the formulation of the Freedom Academy concept is worth remembering. It was highly debated in the United States for decades. It is a fascinating story on how a grass roots group in Orlando, Florida, managed to attract interest, both in Congress and media, for a political warfare academy, a ‘civilian West Point’ to counteract hundreds of political warfare schools in the Soviet Union and elsewhere.

In this report the term political warfare refers to warfare other than military action used to enforce the will of a state or movement upon its foe. Political war may be combined with violence, economic pressure, subversion, and diplomacy but the chief aspect is propaganda (if waged by an extremist enemy), information (when used by a democracy) and psychological warfare (definition based on Paul A. Smith Jr., On Political War, Washington D.C., 1989, pp. 3 and 227).

Communist Political Warfare

Communist political warfare was part of the revolutionary global civil war of Communism from 1917 to 1991. It had it’s roots in the French revolution. V.I. Lenin argued that if a revolution was to be successful it had to be led by professional revolutionaries.

There were hundreds of Communist political warfare training schools in the Soviet Union and in other countries on other continents. Most infamous was the central International Lenin School (ILS) established in 1925. Subjects taught there were guerrilla warfare, revolutionary techniques, armed uprising, agitation and propaganda, political warfare etc. For more on this subject see Bertil Haggman’s book in the section Selected Literature.

The Orlando Committee and Alan G. Grant Jr.

The Freedom Academy concept was a typical private initiative that started in Orlando in the fall of 1950 by citizens speaking in local high schools on communism, communist strategy, and the Soviet threat. The initiator and prime mover of the group was Alan J. Grant Jr., who had fought in a parachute regiment during the Second World War, graduated from Harvard Law School and written a thesis at Harvard on guerrilla and revolutionary war. The Orlando Committe was formed in 1953, 50 years ago, and in 1954 the Freedom Academy concept (first called Free-World Academy) was presented in a report later sent to the White House.

The report resulted in a decades long struggle inside and outside of the American Congress. A bill was introduced both in the Senate (sponsored by Senators Karl Mundt and Paul Douglas) and the House. In 1960 it was passed by the Senate but it bogged down in the House. New bills were introduced in the beginning of the 1960s. Opinion polls showed that the American people supported the Freedom Academy bill 4 to 1.

The Freedom Studies Center

As the efforts to create a Freedom Academy were resisted in Congress and by the Department of State a privately funded academy was inaugurated. The initiative was taken by the American Security Council and the Institute of American Strategy, both in Chicago and founded in the 1950s. It resulted in the Freedom Studies Center established in Boston, Culpeper County, Virginia, with Mr. John M. Fisher as director. Close to Washington it offered training for all segments of society in the Free World on Communist strategy and tactics and the development of programs for defending and extending the sphere of freedom in the world. A detailed curriculum was prepared and cooperating educational agencies including universities joined to make it a success.

In 1973 a library was established. A newly constructed library building was to be named “Sol Feinstone Library for the Survival of Freedom”. Mr. Feinstone was a well known historian, philantropist, and collector of American primary source material from the Revolutionary War and the early years of the United States. He had helped fund a number of libraries all over the country. The plan was for the center to start operating as a Freedom Academy in 1974 and Alan J. Grant Jr. was on the Planning and Development Committee. The goal was to collect US $ 11,000,000 to establish and build a campus at this ‘civilian West Point’ (comparable to the Naval Academy in Annapolis and the military academy at West Point) but the full plan was never implemented. For years, however, a program of seminars was in place.


Thanks mainly to the Reagan administration and East European freedom fighters the West won the cold war but the global civil war has continued. There is still a need for a Freedom Academy, this time to study the new phase of war, international terrorism, asymmetrical warfare the islamo-fascist strategy and tactics. The growing threat of the nexus of weapons of mass destruction, outlaw regimes and international terrorist groups such as al Qaeda make a Freedom Academy necessary.

The term political warfare is rarely used today. Other terms like public policy and communications are common but are essentially similar to the political warfare term. The focus has turned away from communism but there are still communist states like North Korea, Cuba, and the People’s Republic of China.

It seems during the Cold War that jurists played an important role in education on and against communism. Alan J. Grant Jr. was a jurist and soldier with experience from World War Two. He had studied and written on revolutionary war. It may be surprising that America’s lawyers increasingly in the 1960s assumed the task of shedding light on the problems of the Soviet government and the Communist world.

In 1962 a Committee on Education Against Communism of the American Bar Association was established with Morris I. Leibman as Committee Chairman. Program Manager was Dr. Frank R. Barnett. The committee was active in three major areas: (1) supporting university summer institutes for high-school teachers; (2) preparing an disseminating special studies; and (3) conducting, in cooperation with state and local bar associations, briefing sessions on political warfare for lawyers.

An important contribution was the book Peaceful Coexistence – a Communist Blueprint for Victory (for details see underneath).

This was part of the broader effort of the Freedom Studies Center and others to provide films, basic books and material on communist strategy and tactics. It should be fitting to remember these efforts half a century later and build on that experience for a post-Cold War Freedom Academy.

Selected Literature

Eugene H. Methvin, “Let’s Demand This New Weapon for Democracy”, (The Reader’s Digest, May, 1963).

Alan G. Grant Jr. et al, The Green Book, The Orlando Committee.

“1,000 Attend Culpeper Ceremony: Cold War School Is Dedicated”,
Richmond Times-Dispatch, Monday, Sept. 26, 1966.

James J. Kilpatrick, “A Great Concept: Freedom Studies Center”, The Sunday Star, Washington D.C., October 2, 1966.

Peaceful Coexistence – A Communist Blueprint For Victory, Chicago: American Bar Association 1964, several printings, 40,000 copies distributed, 123 pages.

Richard V. Allen, Peace or Peaceful Coexistence, with foreword by Bertram D. Wolfe, Chicago: American Bar Association, 1966, 233 pages.

Bertil Haggman, The Global Civil War – Will the West Survive ?, 2010, 76 pages.


January 21, 2013

In Bertil Haggman’s archive there is a memorandum written by Congressman Richard Nixon from the Hoover Institution Archives. It reveals how then United States Congressman Richard Nixon, a lawyer by profession, asked very relevant questions to Alger Hiss in a private meeting. It was important in the investigating against suspected Soviet spy Alger Hiss. Below, as an introduction, to the Nixon memorandum, are a few notes on the American security system against international communism that was dismantled by the Democratic Party.

From 1917 the Soviet Union sought world domination. As a defense against Moscow’s aim to reach that goal the United States had put in place, when World War II ended, a security system both in the United States Congress and via the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The system was, however, under constant attack from forces of the left. The Supreme Court of the United States in several cases confirmed and endorsed the legality and necessity of such a defense. Among the cases can be mentioned

Barsky v. United States, 67 F (2) 241

The prime function of governments in the American concept, is to preserve and protect the rights of the people. The Congress is part of the government thus established for this purpose.

The “existing machinery of government has power to inquire into threats to itself…for the basic reason that, having been established by the people as an instrumentality for the protection of the rights of the people, it has an obligation to its creators to preserve itself…

We think that inquiry into threats to the existing form of government…is a power of Congress under its prime obligations to protect for the people that machinery of which it is a part…It would be sheer folly as a matter of governmental policy to refrain from inquiry into potential threats to its existence or security.”

United States v. Josephson 165 F (2) 82

One need only recall the activities of the so-called fifth column in various countries both before and during the late war (i.e. World War II, note) to realize that the United States should be alert to discover and deal with the seeds of revolution within itself. If there are any doubts on this score of the power and duty of the government and Congress to do so, they may be restored when it is remembered that one of the very purposes of the Constitution itself was to protect the country against danger from within as well as from without.

Friends of US Security and Intelligence React

When the internal security system of the United States was threatened in the 1970s The Security and Intelligence Fund was established by a group of Americans dedicated to freedom. The Fund reacted with dismay. Not only was the internal security system dismantled. It went as far as criminal investigations being launched against dedicated FBI agents, who had used electronic surveillance against terrorist organizations.

Among the sponsors and members of the Fund were:

The Honorable Robert B. Anderson
Admiral G.W. Anderson
Ambassador Shelby Cullom Davis
Ambassador William Kintner
Charles J. Murphy, Fortune Magazine
Senator George L. Murphy
Colonel G.R. Weinbrenner
Ambassador Elbridge Durbrow
Brigadier General Robert C. Richardson III

In 1973 the House held hearings led by Richard Bolling (D-Mo) in the first attempt to dismantle the system, but this time the attack was averted. It was not until during the Carter administration the forces of the left succeeded in bringing down these vital instruments to preserve and protect the republic.

The responsibility for destroying the security system is greatly with the forces of the left in the United States Congress then led by the Church Committee (Senator Frank Church, Democrat, Idaho). The Church Committee came to affect American security and intelligence from then on. Some rebuilding was possible during the Reagan years in the 1980s, but a new period of neglect came in the 1990s. Another threat was the Pike Committee (Rep. Otis Pike, Democrat, New York).

In 1979 Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The result was that both counter-intelligence and intelligence activities were impeded.

When after September 11 FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have been attacked for not doing their job properly it is obvious that to a great extent they have not been allowed by law to carry out their work properly. One example is the problem the FBI has had to get a warrant to wiretap espionage and terrorist suspects.

In one incident in Minnesota a month before the terrorist 9/11 attack in New York and Washington a terrorist suspect had been arrested by the FBI after a flying school reported that he had offered cash for lessons on how to steer a commercial jetliner but not how to take off or land it. The FBI obtained his computer and asked Washington for a warrant to search it and wiretap his phone. The problem was that it did not meet the requirements Justice Department the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and so the warrant could not be obtained. After September 11th, the FBI got the warrant but now it was too late.

Thanks to the efforts of the Bush administrations these problems are being dealt with, at last, one may say.

House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAAC)

This committee was originally established as the Select Committee on Un- American Activities (the Dies Committee, Rep. Martin Dies (D.-Tex.) in 1938 and in 1945 became a standing congressional committee. A further name change came in 1969 when HUAAC was named the Committee on Internal Security. Abolished in 1975 its jurisdiction was transferred to the Judiciary Committee.

HUAAC was to investigate

-the extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States

-how subversive and un-American propaganda was diffused within the United States from foreign countries or of a domestic origin if directed against the government as guaranteed by the American constitution

-all other questions related to these matters that would aid Congress in any legislation it might want to enact as a remedy.

The work of the Committee targeted both communist, national socialist and racist organizations. Ten years after Western victory in the Cold War and in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11 HUAAC should be honored for its work. It made a considerable contribution to saving the United States and the West for decades.

Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (SISS)

This committee was organized in 1950 and abolished in 1977.

SISS was to investigate and study

-the administration, operation, and enforcement of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (the McCarran Act) and other laws relating to espionage, sabotage, and the protection of the internal security of the United States

-the extent, nature, and effects of subversive sabotage, and infiltration of persons who are or may be under the domination of the foreign government or organization controlling the world communist movement or any movement seeking to overthrow

-the Government of the United States by force and violence.

SISS was also authorized to subpoena witnesses and require the production of documents.

Subjects investigated during the 1950’s included

-formulation of United States foreign policy in the Far East
-the scope of Soviet activity in the United States
-subversion in the Federal government, especially the State Department and the Defense Department
-the United Nations
-the telegraph industry
-the defense industry
-labor unions
-educational organizations
-civil rights
-racial issues
-campus disorders
-drug trafficking

For over 25 years SISS stood in the frontline to keep the United States secure. Like HUAAC its achievements should be recognized.

The Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB)

This Board was established by the Internal Security Act of 1950.

It was to decide cases brought by the U.S. Attorney General against organizations and individuals in the United States, believed to be communist party-affiliated but were not registered as such. It had five members appointed by the President. SACB was terminated in 1973.
Less known SACB should also get a share of recognition along with HUAAC and SISS.


The first pillar of the American internal security system was put in place already in 1938, over 70 years ago. The record shows that it was in place against all enemies of the United States : national socialism, communism, drug-traffickers, racists etc. It confronted all adversaries of America and not, as claimed by the left, only communists and those cooperating with communists.

Still ten years after the end of the Cold War the distorted picture of American security and intelligence is prevalent around the world and not least in the United States. The system was put in place to preserve and protect the freedom and security of all Americans in accordance with the American constitution.

The question is if there is not a need to reevaluate the distorted picture of what was in fact one of the most successful anti-totalitarian security defense systems in the Western world existing until it was dismantled by the left.

It is today important to remind of the Democrats efforts to abolish HUAAC and target the FBI (for more on this campaign see Edward J. Mowery, HUAAC and FBI -Targets for Abolition, 1961), which contains a list of those organizations that were active in the ‘abolition’ drive.

An important book, Alger Hiss, Whittaker Chambers, and the Schism in the American Soul (ed. Patrick A. Swan), ISI, 2003, highlights perhaps the most important trial in American history, the Hiss trial, when exposing liberalism began. (“American liberalism has been reluctant to leave the garden of its illusion, but it can dally no longer: the age of innocence is dead…” (p. 339).

This short report can in no way describe the full importance the above mentioned institutions had in what can be seen as the world civil war, a form of international struggle, ongoing since 1789 against American and Western freedom. The Cold War was just a phase in this struggle but the defenders of liberty have so far been given a rough deal by the majority of historians. Just consider the great record of the security system including the quantity (nearly 7 million copies between 1948 and 1960) of records of hearings, studies, analyses and reports presented by HUAAC and other bodies mentioned above.

HUAAC and the other organizations had millions of supporters: the major veterans’ organizations, most of media, leading churchmen, college heads, military officials and not least the ‘vast silent legion’ of Americans. Not to forget these freedom organizations had strong supporters in the American Congress by later President Richard M. Nixon.