Posted on 11/24/2009 7:19:45 PM PST by neverdem
In the 1930's, Armand Hammer had Stalin's "franchise" selling (or should we say, "fencing") the remains of the contents of seized Russian property in New York City as "treasures of the czarist nobility". Treasures they weren't, more like kitsch and picked-over garage-sale remains, but that is how Hammer supported himself in those days.
We know the code names of those involved but not their actual identities (a good guess however would be some of the founders of the ACLU which had been created as a reaction to the so-called “Red Scare)".
Well, that's a new one on me -- the ACLU was an early Soviet front? Figures. It would be provable if some of that seized Russian property and funds came to the founders of the ACLU.
Working out who those code names actually were using old bank records would seem to be worth a book -- and a fresh, unvarnished history of the ACLU by someone who isn't a member or fellow-traveler.
Cato Institute? Heritage? American Enterprise Institute? Hudson Institute? Anybody listening?
The information on the millions give to 5 Americans around 1920 is in documents uncovered by researchers working on Yale's annals of communism series. Photocopies of the chekisty documents are in Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov's The Secret World of American Communism. They reached a dead end identifying who got the money. Same thing with Venona. Many agents were never identified.
Just remembered a direct link between ACLU founder Roger Baldwin and Soviet espionage. He toured the country with Michael Whitney Straight, the only American in the Cambridge spy ring. Straight’s handlers put him in contact with Baldwin.
If he was involved with the Cambridge ring, then he wasn't all that "straight".
Straight’s handlers put him in contact with Baldwin.
That implies that Baldwin independently had Chekist hoods on his Rolodex and suggests that he had already gone to work for them.
We live in a time of instant responses, quick judgments, multitasking, entertaining ourselves, and living as if ... it was all about our self individually.
We have/had a nation of laws based on sound everlasting principles ... Christian in character. We have allowed and are allowing erosion, twisting, and disdain for these principles to crumble away, the ground our nation stands upon ...
THINK.
Those that do not know their history, and learn from their history are bound to repeat it.
Anyone listening?
Do you really want oppression on our every move, thought, exercise of freedom, speaking without fear?
There was a time and a service the unions caused to benefit the workers justly. That was then. Now they are corrupt, power hungry; and in it for themselves not the union members. It is thuggery at its worst in some cases.
It is the affluent that make the laws and rule in Washington D.C. It is the affluent that actually run for offices. Obama spent billions getting into office. He cares not for the common person in America. He wants not; and does what is opulent, living like a King, taking no notice of the people. (His attitude is one of “let them eat cake”. Ala Nancy Pelosi and all the rest.
All his attention is about gaining/seizing power and trillions of dollars for his various organizations and those he fronts for everyday.
God help us in our day, in Jesus name, amen.
bfl
Last of the Cold War Spies; The Life of Michael Straight
The Only American in Britain's Cambridge Spy Ring
Roland Perry
Da Capo Press 2005
Pages 88-89: Straight bought a red convertible in New York, and he and Simonds drove north to the Adirondack Mountains, to meet up with Roger Baldwin, the 53-year-old lawyer running the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Straight's communist contacts had linked him up with Baldwin. Straight had offered to chauffeur him on a tour of the centers of unrest in the industrial midwest and to "help while he makes speeches to local civil liberties groups, " if he would let him and Simonds come with him. His union would turn up wherever there was trouble to add comrade support to the communist controlled unions of the CIO . . . The communist aim was first to unionized, then to disrupt in order to weaken the United State's industrial might. The long-term aim (a decade or more) was to have the union and political base so powerful that a communist revolution would be possible.This was Straight's first observance of communist agitation and disruption in the United States. Later, he would make an art form of latching on to a respectable "liberal" front such as the ACLU and presenting himself as a concerned libertarian . . .
The final leg of the tour was through New York. Straight celebrated his 21st birthday on Sept, 1 1937, en route as Baldwin delivered militant speeches at meetings in several states. He attacked corporations for violating their employee's civil rights; Straight was impressed and stimulated.
Straight was the owner of the New Republic. He lived of his mommy's trust fund. Perry relates how, during the worse of the depression, Straight told his handler he had $10,000 he didn't know what to do with. The Soviets told him to dump it into a House campaign in Texas (to a Democrat of course...one not an anti-communist as many in that state were).
This is interesting. What is the source of your information? I would like to read more about this.
The money transfers around 1920 to the USA are in the "The Soviet World of American Communism. It nails the fact that the CPUSA was, from the start and always, totally under the control of the Kremlin and was not, as liberals claimed for decades, just Americans with a different political opinion. It includes a memo from CPUSA leader Gus Hall written in 1986 thanking the Soviets for $2,000,000 they sent to help defeat "Reaganites" in that years midterm elections. Hall told his handlers if they doubled the funding in 1988, leftists in the USA could have "Reaganites on the run."
Thanks. I will try to learn more about this.
Thank you, this was very interesting.
This is anti-Americanism.
The Liberal line about every American cause.
It would be interesting to see which Texas Democrat(s) got Straight's Red money. Texas has had quite a few posturing "liberal" Democrats over the years who sounded rather pink. Not as pink as, e.g., Bill Fulbright of Arkansas (who later had a smart intern named Clinton who went to Moscow for no particular reason).
After the abuses of Reconstruction, Texas became pretty much a one-party state until the 1970's or 1980's even, with just a very few "Me-Too" Republicans like George H.W. Bush keeping the lights on in the GOP party offices. But Texas Democrats were pretty conservative 'Rats, lots of the old Jacksonian values still alive in them despite the social decay at the top engendered by the growth of a plutocracy at the top of Texas society -- that was the group that attracted Jack Kennedy's scornful remarks about how Jackie would show up "those Texas broads", meaning rich Texas women.
But among Texas Democrats some were more liberal than others, and some were just pathetic -- Ralph Yarborough comes to mind (from 35 years ago), and Martin Frost (from 20 years ago), the uber-liberal Dallas 'Rat who gerrymandered Texas for the 'Rats in 1980 and 1990.
So despite being nominally one-party, Texas had a divided Democratic Party that provided occasional reform movements, such as the early-70's "bank scandal" cleanup that broomed the corrupt speaker of the Texas house and 50% of both houses of the legislature, a body-blow to the old Texas Democrats that, together with the posture of the national 'Rats as they moved Left, gradually opened the door for Texas Republicans like George H.W. Bush.
Hi, can I help? ;)
I'm beginning to think Mike Savage is right, liberalism is some kind of disorder.
Thanks for the help.
They’ll make no whine, before its time. It’s time!
A little Gallo’s humor. Apologies to Paul Masson.
Heck, the Founding Fathers had their own “red scare” back then as well (well, technically, it would have been closer to “blue scare”, but still...), when they exiled Citizen Genet for trying to push France’s crap here in America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.