Monthly Archives: February 2025

Climate Change: Marxism’s Trojan Horse

February 27, 2025 By in Alleged Climate Change Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

The Communist-Socialist-Progressive-Liberal coalition, among whom there is seldom a disagreement on anything, have been trying to sell us the idea that we’re facing a world ending “climate crisis” for the past 50 plus years. Yet, the world is still here. 

These alarmist of the wacky Left would be the first to admit that they’ve frequently had to change their comical doomsday cries of “apocalypse,” over the past half-century. Like Chicken Little, they cry, “The sky is falling!” Except it isn’t and never will.  Like a desperate gambler’s frantic last cast of the dice, the Communist-Socialist-Progressive-Liberal coalition is always coming up with new alarmist gimmicks in their forlorn attempts to scare us into accepting their failed policies.  Yet, the people still aren’t buying their damaged goods.

In the 1960s, they warned that our oil supply would soon be depleted and if we didn’t make a “drastic change,” it would be the end of our society. In the 1970s, the headlines proclaimed that our “poor environmental stewardship” was leading us into “a new ice age” where the civilized world would “parish” if we didn’t make “drastic changes in our lifestyles and public policy.” Yet, the ice age never materialized. In the early 80’s, the new Leftist buzzword of alarm was, “Acid Rain,” caused by our “industries” or translation: our employers. That ploy didn’t work either. By the 1990s, the Left’s clarion cry was, “Global Warming.” Yet, when things didn’t get warmer, they changed the title of their con to “Climate Change.”  How convenient. If temperatures drop, it’s “climate change.” If temperatures increase, it’s “climate change.”  If temperatures stay the same it’s still, you guessed it, “climate change.”

Along the way, the Communist-Socialist-Progressive-Liberal coalition has given us the most dire and dystopian predictions. On August 10, 1969, an article in the New York Times: “We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.” Really?

In 1970, prominent environmental academic Kenneth Watt, sounded the “ice alarm,” speaking in Pennsylvania at Swarthmore College: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Time magazine asserted on June 22, 1974: “Telltale signs are everywhere, from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7”

On July 18, 1976, the New York Times predicated that the environmental crisis would end agriculture in America when it stated, “… the news for the future is not all good. The climate is going to get unreliable. It is going to get cold. Harvest failures and regional famines will be more frequent. Weather will probably make history—again.”

  In 1982, Mostafia Tolbia, executive director of the UN’s Environment Program, pointed to the possibility of widespread devastation in less than 20 years. He cited “an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, and as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”

In February 1993, Thomas Lovejoy, assistant secretary for Environmental and External Affairs at the Smithsonian Institution, stressed the world had one remaining decade of opportunity to avoid calamity. “I am utterly convinced that most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.”

Then again, maybe not.

  These and literally thousands of other doomsday predictions have been made going back to the 1960s. Yet, our focus should not be on the doom and gloom forecasts but rather, on what these prognosticators of our climate demise want us to do in order to avoid “catastrophe.” These wild predictions concerning the end of civilization after all, are designed to scare us into acting. Specifically, they are seeking our acquiescence in the destruction of capitalism and individual rights. The very values that made the United States a world superpower. A system which has created the most prosperous society in the history of mankind. How do we know this?

We know this because if you listen to or read them carefully, they tell you as much. At a 2015 news conference in Brussels, Belgium, United Nations “Climate Advisor” Christiana Figueres, admitted that “the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.”

As far back as 2011, The Nation Magazine, a stalwart publication within the Communist-Socialist-Progressive-Liberal coalition proclaimed the battle is to be defined as, “the environment vs. capitalism,” and the ultimate destruction of the later. The UK’s Guardian screamed in a headline, “Dare to Declare Capitalism Dead- before it takes us down with it!”

Who would buy this you ask? In truth, not many among the average citizenry. Think about it. For the past forty years, the Communist-Socialist-Progressive-Liberal coalition has beat this drum everyday in the media. Their cohorts who run our public schools have attempted to indoctrinate our children in this Marxist dogma in the very schools we support with our tax dollars. These radical environmental themes have run rampant in Hollywood films and Television programing. The Communist-Socialist-Progressive-Liberal coalition has spent untold billions of dollars to “educate us” on the environmental crisis caused by capitalism. 

So, after decades of the Communist-Socialist-Progressive-Liberal coalition trying to scare us into their way of thinking, they have some monumental achievements which they alone are entitled to take full credit for, as follows:

  1. A 6-3 majority of conservative Supreme Court Justices who don’t buy the damaged wares they are peddling.
  2. A Republican/Nationalist Congress who recognizes them for what that they are.
  3. Donald Trump, an America First President who calls climate change “a big hoax,” and refers to the Communist-Socialist-Progressive-Liberal coalition as being, “scum!”
  4. Millions of young voters who reject socialism and climate alarmism. Also known as “young Trump supporters.”
  5. Large shifts among ethnic minority voters who continue to trend Republican.

So, we owe the Communist-Socialist-Progressive-Liberal coalition our sincere gratitude. Keep up the good work my Commie friends! Your brand is radioactive and you repel far more than you attract! Yet, you unintentionally do our country and its capitalist system a great service.

The Tragic Death of Ben Linder

February 17, 2025 By in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , Leave a comment

Not many people really know or care who Ben Linder was, today. Ben was a kind and bright young man who studied engineering at the University of Washington from 1979 to 1983. He was a vegan, as well as an amateur clown and juggler. He’d spend his free time entertaining children. It appears that Ben was raised in a household of leftist activists. In Ben’s leftist household his parents made their own leftist/liberal political beliefs part of their children’s upbringing. But, how do we know this?

  Well, we’re told by Jacobin.com and other public sources that, Ben “was steeped in activism from a young age.”  His family was “politically conscious” and as a child young Ben and his siblings were taken to “anti–Vietnam War demonstrations” by his parents who would also make “their living room and spare bedroom available for meetings and traveling activists.” By the way, there is nothing wrong with parents imparting their values unto their kids.

   According to Jacobin.com: “Ben followed in his parents’ footsteps. He became a vegetarian for ethical reasons and was part of a thirty-eight-hour-long sit-in outside Portland’s Trojan nuclear power plant in his final year of high school. Even his decision to study engineering was a product of his political sensibilities: Ben hoped that his skills could be used “for the benefit of the human race, particularly in developing countries. He shunned his classmates’ decisions to put their skills to work doing defense work for firms like Boeing.”

   Are you getting the picture here?

   We’re also told that instead of working as an engineer, for some firm that did defense work, Ben decided to move to Nicaragua, putting his skills as an engineer in service to the impoverished Nicaraguans.  Ben was certainly an idealist. There is little doubt that his motives were altruistic. Yet, Ben’s selfless decision was not without risk.

   At the time of Ben’s decision to relocate to Nicaragua, in the mid 1980s, the United States was engaged in a full-fledged proxy war with the Soviet Union and its allies, in Latin America. Nicaragua was ruled by a brutally repressive Communist regime- free press shut down, imprisonment of political foes, free speech stiffed, etc. The Soviet Communists were attempting to destabilize the entire region and ground zero in this war was Nicaragua. The Soviet Union provided the Communist government of Nicaragua with weapons and other military hardware such as tanks and armored personnel characters. These armored vehicles were useless in defending themselves from a US invasion- the first round of airstrikes would have taken most of them out. They also would have been near useless in fighting a guerrilla insurgency like the Contras were waging. However, these tanks and armored vehicles would have been ideal for projecting power and invading neighboring countries. Further, the Communist government of Nicaragua was training, funding and arming Communist guerrilla insurgencies in El Salvador and other Latin American countries.

  The Nicaraguan government was being assailed by a guerrilla force trained and backed by the United States known as the “Contras.” In short, the Contras were attempting to overthrow the Communist dictatorship and establish a democratic form of government. The Contras were trained and backed by the United States. It was a brutal war and the young, newly minted engineer Ben Linder, would be knowingly inserting himself into this war zone. A bold decision, to be sure. Ben was no coward and showed his willingness to risk his own safety in furtherance of his convictions. In short, Ben walked his talk. He lived by a code.

    Ben ended up in the Northern Nicaraguan village of El Cuá, a remote and impoverished community. Ben would focus his skills on assisting with the construction of a small hydroelectric dam which would bring much needed electricity to the local, populace. Unfortunately, El Cuá was a place where there were frequent skirmishes between the US backed rebels and the Nicaraguan Army.

   According to the jacobin.com, Ben “Linder, like his companions, was carrying a rifle and wearing a cartridge belt. As they walked over the hill, the group stumbled into a contra ambush.”

  If true, what was young Ben, who looked down on his classmates for taking jobs with defense contractors, doing carrying the implements of war on his person? Didn’t he not know that carrying that rifle and cartridge belt would make him a target in the war zone that he was in?

   By carrying that rifle and wearing that cartridge (ammunition) belt, again if it’s true, Ben was taking a huge risk which would make him, for all intent and purposes, a combatant were he and his friends to encounter the Contras. He had to have known this- wouldn’t he? Was Ben a combatant by choice as well as an engineer or was he merely carrying someone else’s gear? We will never know.

  After Ben “stumbled into a contra ambush,” he was sadly, killed. Ben’s supporters make it sound as though he was “killed in cold blood.” Maybe but, while carrying a rifle? Perhaps so, if he tossed his weapon and surrendered, only to be killed anyway. That would be a heinous example of a cold blooded murder. For their part, the Contras responded by saying they didn’t know Ben’s nationality and that they tried to take him as a prisoner but, Ben apparently wouldn’t have any of it. Hence, the Contras shot him. That’s basically the Contras’ version. We undoubtedly will never know the complete truth of what happened.

  What seems clear is that this otherwise honorable and well-meaning young man tragically lost his life.  Ben would use his talents as a juggler and an amateur clown to entertain children both here in the US and in Nicaragua. Ben had a big heart and although I may disagree with his some of his political views and decision to risk his life in a war zone they way he chose to, I still certainly think we all can and should, respect him as a person. Ben wasn’t a bomb thrower. He may have been misguided but, he had no shortage of personal character and courage. Two attributes few others seem to have in today’s society. When people like Ben leave us, the world becomes just a little more worse off.

Ana Montes: Convicted Communist Spy and Traitor to America

February 17, 2025 By in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Ana Montes was if not still is, a disgusting Communist and traitor to her (our) country, The United States of America. The daughter of an accomplished physician, Montes came from a comfortable home with a Catholic and politically conservative upbringing. Her loving father was a strict taskmaster who pushed his children to excel. Life isn’t easy, after all.  In her late teens, young Ana seemed to rebel against the high standards her good father expected of her. In college she would do a running dive off of the deep end.

   Young Ana began college in the 1970s, at the University of Virgina. Far from her family and the culturally conservative environs of her youth, she undoubtedly found the UVA campus to be fertile soil for one desiring to rebel against every value their parents had instilled in them. In short, Ana appeared to have what Charles Manson called a “Daddy hangup.” Manson found these types of young women the easiest to recruit into his cult because of their desire to rebel against the values of their parents which presented what psychologists today call a “cognitive opening.”  For these confused young women, Manson 1) offered a new support network. (family substitute) 2) introduced new Leftist values to replace the morals taught by their family and 3) a new life’s purpose as an activist working for advancement of these new Leftist values.

  Marxist activists on the UVA campus undoubtedly recognized the “cognitive opening” with respect to Ana Montes. Soon, for this confused young woman, the Marxists on campus 1) offered a new support network. (family substitute) 2) introduced new Leftist values to replace the morals taught by her family and 3) a new life’s purpose as an activist working for the advancement of these new Leftist values. It was likely just that simple.

   Ana was an articulate and unquestionably bright young women who could have been a tremendous asset to our country and society. Unfortunately, she chose a darker path. During Ana’s student years, the United States was fighting a proxy war in Latin America against Soviet sponsored terrorism, subversion and guerrilla revolution. Although nobody had voted for the Communist, they were attempting, with the assistance of their Soviet masters, to seize through the barrel of a rifle, that which they could never have hoped to achieve through the ballot box. Pretty straight forward, right? The Communist are the bad guys here, as usual- right? Apparently not so, for young Ana and her friends. She chose sides with enemies of free people everywhere when she threw her hat into the ring for the Communists.

   Ana, a fluent Spanish language speaker, began joining various Leftist and Pro-Communist groups on her campus that were taking the Communist’s side concerning out adversarial relationship with Castro’s Cuba as well as in the fight against Communism within Central and South America. Large College campuses were hotbeds of activity for this type of Marxist student activism in the 1970s when Ana was a student. UVA was a center, if not a safe space for Marxist student activists. UVA Professor Kendall Myers was an active spy for the Communist Cuban government. He was charged and convicted in 2009 and the court meted out a life sentence.  As for Ana Montes, she graduated UVA in 1979 and went to work for the CIA. Background check anyone? However, she maintained contact with her Leftist connections from UVA. She would eventually earn a graduate degree from Johns Hopkins University. Quite impressive!

   In addition to Professor Myers, there was also a UVA graduate student named Marta Velazquez, who was a payrolled Cuban agent. Ms. Valazquez’s job was to recruit young campus Leftists to spy for the Cuban cause. The following is an excerpt from the New York Daily News article about Montes dated December 29, 2022:

 “Vazquez zeroed in on Montes, who had made no secret of her government job or her disgust with American foreign policy.

 At a restaurant in Washington, (Velazquez) made a soft pitch,” Popkin writes. ‘Ana, I have friends who can help you assist the desperate Nicaraguan people…. They need someone to translate Spanish-language news articles.”

Velazquez suggested a trip to New York, so Montes could meet her friends, who were Cuban intelligence officers.

On Dec. 16, 1984, Montes agreed to betray her country.”

   On December 16, 1984, had Montez instead declined to betray her country and simply have walked away, we might know her today as a dedicated and prominent government official. We’ll never know for sure. By all accounts, she certainly seemed to possess the innate intelligence and competence to serve at the highest echelons of the federal government. Unfortunately, after she sold her soul to the devil on that December day in 1984, she would spiral uncontrollably downward into a black, bottomless pit of treasonous espionage on behalf of America’s Communist enemies.

   Naturally, throughout the course of her service to Cuba as a spy, she was paid many millions of dollars by Castro’s government- right? Actually no, she did it all in the name of what we assume to be her Communist ideology. If not for this reason, then why at all? It is unmistakably clear that she disagreed with U.S. foreign policy with respect to Communism. “Montes accepted no money for passing classified information, except for reimbursements for some expense,” according to the New York Daily News article cited above. She more than likely could have obtained payment given her position at the CIA, but she did not. In the course of her traitorous conduct, how much damage did she really do? Unfortunately, quite a bit.  

   She unashamedly disclosed the names of US undercover agents working against the Communist government in Cuba. In coded communications with her Communist handlers, she alerted them to the imminent arrival of a Cuban spy working for the United States. Her Cuban Communist handler grimly replied via codes message, “We are waiting here for him with open arms.” That US spy undoubtedly met with a torturous death too horrible to discuss, thanks to Ana. Ana Montes, as a CIA officer, also visited a military base in El Salvador run by United States Special Forces.  Shall we say coincidently, weeks later, Communist rebels rendered a pinpoint attacked on that camp, killing 44 US backed Salvadorian soldiers, including United States Army Green Beret Sergeant Gregory A. Fronius. A government inquiry would years later place the blame for Sergeant Fronius’ death directly on Ana Montes. I’d trade several hundred of Ana Montes’ ilk for one Gregory A. Fronius- an easy call. Ana also revealed the existence of a stealth satellite so costly and highly classified that U.S. government officials still won’t utter its name. I think you get the idea. Why go on?

  Communism is a brazen cult-like religion that causes its adherents to dedicate their entire lives to the destruction of Communism’s number one enemy: The United States of America. Ana Montes oozed confidence, promise and real brilliance. Why did she throw it all away? You can ask her yourself, should you ever see her where she currently lives in Puerto Rico. That’s right, she was released from prison after doing a little over twenty years, in 2023. This, of little comfort to the family of United States Army Green Beret, Sergeant Gregory A. Fronius. Little comfort to the families of the scores of others who were brutally murdered based on her treason. The story of Ms. Montes is a tragic and depressing story. If you want to dig deeper, there is a comprehensive and excellently written book published about Ms. Montes betrayal of her country which was written by author Jim Popkin and titled, Code Name Blue Wren: The True Story of America’s Most Dangerous Female Spy—and the Sister She Betrayed. Apparently, it’s a good read.

A Cautionary Tale that is Still Relevant Today: The Hoaxters (1952)

February 16, 2025 By in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

   The Hoaxters (1952) is a splendid documentary film from MGM, produced by the legendary writer, director and producer, Dore Schary.  It used as narrators, some of the biggest names in Hollywood including, Walter Pidgeon, Robert Taylor, James Whitmore, George Murphy and several more Tinseltown heavyweights.

   The studios and leading royalty of Hollywood actors set out the make The Hoaxters (1952) because of the concerns which they and the overwhelming majority of Americans harbored toward the worldwide rise of Communism. The dictatorial ideology that seemed as bad or worse than the Fascists enemies we had recently fought during WWII.

   The film opens with the warning, “People who are not governed by God, will be ruled by a tyrant.” The film’s introductory scene depicts a typical mid-century American carnival.  The precise territory where an average American carnival goer might encounter the garden variety huckster, hoaxster or snake oil salesman.  How fitting for a film about Communism, the greatest bait-and-switch con ever perpetrated upon the human race.  

  The film accurately points out that there aren’t a lot of differences between Communism and Fascism. The 1952 film also labels U.S. domestic Communists as a subversive fifth column operating inside America. They still are. The problem is that today, most of these disloyal American Communists don’t join the Party or admit that they are Communist because of the overwhelming public scorn for their failed ideology. Yet the film makes the point that for its adherents, Communism is not just a cult-like religion but, a “way of life…an evil and malignant way of life. It is a lie! It is a big lie!”

   The film goes on to say that “the deadly peril that faces Democracy today is the deadly parallel that exists between Communism and similar brands of totalitarianism…”  This, stated in 1952, is still true today.  By far, the greatest threat to American Democracy and its national security is the threat posed by internal Communist subversion within the United States. This threat of today, is far vaster than the threats posed by Islamic terrorist or even external Communism from American adversaries such as China, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.

  The film also provides a poignant comparison between Communism and Nazism with respect to those things, these similar ideologies either discouraged or outlawed. For example, Christianity. Hitler and most leading Nazis were Atheist, just like the leaders within the Soviet Union. Quoting from an official Soviet Communique, “The struggle against the Gospel and Christian legend must be conducted ruthlessly and with all the means at the disposal of Communism.”  In Nazi Germany and the USSR and its satellite countries, Christians were persecuted. They are still being persecuted in the Communist world today.

   Both totalitarian ideologies disallow free and fair elections, free public discourse and deny the right of citizens to own firearms. Eerily similar are how perceived political opponents were shipped off to concentration camps where in most instances, the internees who were not immediately executed, died later after being worked to death. The Nazis would gas some prisoners and work the rest until they died of starvation, exhaustion or disease. The Soviets and other Communist societies would execute some prisoners by way of a bullet and work the rest until they died of starvation, exhaustion or disease. At the time this film was made in 1952, there were over 14 million political prisoners in these types of camps within the Soviet Union.  Most would never leave these internment centers.

   The film devotes considerable time to the activities of domestic Communist within the United States. The film aptly identifies these UnAmericans as a “Fifth Column,” seeking the demise of our free society from within and having no less a goal than the violent overthrow of our democratic republic. It’s amazing how little has changed in the past 73 years.

  Should Communists and their progressive, liberal kissing cousins ever succeed in outlawing private ownership of firearms, the American public could be defenseless against such a Leftist takeover.  Should such a Communist revolution ever happen in the United States, many tens of millions of Americans would be shipped off to camps on a scale that would likely dwarf the Nazis and even the USSR.

   This film was and remains a Clarion call to all loyal Americans to guard against the evils of the Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Communist allied front in our current society. Yet, in a society where Communist actively hide behind less hated labels such as “Progressive,” “Social Democrat,” or even “Liberal,” how do you identify a true Communist believer from a mere fool or misguided individual?

   There are no easy ways to identify a Crypto-Communist. However, one method is to, during conversation with a suspected Crypto-Communist, blatantly criticize, either Communism, a Communist Country or a Communist historical figure. If the suspected Communist angrily objects, the chances are, you’re dealing with a true Marxist believer. Another technique is to ask a Communist to name three things he likes about America. If he has difficulty in doing this or answers with a curt “nothing! “then, follow up and ask him to name things he like about a Communist country of your choosing. If he has nothing positive to say about America while singing the praises of Cuba or Venezuela, you have almost certainly identified a Communist.

   The cautionary tale of The Hoaxters (1952) is even more valid today than it was in 1952. Everyone should watch this film and remember a concerned American actor’s warning to us back in 1964 when he cautioned, “we’re always just one generation away from losing our freedom here in America.” That concerned actor’s name was Ronald Reagan.

Bella Abzug: A Vile Communist

February 11, 2025 By in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment
Bella the Red

The late Bella Abzug was quoted as saying, “There are those who say I’m impatient, impetuous, uppity, rude, profane, brash, and overbearing.” She was all of those things, to be sure.  Yet, while these characterizations of Ms. Abzug are undeniably true, she conveniently omits her most damnatory character flaw: That she was a actual Communist, at least according to her fellow Communists and the FBI.  Abzug was part of the 1960’s era wave of Jewish feminists which included the likes of Gloria Steinem, Judith Plaskow, and Betty Friedan. 

   Let’s first authenticate her Communist bonafides. Ms. Abzug had not only a lengthy FBI file approaching 400 pages but a domestic CIA file documenting her subversive actives on behalf of her Communist cause. During the height of the Cold War, Ms. Abzug was adored by our Communist enemies throughout the world. The Links to both her FBI and CIA files can be found below. Her FBI file was the result of hundreds of man hours of surveillance, investigations, interviews and information acquired from  confidential informants, including both active and former members of the Communist Party. Here are the highlights or if you will, the lowlights:

  1.  She was placed on the FBI security index for subversives who had Communist Party connections and were considered dangerous. Most domestic Communists were spared the dishonor of making this index.
  2. FBI officials labeled her “Either an outright Communist Party member or one who follows the line of the Communist Party very closely.”
  3.  Ms. Abzug “paid tribute to attorneys for the Communist Party.”
  4.  “Surveillance of Abzug’s home reveals Soviet official contacts with Abzug and arrangements were made to meet a USSR delegation to the United Nations.” In short, she had meetings with our foreign adversaries on US soil. Further, Communist officials don’t pay mere social visits to their American sympathizers. 
  5. Abzug was “interested in travel to Soviet Union.”
  6. Abzug was “described by reliable confidential informants as ‘out-and-out’ Communist.’”
  7. Abzug was referenced in a letter to the FBI which describes Abzug “as a member of numerous Communist Front organizations and whose congressional campaign is a top priority in communist and Soviet diplomatic circles.” Abzug was always eager to help her fellow enemies of America whether they were foreign or domestic.  

Still have doubts? Read it for yourself. Links to both her lengthly FBI file and the sanatized CIA file summary are linked below:

Abzug FBI File

Abzug CIA File Summary 

   Ms Abzug was born Bella Savitzky on July 24, 1920 in The Bronx, New York. Her father was a butcher by trade who operated a small neighborhood delicatessen. Bella’s parents had immigrated to the United States in 1902, after fleeing the brutal antisemitic pogroms loosed on Jews living within Russia at the time. Nobody seems to recall precisely when young Miss Bella Savitzky (Abzug) became so enamored with Communism. She attended an Orthodox Jewish Temple with her family- typically not a spawning ground for Communists. It’s reported that she was captivated  by the Russian Bolshevik revolution. 

  What is known, is that in the closing days before start WWII, when Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact., known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, 19-year-old Bella Savitzky (Abzug) become an outspoken advocate for the United States not involving itself in the war that would follow scarcely a week later, when the Communist USSR and Nazi Germany would invade Poland and divide that democratic nation up between themselves as spoils of war. While the rest of the free world looked on in horror, a teenaged Miss Savitzky (Abzug) frantically wrote Senators, Congressmen and spoke to anyone who would listen about how “wrong” it would be for the US to involve itself in “another European war.

  The future Ms. Abzug continued her relentless championing of the Party line for nearly two years after the German-Russo invasion of Poland. When asked how she could support the invasion and subjugation of a democratic nation, Miss Savitzky (Abzug) intoned with a straight face, “The people of Poland were liberated by the USSR. Life is much better for them now under Communism.”  Some pressed the young Communist on the half million Polish civilians branded as “socially dangerous” and as “anti-Soviet elements” who were forcibly removed from their homes and deported in cattle cars to labor camps in Siberia and Kazakhstan. Miss Savitzky (Abzug) responded with the formulaic, Party approved answer, “These are nothing more than reactionary lies!” Except, they weren’t. 

   Yet, her tenacious antiwar polemics changed faster than you can say Trotsky, on June 22, 1941 when Germany tossed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact aside and invaded the Communist Soviet Union. Prior to this, she had defended the Germans for their invasions of France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway and even Czechoslovakia. She had previously and shamelessly brushed aside others questions about Hitler’s treatment of her fellow Jewish people in German occupied territories. Suddenly, as if on a dime, she changed her position from “the Germans are our allies,” to “Germany must be wiped from the map and this country (the United States) has a moral obligation to intervene.” In short, young Bella was happy to be a party shill for Nazi Germany up until the point when Hitler attacked her beloved Soviet Union. 

  Miss Savitzky (Abzug) then a student at New York’s Hunter College, later obtained a place at the Columbia University School of Law. Some have suggested she gained admission to the Ivy League law school with the help of her Communist Party colleagues. In those days, Columbia was known as a hotbed of so called “Marxist intellectualism.” Did I say “was? Bright Communist youth had an inside track to admissions at certain Ivies because of the Party network of faculty and administrators at many of these colleges who actively “assisted” with the admissions for select numbers of young and promising Party members. Still, this seems somewhat speculative as it is undeniable that. Ms. Abzug would have been a strong candidate for admission to Columbia Law given her high intellect and superior undergraduate record.  

However, while a student Columbia Law, a Communist faculty member advised her to remove her name from the Communist Party membership rolls. Whether she was a member of the Communist Youth wing or the actual Communist Party of New York is unclear. Nevertheless, she was advised that her Party membership could possibly raise problems with her being admitted to the New York State Bar after  graduation. She took the friendly advice but, did not end her involvement in Communist activities.  

   Later, after she became a licensed lawyer, she would spend the ensuing decades working for and collaborating with virtually every Communist front group in New York City. Yet alas, we are getting ahead of the story here. While still a law student, Bella volunteered for various public interest law firms and causes. She dreamed of a future as a crusading public interest lawyer, fighting for justice on behalf of the people and against their oppressors! However, she soon discovered that public interest law didn’t pay particularly well. In fact, the pay was quite lousy. This presented a bit of a conundrum for young Bella. Her family had no money to speak of, and she needed to be able to support herself after all! In the parlance of Jeff Lebowski, “…she wants more, man, she’s gotta feed the monkey, I mean–uh, hasn’t that ever occurred to you man? Sir?”

   Yes, Bella’s lack of financial resources was an obstacle to her future plans. So, while still a law student, Bella set out to find herself a man or at least some have suggested as much. We’ll never know for sure but as a law student, she just happened to meet a nice you man who was from an affluent family and who didn’t share her radical political views. He was also shall we politely say, rather obsequious toward her- put a check mark in that final box! Maybe it was genuine love at first sight. We’ll never know. Yet it’s unmistakably clear that she chose a husband who openly disagreed with her politics. This is unheard of with Communists. Even mere liberals seldom marry outside their beliefs! Hence, it seems as though the great feminist of the 20th Century chose a groom with the financial resources to support her through her Communist activism. How convenient. This, from the woman who would years later crow, “all the men on my staff know how to type,” So much for, “no woman should have to depend upon a man.”

   She found her man and may God have helped him. Bella’s beau was one Martin Abzug. He was by all accounts a great provider for his family and more. Here’s what we do know about Mr Abzug. First, he was a kind, decent and honorable man- a good husband and father. Second, he was not a Communist and in fact he told reporters that that he often disagreed with many of his wife’s political views. Third, he focused on his work and family and avoided the spotlight. In a July 20, 1986 Los Angeles Times article pertaining to Mr. Abzug’s marital challenges he stated , “I didn’t want to be dominated.”

  Mr Abzug was an accomplished writer and novelist. He also enjoyed a successful career as a Wall Street stock broker. He came from an affluent Jewish family who operated an established and respected business in the Manhattan Garment industry. Mr Abzug died tragically from a heart attack in 1986. 

   If Mr. Abzug avoided the spotlight, just the opposite could be said of his wife. The joke in Washington was that the most perilous place to be in town was to be standing between Bella Abzug and a television camera.  Bella Abzug was the quintessential “old Battle-axe with about as many ladylike qualities in her as one could expect to find in man like Lee Marvin. “Battling Bella,” as her Leftists admirers called her, was a profane,  loud mouthed, gravely voiced, Communist who noisily flaunted her hairy, butch persona.  

    She had an unladylike appearance and bore an uncanny resemblance to what the late Ed Asner might have  looked like in drag. She exhibited all the social graces one might witness at a chapter meeting of their local Hell’s Angels. The Los Angeles Times rather tactfully described Ms. Abzug’s, “propensity for language heard more on the street than in the hallowed halls of Congress.“

   Having successfully made a name for herself as a leader in the so called “feminist movement” and as an anti-Vietnam war activist, Ms. Abzug in 1970, figured her time had arrived when she brazenly announced a primary challenge to the liberal, 14-year incumbent Democrat Leonard Farbstein, for a congressional district on Manhattan’s West Side. She defeated Farbstein in that 1970 primary- a shocking upset. Abzug would face the mild mannered Republican talk show host Barry Farber, in the general election.

  After her unforeseen primary victory her Republican opponent Mr. Farber, sent the bellicose Ms. Abzug a dozen red roses and a politely worded invitation for a debate to discuss the issues. According to a New York Times article from August 25, 1970:

“The roses did not produce the usual appreciative response. Instead, an angry Mrs. Abzug, who was not at her Sheridan Square headquarters when Mr. Farber called, later charged her opponent with “cheap gimmickry.” She asserted that Mr. Fraber “should come out from behind his mike and roses.” According to a New York Times report on August 25, 1970. Link to the story below:

New York Times 082570

Although Farber was too gentlemanly to raise Abzug’s Communist past in the 1970 congressional campaign, others did. Their valid concerns and detailed evidence of Bella’s Red double-life were predictably and unashamedly, ignored by the progressive Manhattan press.  In the world of liberal media dishonesty, this is what’s known as “bias by omission.”

   Ms. Abzug defeated her Republican opponent Barry Farber, in a much closer general election than one usually would expect from the West Side of Manhattan. Many Democrats considered Ms. Abzug a bit too extreme for their liking and voted for her Republican rival. Ms. Abzug would serve a total of three uneventful terms in the US House until she made a long shot bid for United States Senate in 1976. She was easily dispatched in the Democratic Primary by Daniel Patrick Moynihan who went on to win the general election as well. Unfortunately for her, Ms. Abzug’s loud mouthed Lefty brand didn’t sell well outside of Manhattan. After her defeat, she fell off the political rader and into obscurity.

  Ms. Abzug was a vile unAmerican Communist who as far as anyone can recall, routinely refused to stand for National Anthem and spurned reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. She hated our country, its freedoms and everything else for which it stands. Given her druthers, she would have  all too happily replaced our democratic republic with a communistic, Soviet style police state, replete with reeducation gulags, work camps and Berianesque kill lists. More alarming, is that her legions of unabashed admirers from the political fringe who enjoy chanting, “This is what democracy looks like…,” are aware of all this and nevertheless consider her Marxist dogma to be virtuous. Although, it’s somewhat comforting to know that there’s still at least one Jewish person apart from Karl Marx, for whom the Left is willing to place their anti-semitism in abeyance.

Continue reading →

Jack Webb: Hollywood Actor, Director, Producer and Patriot

February 9, 2025 By in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

   Jack Webb was more than merely a successful Hollywood actor, director and producer.  He was an American patriot. His work was entertaining while showing us what it meant to be an American and the values that we should all strive to live by and protect.

    Born in Santa Monica, California, on April 2, 1920, the son of Samuel Chester Webb and Margaret (née Smith) Webb. He grew up in the Bunker Hill section of Los Angeles.  As a child, Webb worshiped at Our Lady of Loretto Catholic Church and attended Our Lady of Loretto Elementary School where he served as an altar boy. Webb would remain a devout Catholic for the rest of his life. He then attended Belmont High School near downtown Los Angeles, where he was elected student body president.

  Webb served in the Army Air Corps and after his discharge, took a job as a radio announcer. This led to a long career in radio, television and motion pictures. Webb loved his country and never missed the opportunity incorporate patriotism into his shows. In the late 1940s, before televisions were widely in use, Jack started a popular radio program titled Dragnet. Rather than fabricate police noir stories, Webb then took the then novel approach of using real police cases directly from the LAPD files and making radio dramas out of them.

  Dragnet became a nationally syndicated program which portrayed the day-to-day work of the LAPD in their war against crime. It was a wildly popular show. Mr. Webb would develop a decades long relationship with the dedicated officers of the Los Angeles Police Department. Dragnet showed the American people the long, thankless hours law enforcement spent tracking down criminals and protecting we the citizenry. The American publican began to develop a newfound level of respect for the police. Dragnet later would become a popular TV series starring Webb. Each week, the show would dramatize real cases handled by the LAPD and at the end, show the outcome of those cases including when the criminal was convicted, and the sentence meted out. Some of the Dragnet shows showed police addressing the subversive Communist elements in our society as well as their kissing cousins, the hippies. Dragnet is still broadcast today on the ME-TV cable channel and other networks- a testament to its enduring appeal.

  While making Dragnet in the 1950s, Mr. Webb was cast to star in the popular motion picture, The D.I. (1957) playing the lead role of Gunnery Sgt. Jim Moore. The movie explained the training that went into making members of America’s toughest service branch, the United States Marine Corps. Training and dialogue were portrayed in a very realistic manner, The film showed the US Marine Corps for what it is, an exclusive organization where one must earn all that they receive including the very title of “US Marine.” The film is still revered to this day by Marines everywhere and over the years, more than one young man after watching the film, has chosen to test himself by seeing if he has what it takes to become a of the few and the proud.

   In the realm of motion pictures, Webb had an impressive career which included a role in the American Classic movie, Sunset Boulevard (1950). Perhaps, Webb’s magnum opus was the film Red Nightmare (1962). The film was praised and supported by the Kennedy administration and by the President’s brother, US Attorney General, Robert F. Kennedy. The film presented a nightmarish no-holds-barred look at what life might be like in the United States if the Left had their way.

   This disturbing film set during the Cold War, has many striking parallels to the politically correct, DEI, cancel culture of today.  The Communist message is clear, “In America you have too many freedoms. One day it will be our mission to destroy those bourgeois capitalist freedoms.” This, just as the Nouveau Left of today advocate for.

   In the film, we are shown a traditional Midwestern small town which has been transformed into a hellish landscape of barbed wire fences with Communist guards securing the exit points and Marxist imagery.  The once clean and vibrant small town has been transformed into a lifeless, frightening wasteland of scattered debris and near empty streets similar to communities in the Communist world. Webb appears on screen and begins his narration:

   “From the looks of it, it could be Iowa, California, Tennessee. You might call this a college town, Communist style, as part of a long-range plan to destroy our free way of life.”

   The film shows those typically strange people among us whom we often tend to ignore: the weird people, the eccentrics, the vocal liberals and other oddballs. Yet some of these cranks in the film had an ideologic agenda and are now among the town’s Communist overseers.

   They turn the schools into Leftist indoctrination centers (sound familiar?) and one of the characters has a daughter who comes home from school and proclaims:

    “It’s true, Daddy. The party convinced me that I should free myself of the lingering bourgeois influence of family life.”

   This film, made over 60 years ago, presents characters whose rhetoric has an uncanny resemblance to the types of things we might hear today from Balack Lives Matter activists or other contemporary Leftist groups. I would encourage anyone who values their liberty to watch it.

   Webb was a champion for police officers everywhere and a tireless fighter for the preservation of Constitutionally guaranteed American freedoms. He left a legacy of great works that people are still enjoying to this day. Our society owes Jack Webb and those like him, a debt of gratitude.

When Teddy Kennedy Colluded with our Foreign Adversaries

February 9, 2025 By in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment
File written by Adobe Photoshop¨ 5.0

   There’s never been a serious debate about it. It’s undisputed that the late Senator, Edward M. “Teddy” Kennedy lacked the intellectual prowess and political acumen of his two older brothers- President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy. He was always regarded as a bit of a lightweight. Still, in 20th Century America, the name “Kennedy” opened a lot of doors. In 1962, Teddy’s father, Joesph P. Kennedy, Sr, bought his 30-year-old son Teddy, a seat in the United States Senate.  What of young Teddy’s qualifications for this office, one might reasonably ask?

   The answer to this question was raised during a 1962 debate which young Teddy had to impatiently suffer through with his Republican opponent, Massachusetts Attorney General Edward McCormack. It was McCormack who retorted during the debate:

   “If your name were Edward Moore, your candidacy would be a joke. You have absolutely zero qualifications. You’ve never even held a steady job. But your name isn’t Edward Moore. Your name is Edward Moore Kennedy.”

   Teddy’s father had spent as much money on his son’s 1962 Senate election as Richard Nixon had raised in running for the Presidency two years earlier. In these early days before required public disclosure of campaign finance, Teddy’s father shamelessly greased everyone’s palm to ensure his son’s election- union bosses, newspapermen, Afro-American church pastors, etc. Hence Teddy, the young political neophyte, was victorious in an election that was bought and paid for by his father- fair and square!

    Teddy had attended Harvard, like his father and older brothers. However, Teddy’s academic performance was shall we say, less than scholarly. Prior to his graduation, he had been kicked out of Harvard after hiring another student to take his Spanish final. Those pesky Spanish verb conjugations really confused the young lad. He was busted by the exam monitor and school officials tossed him out on his ear for his violation of Harvard’s academic honesty policy. No longer a student and thus losing his deferment from the draft, not even his father could get him out of his mandatory military service. Teddy served two years in the U.S. Army where he was discharged as a Private First Class (E-3).

   After finishing his two years of service in the Army, Teddy petitioned his way back into Harvard- with a little help from Daddy.  Two years later, he earned his degree. He had applied for Harvard Law School and even with considerable pressure on the law school from his father, school officials balked at admitting a student with a “C” average. However, Teddy’s father was able to secure his admission to the University of Virginia Law School where Teddy graduated with less than stellar grades. It wasn’t that Teddy was dumb, he just preferred the life of wine, women and song to certain mundane things like say, academic performance.

   Not long after graduating, Teddy was given the title of “Western States Campaign Chair,” in his brother’s presidential race of 1960. His brother, John F. Kennedy, ended up losing every single one of the Western States. Teddy was what typical American liberals refer to as a “rich, privileged white guy.” However, the Left has always made an exception in applying this mark when the “rich, privileged white guy,” is willing to advance their cause. Under those circumstances, the “rich, privileged white guy,” becomes known as the “useful idiot,” a term invented by the Communist Bolsheviks. Don’t you just love the hypocrisy of the Left?

   Teddy’s first decade in the Senate was unremarkable from a legislative standpoint. He was less than respected by his peers in the chamber. However, his evening escapades became the talk of the town. Teddy had a penchant for going to the local bars with his buddies and leaving with various strange woman most nights. This, while his young wife sat at home and cared for their children. While Teddy was unable to achieve the political standing of his older brothers as statesmen, he surely seemed up for the challenge of outperforming them as philanderers. The latter was no small achievement.

   Teddy’s debauched lifestyle came crashing down atop him in the wee hours of the morning on July 19, 1969. Teddy had been at a bibulous gathering of his friends and young women on Chappaquiddick Island, off the eastern end of Martha’s Vineyard. As usual, his wife was at home caring for their young children. Teddy would leave the island with his conquest for the night: the young, naïve true believer, Marry Jo Kopechne. Driving back toward Edgartown with Miss Kopechne, a highly inebriated Teddy drove off the wooden bridge, plunging his car, himself and 29-year-old Miss Kopechne into the icy cold waters of Cape Pogue Pond.

   Teddy was able to free himself from the car. Miss Kopechne was not. Rather than attempting to rescue Ms. Kopechne, the drunken U.S. Senator hobbled down the road, fleeing the scene. Yeah, he bolted and left Miss Kopechne for dead. While escaping the scene, he passed four different homes near the location of the accident. These homes had their porch lights on. All he had to do was knock on a door and ask the residents to summon the authorities. Yet, Teddy wasn’t thinking about Miss Kopechne, only the political ramifications from the authorities discovering him in his intoxicated state after driving his car off the road with a passenger still trapped inside. The police diver who retrieved Miss Kopechne’s body, later reported that she likely survived underwater for some thirty minutes as her body was found with the upper torso thrust into “a large air pocket.”  Miss Kopechne didn’t drown. She suffocated. Had Teddy went to one of those homes and called the police, Miss Kopechne might still be alive.

  Teddy stumbled back to the house he was staying at. He sobered up and the next morning, after consulting his political advisors, concocted a cover story. This didn’t prevent him from being charged with a crime but, with the full force of the Kennedy family bearing down on the authorities, he received a sweetheart deal whereby he would plead guilty to the misdemeanor charge of leaving the scene of an accident with a two-month suspended sentence. Had it been you or I, we would have been handed a long prison sentence. Chalk up another win for the “privileged white guys.”

   Teddy used his family name and sympathy over the recent assassination of his older brother, Robert F. Kennedy, to get the Senate Democrats to elect him as their Majority Whip. The primary job of the Whip is to keep the other Senators of his party in line and ensure that they vote the way the Senate Majority Leader wants them to vote. Pretty simple, right? Except, there was a problem. Kennedy’s Democratic Senate colleagues didn’t really have a lot of respect for him. They had the strange idea that Teddy was a lightweight who wasn’t particularly dedicated to his responsibilities as a Senator and further, that he was only a member of the Senate due to his family name and wealth. How dare they!

   Later, Teddy was politely asked to give up his position as Whip. He went quietly. As the years passed, Teddy’s career in the Senate didn’t amount to very much. It wasn’t long after Chappaquiddick, when he returned to his decadent pleasure-seeking lifestyle. His wife finally left him although, returned to his side for his abortive presidential campaign in 1980. Drowning in his own delusions a grander, Teddy confidently declared that he would mount a primary challenge to sitting Democratic President, Jimmy Carter. In response, Jimmy Carter publicly announced that he would, “kick Teddy Kennedy’s ass,” in the Democratic Presidential Primaries. President Carter in fact, did just that. Carter would go on to lose in a landslide to Governor Reagan in the 1980 General Election. Thus, making him the first sitting President since Herbert Hoover to lose reelection to another term.  Yet, it’s likely that Teddy would have fared far worse were he the nominee instead of Carter. This, as many southern Democratic voters could at least tolerate Carter, although not Teddy’s wild-eyed liberalism.

   The election of Reagan seemed to annoy Teddy to no end. Reagan was from a poor, working class family in the Midwest who graduated from the fine but obscure Eureka College in Eureka, Illinois. Kennedy seemed to consider that alone as disqualifying Reagan from the high office. But you know, those dumb voters- right? The former California Governor seemed to so easily capture that which Teddy considered his birthright, even though it had so utterly eluded him. Teddy looked upon Reagan as a simple-minded plebian and made it his life’s mission to undermine Reagan’s presidency. He crossed the line into sedition when he set out to conspire with Soviet leaders to thwart President Reagan’s agenda.  

  Soon after taking office, Reagan met with his military and national security advisors and declared that the status quo of peaceful coexistence with the Communist world had to change. He introduced a bold plan to bring on the collapse of the Communist USSR from within. See The Historical Truth Project article, How Ronald Reagan Took Down the Communist World. Teddy, upon catching wind of this, became quite unhinged. Teddy believed there was a rightful place in this world for the USSR and Communism.  Those forced to live under Communist rule as well as most Americans, disagreed with him.

   When Reagan took office, the US was in a life-or-death struggle against world-wide Communism. The past American policy of “Containment,” had not worked. Reagan left a lucrative career as an actor to pursue political office solely because he considered the issue of Communism to be the “moral imperative of our time.” The Soviet Union and its network of totalitarian satellite countries were seeking our demise as a nation. They were our enemies. This fact didn’t dissuade Teddy from colluding with them to hurt Regan’s reelection prospects in 1984. Kennedy, in typical liberal fashion, saw Reagan as a greater threat to the world than the Communist alliance of nations dedicated to our destruction.

   Through his Soviet contacts, Teddy sent secret correspondence to the notorious KGB of the USSR. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Kennedy’s correspondence was uncovered and no less than the London Times reported on this in their edition of February 2, 1992. The report detailed a 1983 document describing Kennedy’s overtures to Soviet officials.

    In secret correspondence addressed to USSR leader Yuri Andropov, KGB head Victor Chebrikov, reported that Teddy was eager to “counter the “militaristic policies” of President Reagan. A little Treason with your bourbon Mr. Kennedy? But Teddy didn’t stop there. He stood ready to give our Communist adversaries the whole farm. Kennedy’s handlers in the USSR soon gave him the code name “Polezni Durak.” In Russian, “Polezni Durak” translates into English as “useful fool” or “useful idiot.”

   In addition to giving away U.S. secrets, Kennedy also offered the Soviet Communist public relations advice. In a report from KGB head Chebrikov to the Kremlin, Kennedy’s advice was outlined as follows:

   “Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the general secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.”

   Kennedy emissaries such as John Tunney traveled to the USSR to relay messages and to coordinate resistance to our sitting US President. Just think what would have happened had a Republican been caught engaging in similar activities with our foreign adversaries. Further, Kennedy informed the Soviets that he would be seeking the Presidency again in the 1988 elections and that the Soviet Communists could count on “warm relations” with his future administration. Why of course they could!

   In the end, President Reagan’s reelection campaign won the largest landside in history- 49 states. Reagan has secured a legacy in American History as one of our greatest Presidents.  Like the Soviet Union itself, Teddy too was “resigned to the ash heap of history.”  He stuck around in the Senate until his death in 2009 but, was never of any real importance. His fawning admirers in the liberal press assigned him the name, “The Lion of the Senate.” To his colleagues in the upper chamber, this nickname was the source of much snickering.

   Many have asked the question, how could someone with Teddy’s family name, wealth and connections amount to so little? Well, the Corleone family had Fredo. The Kennedy family had Teddy. Maybe it’s just that simple.

Operation Barbarossa: Merely a German Surprise Attack or Was it a Preemptive Strike?

February 8, 2025 By in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

   In the Summer of 1941, the world’s two most evil, totalitarian regimes went to war with each other when Germany launched a massive invasion into Soviet Union. Both nations were led by ruthless dictators who ruled with an iron hand while systematically murdering many millions of their own citizens, as well as many others who were unfortunate enough to reside in lands occupied by either.  We all know the story. Hitler, eager to acquire new lands or “Lebensraum,” started the war when he ordered a surprise attack on the Red Army called “Operation Barbarossa,” on June 22, 1941.  Pretty cut and dry, right? But is it true?

   In the summer of 1944, some three years after the start of Barbarossa, Adolph Hitler was asked by one of his Generals, during a walk at the German leader’s Rastenburg Headquarters, his reason for attacking the Soviet Union. His response, similar to what he had disclosed to others before, was as follows:

   “Had I not acted as I did…by the end of 1942 at the latest, we would have experienced what we (Germany) are experiencing now in 1944.”

      What did Hitler mean by that?

     As more information from the Soviet era archives is being made available, new revelations are leading honest scholars to question the causes of the German-USSR war, the deadliest in world history. Was Barbarossa really an unprovoked sneak attack à la Pearl Harbor? Or was it a preemptive strike against the Communist Soviet Union which merely beat the Reds to the punch? Some serious scholars who’ve examined the Soviet archives, are supporting the latter theory.

   Here’s what’s undisputed. As early as October of 1939, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin ordered Red Army General Gregory Zhukov to prepare a comprehensive invasion plan to be initiated against Germany. Zhukov’s plan was completed and presented to Stalin on May 15, 1941, with a proposed implementation (attack) date for the offensive, set in July of 1941. While the Soviets planned their invasion, Stalin ordered a secret mobilization which included lowering the USSR’s daft age down to 18 from previous minimum of 21 years old. Stalin also ordered the call up of millions of Red Army Reservists who began a prolonged period of training in offensive operations. Further, multiple large scale military exercises were held which simulated a broad front attack on Germany. These have been written about extensively by Russian military historian Mikhail Meltyukhov, in his book, “Stalin’s Missed Chance (2004).”

These conclusions are also supported by a former high ranking Soviet GRU Intelligence Officer named Viktor Suvorov. Suvorov’s rank and GRU position afforded him the rare privilege of being able to study Stalin’s archived war plans.  These plans, drafted by General Zhukov, revealed that the Soviet invasion of Germany was merely an “ice breaker” or springboard for the ultimate Soviet Communist invasion of the entirety of Western Europe. Suvorov would later defect to the West in 1978.

   In early 1941, Germany had only ten army Divisions posted along the Soviet Border while the Soviet Union had over 90 Red Army Divisions along their side of the same border in addition to over a 150 other Army formations and Brigades.  Yet, it was this information coupled with intelligence gathered from paid informants and spies within the USSR that lead the Germans to prepare a preemptive strike before the Soviets had their chance to attack. When the German’s launched Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941, no Soviet Citizen was more surprised than Stalin himself, who was expecting to shock the Germans with a surprise attack of his own, in the following month of July 1941. The German Blitzkrieg quickly overwhelmed and vanquished the Soviet Red Army forces along the USRR border, which were still superior in numbers to their new German enemy. Given the large build up of Red Army forces along the Soviet border with Germany, how could such a rout have happened?

   Perhaps the best answer to this question was expressed by German Army General Otto Remer, who was the recipient of Germany’s highest award for valor, the Knights Cross. General Remer, who participated in Barbarossa, stated as follows:

   “The initial successes of our forces against the Soviets were due to the fact that the Russians were not stationed in defense positions but were instead positioned right at the front for attack, which made it possible for us to quickly encircle large Soviet forces. Thus, in the first weeks of the war, we were able to capture more than three million prisoners of war as well as enormous quantities of war equipment, all of which was on the frontier, positioned for (a planned) attack.”

   General Remer’s description of the Russians not being, “stationed in defense positions,” is a somewhat charitable understatement. Far from having dug in fighting positions, construction of obstacles and positioning large swaths of land mines- the normal things armies do when in a defensive posture- the Red Army had their vehicles lined up with full tanks of fuel. Munitions were mostly loaded onto the vehicles and not in hardened munition dumps. The soldiers were literally sleeping in and next to their vehicles as if awaiting the orders to attack at any moment. When the Germans launched their assault, the Reds were caught flat footed, with their pants down.

  Yet, it was what the German soldiers found during the invasion which confirmed once and for all, what the Communist forces intentions were. As the Red Army was overrun, German soldiers began to find detailed maps of German territory. Many of these maps had identified military and strategic objectives to be taken by the Soviet forces during their planned invasion. Many of the Soviet soldiers had German language phrase books which contained questions such as, “Take me to the nearest SA headquarters building.”  Nazi SA headquarters could only be found within German territory.

   Everything the victorious German forces found pointed toward a planned Soviet attack. Despite the overwhelming evidence, virtually all of the liberal historians in the West still refuse to acknowledge the truth about the USSR’s intentions. Typical. So sadly typical.

How ironic that most of the evils of Communists past and present, are exposed by those who had to suffer under that evil system.