 |
 |
||
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Venona: What My Father Didn’t Know My Father was a subscriber to I.F. Stone’s famed newsletter in the 1950s and 60s. Stone was a highly regarded "independent" journalist and his newsletter was always exposing things about Sen. Joseph McCarthy and others who warned against Communist spies and agents of influence. The problem was that I.F. Stone was a Soviet agent of influence, financed by the Kremlin. My Father didn’t know that and probably wouldn’t have believed it.
The fact is Joe McCarthy was right, but by now his name has been turned into a dirty word by the same liberal, leftist propaganda machine that today is trying to convince Americans the President "lied" to them about Iraq. They had to wait until after J. Edgar Hoover was dead before they dared to slander his reputation. How do we know this? The answer is "Venona", the name given to a secret program to break Soviet codes and read intercepted communications between Moscow and its intelligence stations in the West. The program began in February 1943 by the US Army’s Signal Intelligence Service, the forerunner of the National Security Agency. The cables that a small cadre of very young deciphers worked on were initially dispatched between 1940 and 1948, but the effort continued apace from 1947 through 1952, and continued to crack the cable codes right up to 1980. By the end of Venona, 2,900 Soviet messages had been translated and the yield in intelligence regarding the way the Communist Party USA, directed entirely by the Kremlin, sought to uncover our secrets and to influence government policies is breathtakingly astonishing. In 1995, Venona was declassified We can be grateful to Herbert Romerstein and the late Eric Breindel for making the huge effort to tell the story of this extraordinary cipher-breaking program in their book, "The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors" (Regnery Publishing, $19.95, softcover, 608 pages). This book, in part, documents the revelations in Ann Coulter’s current bestseller, "Treason." It is based both on the declassified Venona information and on the archives of the Communist International that were kept in Moscow, as well as the files of other Communist parties in Eastern and Central Europe. They became available to researchers after the fall of the Soviet Union. So why don’t more Americans know about the Venona project? Ask that question of the liberal mainstream press that, to this day, still slanders the reputation of those brave men who dared to suggest that the Communist Party USA was a threat to this nation and that "McCarthyism" is still the real threat. The truth is, ignoring your real enemies---as we learned on 9-11---is the real threat. Venona revealed that US policies were influenced or thwarted because of Americans who were Soviet agents and served high up in our government or were in positions to secure essential wartime information and information that affected our nation’s policies during the course of the Cold War. They were quite different from spies who sold out the US for money; they were the true believers in Communism. Frankly, I doubt my Father fully comprehended the threat of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. I was sure, however, that he bought into every Leftist lie of his day because his day began with The New York Times and included reading The New Republic and even Foreign Affairs, the quarterly of the Council on Foreign Relations. His was a steady diet of propaganda designed to make the dictatorship of the proletariat look like a noble aspiration, a great goal, instead of the enslavement it represented for millions behind the Iron Curtain or subject to it in Red China, North Korea and Cuba.
You also saw the remnants of the former Soviet Union during the brief spate of "peace marches" to protest the invasion of Iraq. Those who organized them are the inheritors of the Communist Party USA’s mission. Hollywood won’t tell you that. Instead, you can rent "The Majestic" starring Jim Carrey that includes scenes of a film writer being ruined by the "Red scare" of the 50s. The members of the "Progressive Caucus" in Congress won’t tell you that, but they are as Red as they come. The New York Times won’t tell you that, but that newspaper’s long history of lies is now becoming more widely known. "The Venona Secrets", however, spells it out and documents it. My father died in 1993. Venona was declassified two years later. He was a good man, an intelligent, well-read man, but he was wrong about a lot of things. He didn’t grasp what vast numbers of ordinary, working Americans instinctively understood. The threat was and the threat still is Communism. And now, add to that enemy, the new one, Islam. Not surprisingly, both use terrorism as their primary tool of conquest. The National Anxiety Center needs your support to provide our weekly commentaries. You can be part of our team when you donate to the Center. For a donation of $25.00 or more, I will send you an autographed copy of my book, "Warning Signs", with the best commentaries from 2000 to 2002. Or, if you prefer, send a check to The Caruba Organization, 9 Brookside Road, Maplewood, NJ 07040. Thank You! I have never been keen on singling out a particular group to be ostracized because of something over which they have no control. Racism fits this description. You’re white or you’re black, yellow or brown. You’re Hispanic or you’re Latino, Chicano, whatever. And, of course, there’s the old reliable bias against Jews. Catholics catch a bit of this and just about any church-going Protestant. It is equally idiotic to lump all women or men into a single category. So I approach the issue of sexual preference with some trepidation because, throughout history, homosexuals have always been regarded as an aberration and, more specifically, a threat to civil and social norms. With considerable bravery and skill, homosexuals in America have fought to secure an equal footing under the law. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…" It does not, however, refer to sexual orientation. In recent days, the Supreme Court extended homosexuals the right to be free of a law in Texas that defined their sexual behavior as a crime. This decriminalization of that State’s and all other’s laws seems to me correct. The most private and personal thing anyone engages in pertains to one’s sex life. I think, too, that extrapolating this decision to include pederasty or bestiality is mistaken, as these are clearly either a threat to children or a perversion of Nature. Such laws remain intact for these reasons. And should. What we have all witnessed, however, is a growing body of "entertainment" in which homosexuals have been offered to the public as a "normal", i.e. a variation of heterosexuality, component of society. Shows like "Will & Grace" and the plethora of new shows featuring homosexuals now fill the airwaves. Clearly a greater tolerance has resulted from such programs. The acceptance, indeed, teaching about homosexuality in our nation’s schools, has become widespread. A recent proposal for an all-homosexual school in New York City, however, shows what happens when "acceptance" is used to secure a privileged status. Not only is this an idiotic idea, it is comparable to the segregation of blacks that was struck down by an earlier Supreme Court or the assertion that girls must be educated separately from boys. The result, however, has been a notable backlash of public opinion. A recent poll taken by USA Today showed that, whereas 60% of adults previously thought homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal, only 48% concur with that now. The opposition to homosexual "marriages" had risen to 57%, the most since this was first polled in 2000. What I suggest is that there are limits that any society must put on the "mainstreaming" of homosexuality. Marriage is the core of all societies and is universally recognized as a union between a man and a woman. This is as Nature dictates. Despite the argument put forth by homosexuals that their sexuality is "normal" ignores the obvious. It is not. To deny such couples the "right" to marriage is correct. Just because two people share homosexual relations does not accord them the "right" to attack society’s most fundamental relationship. Criticizing "right-wing, Christian fundamentalists" or any other religious group for their opposition is a diversion from the simple, obvious truth that marriage exists for the maintenance of society. Indeed, this is neither a Republican, nor Democrat issue. It is, however, a liberal versus conservative one in the sense that conserving society’s values and rules are necessary to protect it against the anarchy that exists where the time-tested, long established rules cease to exist. Homosexuals, of course, do not see it in this manner. They argue that their sexual preference is "natural" to them and poses no threat to society in general. My view is that homosexuals are "wired" for their sexual preference and, most likely, are homosexual from birth. That does not, however, render it "natural." Sex is the means by which Nature insures the continuation of a given species. Homosexuals do not engage in sex for that purpose, nor can they procreate. This is not a question of their "choice." Heterosexuals understand this instinctively, even if homosexuals protest their "right" to marry. Unspoken, too, is the wider threat to society posed by AIDS, a disease that occurred first among homosexuals, remains primarily within the homosexual element of society, and since spread to the heterosexual population. In Africa, it represents a major health threat to millions throughout that continent. It has spread widely in Asia as well. Society, predominantly heterosexual, has not only a right to protect and preserve itself, but the duty. This does not mean persecution of homosexuals, but it does mean that it is absolutely necessary to define and set limitations on the assertion of homosexual "rights." Primarily among which is marriage and, thereafter, questions regarding the issues such as adoption. Among the many ways a society can be set on the path to decline is the failure to protect the concept of family. The Fourteenth Amendment was later amended by the Fifteenth that stated "The rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It does not specify sex. The Nineteenth Amendment addresses the right of women to vote. Nothing in the Constitution grants homosexuals the right to marry, nor should it be interpreted as such. I do not see any great conspiracy among homosexuals to rewrite the Constitution or even to undermine society, but, in effect, that is what is occurring by their demand to be extended rights based solely on their sexual preference, one that clashes with the stability, preservation, protection and continuation of a civil society based on the common sense understanding that marriage and family is fundamental. I do see a vast propaganda campaign, particularly coming out of Hollywood, and aided and abetted by the mainstream news media, to grant homosexuals both social and legal acceptance and rights that run counter to the general well-being of society. Newspapers such as The New York Times and the Washington Post routinely run photos of gay couples who have asserted they are "married." This is corrodes the established concept of marriage between a man and a woman. And it is deliberate. Therein lies the problem and therein lies the reason to reject the many politicians who today who are "playing the Gay card" in exchange for votes. If that were the only reason to vote against them, it would be a good and valid one.
©
2003 Alan Caruba. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
He wouldn’t have believed that Alger Hiss, a highly placed State Department officer and the first, interim Secretary General of the United Nations, was also a Soviet agent or that Harry Hopkins, one of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s top advisors, was also an agent. He probably believed the Rosenbergs who helped the Soviets get our A-bomb secrets weren’t guilty, but they were. J. Robert Oppenheimer who directed the Manhattan Project that developed the A-bomb gave aid and assistance to the Soviet Union, but he was so revered after the end of the war the government merely took away his security clearance. 
You shall know the truth and it shall set you free. The truth is, in the 1940s andthe decades that followed, the State Department, the US Treasury, the CIO until it expelled some of its unions, and even the US Army, was thoroughly infiltrated by Americans whose loyalty was to the Soviet Union, a nation bent on the destruction of capitalism and the democracy upon which it was based. Ironically, you can thank the Soviet Union for Social Security and for the failure of our present educational system. Both were implemented by Leftists, the latter being based on the former Soviet model.