Archive for the ‘CONSERVATISM’ Category


November 18, 2019

Author Bertil Haggman has published extensively on Soviet espionage in the United States. Below is an unpublished article to remind about the Democratic party techniques to smear Republican presidents. It demonstrates how the Democrats hated President Richard Nixon for his revelation that Alger Hiss, the founder of the United Nations, was a Soviet agent. The memorandum mentioned will hopefully be published later:

In my personal archive I have 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.

In the election of 1946 Richard Nixon was elected to Congress. As congressman he from 1948 was a Republican member of the House Un-American Activities Committee. His lead in investigating the charges against Soviet agent Alger Hiss turned Nixon into a national figure. Hiss’ guilt was after the Cold War been confirmed.

Re-elected in 1948 Nixon in 1950 was elected senator. During the election campaign Nixon was critical of the Truman administration and also warned of the global communist threat.

Senator Nixon was chosen as General Dwight Eisenhower’s running-mate in 1952. Under Eisenhower he in 1958 made a visit to South America. There he was assaulted by radical elements. His coolness under attack then attracted international attention.

In July 1959 Nixon was sent to represent the United States at the opening of the American National Exhibition in Moscow. There he engaged the Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev in the so called “kitchen debate” which raised his stature at home.

The 2013 Nixon Year ought to a great extent to be focused on this early, successful career of President Nixon.

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
– immigration
– 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 should 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.



Alger Hiss was director of the Office of Political Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. He supervised the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, which helped create the United Nations. Later he served as secretary general of the San Francisco Conference, which drafted the United Nations Charter.

Below is a chronology of events in the Hiss case during 1947-1948.

June 2, 1947

After interrogation by two FBI agents, Hiss signs a statement describing his recollection of various alleged Communists. In his signed statement, Hiss states that he is “not acquainted with an individual by the name of Whittaker Chambers.”

August 3, 1948

Whittaker Chambers testifies before an executive session of the House Un-American Activities Committee. Chambers identifies Hiss as a member of an underground Communist group in the late 1930s.

Chambers says that he tried to convince Hiss to join in his break from the party, but that Hiss “absolutely refused.” In response, Hiss sends a telegram to Chairman Thomas saying “I do not know Mr. Chambers and, so far as I am aware, have never laid eyes on him.”

August 5, 1948

Alger Hiss appears before HUAC. He confidently denies “unqualifiedly” the charges made two days earlier by Chambers. After the hearing, Congressman Richard Nixon is appointed head of a subcommittee that
will privately question Chambers further about Hiss.

August 7, 1948

Nixon’s subcommittee questions Chambers in New York City. Chambers describes in greater detail his contacts with Hiss between 1934 and 1938. Chambers reveals that he stayed in Hiss’s home for as long as a week and was given an old Ford automobile by him in 1936. He also provides details that will later increase suspicion of Hiss, such as a morning when the Hiss’s traveled to Glen Echo to see a prothonotary warbler. At the conclusion of the hearing, Chambers says he is willing to submit to a lie detector test.

August 16, 1948

Hiss again appears before HUAC, meeting in executive session. Hiss testifies that he remembers a man, not named Whittaker Chambers or “Carl” (an underground name Chambers said he used), “who spent time in my house.” He asks the Committee to let him “see Chambers face to face and see if he can possibly be this individual” that he knew as “George Crosley” in the mid-1930s. Hiss testifies that he let Crosley have his old, nearly worthless, Ford when he bought a new automobile. Asked about his hobbies, Hiss falls into a trap when he describes his excitement in observing a prothonotary warbler.

August 17, 1948

At 2:00 A.M., Nixon leaves instructions to arrange a confrontation between Chambers and Hiss that very afternoon. Both Chambers and Hiss are instructed to appear at the Commodore Hotel in New York City. Hiss says Chambers is “probably” the man he knew as Crosley. He asks Chambers to open his mouth, remembering Crosley as having bad teeth. After some time, Hiss says he is “now perfectly prepared to identify this man as George Crosley.” Hiss is questioned aggressively, and the session ends acrimoniously.

August 24, 1948

In a one-man executive session, Nixon questions witnesses about the 1929 Ford Hiss gave to Chambers.

Evidence shows the car was transferred in 1936, not 1935 as Hiss had said.

August 25, 1948

Hiss and Chambers dramatically confront each other in a televised HUAC hearing. Hiss is questioned closely about his apartment lease to Chambers and his gift of a car.

August 27, 1948

The Baltimore News-Post publishes a story reporting that Chambers purchased a Maryland farmhouse in 1937, and that one year earlier Alger and Priscilla Hiss has signed a bill of sale to buy the same property. Nixon’s subcommittee quizzes Chambers about the farm. He describes driving out to look at the property with Hiss in the 1929 Ford. The Committee publishes an “interim report” on their probe. The report describes the testimony of Hiss as “vague and evasive.”

November 5, 1948

In a deposition taken by Hiss’s attorneys, Chambers indicates for the first time that Hiss gave him access to secret State Department documents.

November 14, 1948

Chambers pulls a large envelope out of the dumbwaiter shaft of a relative’s home. The envelope contains typed and handwritten documents (in Hiss’s hand) and developed and undeveloped film. The evidence proves Hiss saw Chambers as late as 1938 and that he engaged in espionage.

November 17, 1948

Chambers surprises Hiss’s attorney in his deposition by turning over to him a bundle of typed State Department documents from January to April, 1938. The documents are later (with one exception) determined to have been typed on a Woodstock typewriter–specifically, Woodstock #N230099 owned by the Hisses.

December 1, 1948

Nixon interviews Chambers concerning the nature of the documents given to him by Hiss. Chambers, accompanied by HUAC investigators, removes cans of undeveloped film allegedly given to him by Hiss from a hollowed-out pumpkin on his Maryland farm.

December 15, 1948

Alger Hiss testifies before a grand jury. In testimony that will later form the basis for the perjury prosecution against him, Hiss says that

1) he never gave any documents to Whittaker Chambers and

2) that he never saw or conversed with Chambers after January 1, 1937.


October 24, 2019

Washington Examiner on July 22, 2019, reported on a forthcoming book by Donald Trump Jr that will expose tricks by the left to smear political opponents. Excerpts below:

The president’s eldest son Donald Trump Jr. is releasing a book in November that denounces political correctness.

“Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us” is set to be released November 5, a year before Election Day.

The book, published by Center Street, will range over reminiscences from childhood summers in Communist Czechoslovakia that began his political thought process, to working on construction sites with his father, to the major achievements of President Trump’s administration.

Comment: Trump Jr will promote the new book at a first stop in the state of Alabama Books-A-Million on November 7, 2019 at 7:00 PM local time.


October 23, 2019

Fox News on October 22, 2019 reported that House Speaker Newt Gingrich in his new book on China vs Trump recommends strengthening the EXIM Bank. Excerpts below:

In the age of Huawei, the Belt and Road Initiative, and China’s state-sponsored companies, we need the United States Export-Import Bank more than ever.

The EXIM Bank, an independent agency, provides government-backed financing for those looking to export goods and services from the United States. Since the 1930s, it has helped grow the U.S. economy and foil unfairly aggressive foreign competitors. However, due mostly to recent politics, it hasn’t been fully functioning since 2014. This needs to change — for many reasons.

First, according to Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe, the country’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is absolutely a part of its military plans. This comes after years of the Chinese Communist Party insisting the worldwide infrastructure scheme is only focused on economics and international cooperation. Wei plainly said future Chinese military cooperation would fit “within the framework of BRI.”

This is a big deal. According to Ex-Im Bank reports, the BRI system includes about 30 percent of the world’s gross domestic product and impacts more than 66 percent of the world’s population. China’s Export-Import Bank alone has participated in more than 1,800 projects with a loan value in excess of $149 billion. If China links the economic might of the BRI with its military (the Communist Party-controlled People’s Liberation Army boasts 2 million troops) U.S. national security would be seriously threatened.

As I discuss in my upcoming book, “Trump vs China: Facing America’s Greatest Threat,” one way that the Chinese Communist Party imposes its will through the BRI is through so-called “debt-trap diplomacy.” It is a clear strategy to gain leverage and influence over countries that owe China for massive infrastructure loans.

This is how it works: China offers large loans to smaller, poorer countries in exchange for the country’s bolstering of Beijing’s strategic interests. Then, China takes control of the assets built with the money — ports, airfields, etc. — when the smaller countries can’t cover the debt.

…China uses its export credit agencies (ECAs) as a strategic arm for its “debt-trap diplomacy” — and the U.S. is not maintaining pace to counter the Chinese Communist Party’s influence. In 2018, China’s official ECAs outpaced the Ex-Im Bank by more than 100 fold (in terms of the amount of medium- to long-term credit it extended).

President Trump’s National Security Strategy rightly identifies economic security as national security. Clearly, the Chinese Communist Party is eroding U.S. economic influence abroad. The Ex-Im is one of our best tools to prevent this and keep America strong.

Congress should reauthorize the Ex-Im bank, so we can compete against the Chinese Communist Party’s economic strategy of world domination.

Without EXIM, there is no practical, clear way to compete against the ever-expanding Chinese economic-military machine. If we do nothing, the Chinese Communist Party’s power will grow, our economic and national security interests will diminish, and our very way of life could be consumed by a totalitarian system.

This is not an acceptable outcome if the U.S. wish to remain the strongest, freest, most prosperous country on the planet.


October 22, 2019

Fox News on October 21, 2019, published an article by Speaker Newt Gingrich on his new book ”Trump vs. China” (available in Sweden from Bokus at 229 SEK). Excerpts below:

For many decades, Americans thought communist-ruled China would evolve into a free and open system similar to our own. We were completely wrong.

In truth, Xi Jinping became the general secretary of the People’s Republic of China and chairman of the Central Military Commission in November 2012. He became the president of the People’s Republic of China in March 2013.

During Xi’s tenure, there has been a significant increase in censorship and mass surveillance, a significant deterioration in human rights, and the removal of term limits for the Chinese presidency.

The massive prison camps for Uighur Muslims and other non-Han Chinese minorities in the northwestern region of Xinjiang were also instituted under Xi…more than 1 million people have been detained in these state-created “re-education camps” in China – yet the world still regards Xi as a legitimate world leader.

China under Xi is also developing an ultra-high-tech police state, wherein powerful cameras and facial recognition artificial intelligence [is used]…

If the United States does not wake up and realize that communist-ruled China is not a friendly neighbor – it may be too late to stop the most powerful totalitarian regime of our time.

Comment: The process of decoupling American and Chinese economies has already started. One can only hope that a trading organization like the European Union will discover the risks of trading with China.


October 21, 2019

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is warning about the extraordinarily high stakes associated with the 5G competition. Below excerpts from a report he sent to Members of Congress on May 6, 2019:


From Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich May 6, 2019.


The selection and allocation of specific bands of spectrum is the key to American victory in the race to 5G wireless capability. The United States is losing the 5G competition to China because we are allocating the wrong spectrum and using the wrong model.

1) Coordinating and implementing an aggressive 5G strategy capable of overmatching the Chinese-Huawei effort will require a strong, clear Presidential Executive Order to bring all of government into one operational plan.

2) The specific bands of spectrum being allocated in the United States are critical to American success in the 5G competition. The U.S. Government’s decision of which bands to allocate will determine whether America can produce alternatives to Chinese equipment to sell around the world and whether the networks that U.S. carriers are building domestically have any long-term value.

3) The spectrum currently being made available in the United States is not the same as the spectrum that other countries are making available. This will leave the United States technologically isolated. Since American networks will be built with different equipment than the rest of the world will use and need to buy, other countries may be forced to install Chinese equipment by default as a result of the economies of scale.

4) The spectrum being made available in the United States (millimeter wavelength) covers only short distances, and thus is poorly suited to cover rural America. This means huge swaths of the country will never get 5G coverage and will lose major opportunities as a consequence of the government’s poor choice of spectrum allocation.

5) The spectrum that other countries are making available, sub-6 GHz, is owned in the United States by the Department of Defense (DoD). If made available, this spectrum will cover large distances and will result in the production 2 of equipment capable of competing with Chinese alternatives. The DoD could easily make this spectrum available and solve all of the above problems.

6) The proposed policy is for the DoD to make this spectrum available to the private sector – not for the government – to build a network or spend money on implementation. There are two primary bands in question that are controlled by the DoD – the 3.1-3.55 GHz band and the 4.4-4.9 GHz band. The Department of Commerce is investigating what the 3.1-3.55 band is being used for but has only studied a minimal amount of the band. The 3.1-3.55 band in particular is a good candidate for being made available for commercial use.

7) The first key step is for an immediate request for information (RFI) from interested parties so the available range of options and participants can be brought to light and evaluated. This should be followed rapidly by a request for proposals (RFP) once the information and options have been assessed.

On Friday, May 3, the National Spectrum Consortium issued a “Call for Technical Concepts” relating to, among other things, “Dynamic Spectrum Sharing” in the 5G context. This could prove to be an extremely important development.

The Consortium was originally established by the DoD to “incubate new technologies to revolutionize the way in which spectrum is utilized,” so this CTC, which is equivalent to an RFI, is very timely. If the Consortium receives suitable responses and moves quickly toward a procurement following the CTC, it could provide the vehicle the Executive Branch needs to share the DoD’s sub-6GHz spectrum with a private 5G rollout nationally in the short term.


October 17, 2019

On June 5, 2019, Senator Marco Rubio published a press release on the introduction of the Ensuring Quality Information and Transparency for Abroad-Based Listings on our Exchanges (EQUITABLE) Act, which would increase oversight of Chinese and other foreign companies listed on American exchanges and delist firms that are out of compliance with U.S. regulators for a period of three years. Excerpts below:

The legislation will force the Chinese government, which currently blocks U.S. regulators from viewing the full audit reports of publicly traded companies headquartered in Hong Kong and mainland China, to change behavior. The EQUITABLE Act will better inform investors about their exposure to financial risks, delist non-compliant issuers of securities, and ban Chinese and other foreign firms that flaunt investor protections and regulatory norms from entering U.S. capital markets.

“Beijing should no longer be allowed to shield U.S.-listed Chinese companies from complying with American laws and regulations for financial transparency and accountability,” Rubio said.

“If China-based companies want to list on stock exchanges or access capital markets in the U.S., we should make them comply with American laws. The EQUITABLE Act makes it clear that there is a price for the Chinese government and Communist Party’s disregard for the rules of responsible economic and financial engagement in international capital markets.”


• In December 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) issued a joint warning to investors about the challenges American regulators face when attempting to conduct oversight of U.S.-listed companies whose operations are based in China and Hong Kong.

• While the PCAOB regularly inspects audits of U.S.-listed firms at home and abroad, Beijing consistently and systemically challenges those efforts. For example, Chinese law requires that records remain in China, and the Communist Party routinely restricts access to typical accounting information on the grounds of national security and state secrecy.

• The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission identified 156 Chinese companies, including 11 state-owned-enterprises, that are listed on America’s three largest exchanges with a combined market capitalization of $1.2 trillion.

. In March 2018, the influential global index provider MSCI announced that it would quadruple its weighting of Chinese company shares in one of its key index products.

Comment: It is of great strategic importance that China is prevented from emerging as a technology superpower. The decoupling of U.S. and China economies has started in 2018 and the Equitable Act would be a contribution to this important trend


October 17, 2019

So called progressive consensus has deprived America of peace since World War II. There has mostly been only stalemate, defeat, waste, and more war. The so called progressives facilitated Mao’s victory in China 1949. 70 years later (in 2019) the communist regime is challenging the United States as world hegemon and North Korea is developing nuclear weapons.

Stalin and Mao supported North Korea in starting the Korean War in 1950. Most Americans, perhaps all, believed that the United States should win the war by liberating all of Korea not only South Korea.

Politically the Democrats argued that it was in America’s interest to avoid a wider war. That was more important than winning in Korea. The United States had several trump cards during the war. It could threaten that Chinese nationalist forces on Taiwan could start a second front against Mao’s communist forces. It also had atomic weapons, which China did not have. The Democrat so called progressive Secretary of State Dean Acheson and Joint Chief of Staff’s General Omar Bradley persuaded President Harry Truman to stop victory in Korea.

General Douglas MacArthur warned that a no-win strategy in Korea could result in Taiwan being controlled by an unfriendly power. This would also be a threat to American security as an ”unsinkable aircraft carrier and submarine tender.”

Thanks to the Inchon Landing of MacArthur in September 1950 nothing stood in the way of American vivtory in the war. Then came the Chinese invasion after UN forces in October were nearing the Yalu River. Mao intended to win the war in Korea with own troops and those of North Korea. Now Truman introduced no-win war rules for UN troops. He limited the use of overwhelming American air power. If that had not been the case it could have been used to isolate the battlefield, starve, decimate and disarm opponents. Most importantly American pilots were not allowed to bomb bridges over Yalu. The result was that American troops were unable to halt the Chinese invasion.

MacArthur called for orders but none were forthcoming. There was only a directive that the general was to stay in place with his forces and existing restrictions remained. Three fourth of the American killed in Korea died after

Truman stopped trying to win the war.

Truman’s no-win policy in fact told the world that this was American post-World War II strategy. The result was decades of no-win wars like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Democrats lost the November 1950 elections. When a letter by MacArthur to a Republican member of Congress went public he was fired by Truman. The letter contained his views on opening a Chinese nationalist second front against Mao’s China.

General MacArthur can be said to have left two important warnings to America:

1. In war, there is no substitute for victory.

2. History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to
moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster.


October 14, 2019

Fox News on October 11, 2019, reported that Ted Cruz on October 10 commended Taiwan’s stand against Chinese communism during a visit to the Republic of China. Excerpts below:

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, commended Taiwan’s stand against “Chinese communist oppression,” in a video tweeted on October 10, as multiple controversies have swirled around U.S. companies allegedly acquiescing to China’s restrictive speech rules.

Standing in Taiwan’s “Liberty Square,” Cruz congratulated the Taiwanese people on their national day, known as “Double 10”, and extolled the relationship between the United States and Taiwan. Cruz has been traveling in Asia this week; he visited Japan on October 9.

“I’m here in Taiwan in Chaing Kai-shek square, also known as Liberty Square, celebrating the people of Taiwan who stand up against Chinese communist oppression and stand up for freedom,” he said. “America is proud to be allies with the people of Taiwan.

Recent pro-democracy protests rebelling against Beijing’s perceived interference in Hong Kong’s independence have gained attention around the world.

Comment: American support for Taiwan is especially important in 2019 when Mainland China is increasingly flexing its muscles claiming to be a successor to the United States as world hegemon.

In her National Day speech on ”Double 10” Taiwan’s president Tsai Ing-wen delivered a rebuke to China’s offer of a “one country, two systems” formula to unify the self-governing island with the mainland. She said said that such a framework has taken Hong Kong to “the brink of disorder.”

The president’s comments came amid a renewed push by China to internationally isolate Taiwan by poaching its few remaining diplomatic allies.


October 9, 2019

Fox News on October 8, 2019 reported that the White House had in an eight-page letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and top Democrats outlined why it will not participate in their ”illegitimate and unconsitutional” impeachment inquiry. Excerpts below:

The White House outlined in a defiant eight-page letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and top Democrats on on October 8, 2019, why it will not participate in their “illegitimate and unconstitutional” impeachment inquiry, charging that the proceedings have run roughshod over congressional norms and the president’s due-process rights.

Trump administration officials called the letter, which was written by White House counsel Pat Cipollone…perhaps the most historic letter the White House has sent.

“President Trump and his administration reject your baseless, unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process,” the letter stated. “Your unprecedented actions have left the president with no choice. In order to fulfill his duties to the American people, the Constitution, the Executive Branch, and all future occupants of the Office of the Presidency, President Trump and his administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances.”

The document concluded: “The president has a country to lead. The American people elected him to do this job, and he remains focused on fulfilling his promises to the American people.”

Substantively, the White House first noted in its letter that there has not been a formal vote in the House to open an impeachment inquiry — and that the news conference held by Pelosi last month was insufficient to commence the proceedings.

“In the history of our nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the president without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step,” the letter stated.

It continued: “Without waiting to see what was actually said on the call, a press conference was held announcing an ‘impeachment inquiry’ based on falsehoods and misinformation about the call.”

White House officials told Fox News the vote opening the proceedings was a small ask, considering the implications of potentially overturning a national election.

The letter went on to note that “information has recently come to light that the whistleblower” who first flagged Trump’s call with Ukraine’s president “had contact with [House Intelligence Committee] Chairman [Adam] Schiff’s office before filing the complaint.”

Multiple reports surfaced this week that the whistleblower had a prior “professional relationship” with one of the 2020 Democratic candidates for president.

The letter added: “In any event, the American people understand that Chairman Schiff cannot covertly assist with the submission of a complaint, mislead the public about his involvement, read a counterfeit version of the call to the American people, and then pretend to sit in judgment as a neutral ‘investigator.'”

“Perhaps the best evidence that there was no wrongdoing on the call is the fact that, after the actual record of the call was released, Chairman Schiff chose to concoct a false version of the call and to read his made-up transcript to the American people at a public hearing,” the letter stated. “The chairman’s action only further undermines the public’s confidence in the fairness of any inquiry before his committee.”

Ukraine’s president has said he felt Trump did nothing improper in their July call, and DOJ lawyers who reviewed the call said they found no laws had been broken.

Separately, the letter asserted multiple alleged violations of the president’s due-process rights. It noted that under current impeachment inquiry proceedings, Democrats were not allowing presidential or State Department counsel to be present.

Democrats’ procedures did not provide for the “disclosure of all evidence favorable to the president and all evidence bearing on the credibility of witnesses called to testify in the inquiry,” the letter noted, nor did the procedures afford the president “the right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to have counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, to make objections relating to the examination of witnesses or the admissibility of testimony and evidence, and to respond to evidence and testimony.”

Democrats also have not permitted Republicans in the minority to issue subpoenas, contradicting the “standard, bipartisan practice in all recent resolutions authorizing presidential impeachment inquiries.”

The letter claimed that House committees have “resorted to threats and intimidation against potential Executive Branch witnesses,” by raising the specter of obstruction of justice when administration employees seek to assert “long-established Executive Branch confidentiality interests and privileges in response to a request for a deposition.”

“Current and former State Department officials are duty bound to protect the confidentiality interests of the Executive Branch, and the Office of Legal Counsel has also recognized that it is unconstitutional to exclude agency counsel from participating in congressional depositions,” the letter stated.

Additionally, the letter noted that Democrats reportedly were planning to interview the whistleblower at the center of the impeachment inquiry at an undisclosed location — contrary, the White House said, to the constitutional notion of being able to confront one’s accuser.

According to a White House official, the bottom line was: “We are not participating in your illegitimate exercise. … If you are legitimately conducting oversight, let us know. But all indications are this is about impeachment.”

The document came as the White House aggressively has parried Democrats’ inquiry efforts. One of the administration’s first moves: the State Department on October 8, 2019, barred Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, from appearing before a House panel conducting the probe into Trump.

“What they did to this country is unthinkable. It’s lucky that I’m the president. A lot of people said very few people could handle it. I sort of thrive on it,” Trump said on October 7, 2019 at the White House. “You can’t impeach a president for doing a great job. This is a scam.”

The House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees were investigating Trump’s actions alleging he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden and his son, potentially interfering in the 2020 election.

Biden has acknowledged on camera that in spring 2016, when he was vice president and spearheading the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire top prosecutor Viktor Shokin. At the time,

Shokin was investigating Burisma Holdings — where Hunter had a lucrative role on the board despite limited relevant expertise. Critics have suggested Hunter Biden’s salary bought access to Biden.

The vice president threatened to withhold $1 billion in critical U.S. aid if Shokin, who was widely accused of corruption, was not fired.

“Well, son of a b—h, he got fired,” Biden joked at a panel two years after leaving office.


October 4, 2019

Fox News on October 4, 2019, reported on Republican demands that the ongoing impeachment inquiry be suspended. Excerpts below:

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., sent a letter on October 3, 2019, to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., calling on her to suspend the impeachment inquiry into President Trump until “equitable rules and procedures” are set up.

Coming amid concerns by GOP lawmakers that they will be sidelined or shut out of the impeachment inquiry into Trump, McCarthy criticized Pelosi for the “swiftness and recklessness” which House committee chairs have proceeded with the impeachment inquiry and pleaded with the House speaker to ensure Republican participation in the proceedings.

“Unfortunately, you have given no clear indication as to how your impeachment inquiry will proceed – including whether key historical precedents or basic standards of due process will be observed,” McCarthy said in his letter. “In addition, the swiftness and recklessness with which you have proceeded has already resulted in committee chairs attempting to limit minority participation in scheduled interviews, calling into question the integrity of such an inquiry.”

McCarthy’s complaint about limiting Republican participation is a reference to reports that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was limiting Republicans’ ability to ask questions during testimony on October 3 by former U.S. envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker.

…McCarthy [in his letter] asked a number of questions, including whether Pelosi plans to hold a full House vote on authorizing the impeachment inquiry, whether she plans to grant subpoena powers to both the committee chairs and the ranking members, and whether she’ll allow Trump’s lawyers to attend the hearings.

The House minority leader’s letter earned him the praise of President Trump, who also took the opportunity to slam the Democrats who opened the impeachment inquiry into him.

McCarthy’s questions come a day after the leading Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Michael McCaul, said in a letter to Chairman Eliot L. Engel, D-N.Y., that despite statements made by Pelosi and other Democrats, “there is not a ‘House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry” because the entire House has not voted on the matter.

Citing House Rules X and XI, McCaul said that until Congress members from both parties vote to create a special impeachment task force to carry out proceedings, “Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff lacks the jurisdiction to investigate the Department of State’s conduct of United States foreign policy toward Ukraine. That prerogative belongs to our Members.”

“Official impeachment inquiries are initiated by the adoption of a House resolution empowering or creating a committee or task force to undertake such activities,” McCaul continued. “In both the Nixon and Clinton cases, the Judiciary Committee debated and reported a resolution authorizing the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether there were sufficient grounds to impeach the President, which was then debated and voted on by the full House of Representatives. There have been no such debates or votes in this Congress.”