← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Avalanche

Thread 8934

Thread ID: 8934 | Posts: 6 | Started: 2003-08-10

Wayback Archive

Avalanche [OP]

2003-08-10 15:54 | User Profile

Sadly, Neo and I have concluded that Ann Coulter is the latest enticement to the destuction of the conservative side of America. Her oddly unbalanced (I'll explain in a sec) new book feeds and leads a conservative to shout "yeah! right!" and once she's got the congregation up and shouting, she turns them to a purpose NOT expected!

Her book starts out with a solid and well-written explication of the whole McCarthyism thing -- surprisingly light on the sarcasm and nastiness and hyperbole -- she DOES credit > [M. Stanton Evan, the world's leading historical authority on Senator Joseph McCarthy, who gave me -- gratis -- original research for my brief version of a topic he will cover in meticulous detail in his forthcoming book.

so perhaps we can credit him also, with the well-written and well-done first half of her book!

However, once she's done with clearing McCarthy, she 'returns' to her usual strident and emotional (but generally correct) indictment of liberals -- it's good, but too emotional and not entirely well-reasoned. Then, the final snake in the grass, and why I STRONGLY recommend y'all get it at the library (because the first half is emminently worth reading), and NOT buy the book (and put ever-more money into her pockets) -- in her final chapter she sinks into paens of praise and groveling towards...

[color=red]ISRAEL AND THE JEWS!!!! [/color]

It's like she FORGOT she just wrote an indictment of their spying and destruction of this country, and had to "clear" them of wrongdoing, and reinstall them as a light unto the nations. (Or cover her own @ss! <_< )

Anywhere, herebelow is a part of a chapter to entice y'all into looking into at least the first half of her book. (I'm sure some of you know huge amounts of this, and some -- myself included -- had only the vaguest picture of what-all went on.)

Avalanche

2003-08-10 15:56 | User Profile

Chapter 2 Alger Hiss, Liberal Darling

In what would turn out to be one of the most significant events of the twentieth century, in 1938, Whittaker Chambers broke with the Communist Party. The political battle lines were drawn over Chambers and they have never been redrawn. His story would become the story of the nation. Years later. Chambers would write of his fear that the Communist Party would murder him, as it had murdered so many other apostates, saying, “They must sometimes have thought bitterly since about their failure to do so.”1

Chambers had planned his break for months. In addition to the practical concern of avoiding a “suicide,” leaving the Communist Party was more than “leaving one house and occupying another.”2 He was “reversing the faith of an adult lifetime, held implacably to the point of criminality.”3 When he took up the cause of the free world against the Communists, he said he had moved to a house “manifestly in collapse and the caretakers largely witless.”4 But he had no choice. Agonizingly, he had come to the realization that he had been working on the side of evil -- for terror, torture, fascism, and death. A fellow ex-Communist, Walter Krivitsky, would force him to state the painful truth out loud: The Soviet government was a fascist government and it had been from the beginning.

Krivitsky was the first to tell Chambers of Stalin’s feverish efforts to align with Hitler in 1939. The proposed alliance. Chambers said, was “thoroughly justified” as Communist strategy, but from “any human point of view, the pact was evil.”5 As Chambers imagined the coming conflict, he rued that conservatives would be “all but helpless.” He said the fate of the free world could only be decided in a struggle between the Communists and the ex-Communists, for “no other has been so deeply into the total nature of the evil with which communism threatens mankind.”6 After meeting with Krivitsky, Chambers said, “I knew that, if the opportunity offered, I would inform.”7 Soon thereafter, the Hitler-Stalin Pact was signed. Days later, as Hitler’s armies marched into Poland, Chambers was on a plane from New York to Washington, D.C.

A friend of Chambers had arranged a private audience with President Roosevelt’s assistant secretary of state, Adolf Berle. After dinner at Berle’s home. Chambers spent several hours detailing the Communist espionage network of which he had been a part. He gave Berle the names of at least two dozen Soviet spies working for the Roosevelt administration. Among them was Alger Hiss, a top State Department official, as well as his brother Donald Hiss. Berle urgently reported to President Roosevelt what Chambers had said, including the warning about Alger Hiss. The president laughed and told Berle to go f––  himself.8 No action was ever taken against Hiss. To the contrary, Roosevelt promoted Hiss to the position of trusted aide who would go on to advise him at Yalta. Chambers’s shocking and detailed reckoning of Soviet agents in high government positions eventually made its way to William C. Bullitt, former ambassador to Russia and confidant of the president. Alarmed, Bullitt brought the news to Roosevelt’s attention. He, too, was laughed off.9

Berle also told Dean Acheson, then Roosevelt’s undersecretary of the Treasury, what Chambers had said about the Hiss brothers. As Berle described the meeting, Acheson “said he had known the family and these two boys since childhood and could vouch for them absolutely.”10 When Acheson later became assistant secretary of state, he immediately requested Donald Hiss as his assistant. Berle again stepped in to remind Acheson that Chambers had identified Donald Hiss as a Soviet agent. Acheson investigated the matter much as Democrats investigated Paula Jones’s claims against Bill Clinton. He asked Hiss if he was a Communist, Hiss denied it, and Acheson sum marily announced that “the matter was closed.” The Democrats’ nonchalance about Soviet agents on their staffs was scandalous. It would be as if President Bush were promoting Islamic terrorists after being informed they were members of al-Qaeda.

Years later, Berle would soft-pedal the Democrats’ promotion of two traitors with an inane straw-man argument: “The idea that these two Hiss boys . . . were going to take over the United States government did not strike me as any immediate danger.” It was also not an “immediate danger” that al-Qaeda was going to “take over the United States’ government.” It still might not be wise for the U.S. government to employ them. As even Berle admitted, “We were all trying not to tell anything that ought not be told, and there were pretty consistent leaks whenever

anything went through [Alger Hiss’s] office.”12

In 1948, almost a full decade later, when he was working at Time. Chambers was called to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee, more famously known as HUAC. Chambers again named Hiss as a Soviet agent. HUAC showed somewhat more heightened interest in this fact than had the Democratic administration of Franklin Roosevelt. Here at last. Chambers said, was “a force that was fiercely, albeit clumsily, fighting Communism.”13 Rumors had long dogged Hiss, but as Chambers said, “for the first time, a man had stood up and said, ‘I was there, I knew them. The rumors are facts.’ “14

Hiss soon took his turn before the committee and categorically denied Chambers’s accusations. With a Clintonian lie, he said he did not even know a man “named Whittaker Chambers.” Chambers, it seems, had gone by another name in the Communist underground. Still, Hiss and Chambers had made sworn statements diametrically opposed to each other: Chambers said he knew Hiss and knew him to be a Soviet spy; Hiss said he didn’t know Chambers at all. One of them was lying.

At the risk of giving away the ending, it has now been proved beyond cavil that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy. For all but the willfully stupid. Chambers would soon produce the definitive evidence from a hollowed-out pumpkin: the famous “Pumpkin Papers.” Any remaining Hiss defenders would be confronted by the implacable truth in secret Soviet cables released some fifty years later.

The gist of Hiss’s rebuttal is captured by this statement he made at one HUAC hearing: “May I interrupt at this point, because I take it this will take more than 10 or 15 minutes. Would it be possible for one of the members of the committee to call the Harvard Club and leave word that I won’t be there for a 6 o’clock appointment?” As Chambers described it. Hiss’s defense was to draw “the toga of his official career about him.” Hiss was a Harvard man and he wouldn’t let anyone forget it.

Avalanche

2003-08-10 15:59 | User Profile

Springing naturally to their traitorous positions, the adversary press vilified HUAC for persecuting the charming State Department official. Hiss’s performance was universally acclaimed as a smashing success. Chambers was portrayed as a “vulgar impostor” who had snowed the “gullible” committee. He was a rumpled journalist at Time, without social pedigree. Also he had bad teeth — a point that was endlessly cited in press accounts. The press contemptuously referred to members of HUAC as “the least intelligent in Congress,” “uncouth, undignified and ungrammatical.”15 There were titters about a “Red Scare” sweeping Congress.

The angry vituperation in the press. Chambers said, had driven the committee “into a state bordering on anxiety neurosis.”16 Hiss’s performance would fail for only one reason — the reason “that is never foreseen,” as Chambers said. There was one man on the committee with “an inner ear for the ring of truth” — Richard Nixon.17 Without the admiration, the New York Times concurred, writing in Nixon’s obituary:

    “Because of Mr. Hiss’s excellent credentials and Government record, the matter might have been dropped had Mr. Nixon not doggedly pursued it as head of a special  subcommittee.”18 Nixon, then a young congressman from California, refused to allow the  committee to drop the matter. For not being snowed by Hiss’s Harvard law degree like the lemming press, Nixon would be forever branded as resentful toward the Ivy League.

Thanks to Nixon’s perseverance, HUAC’s investigation continued. Follow-up hearings were held in closed session, out of sight of the press. To prove he knew Hiss, Chambers told the committee all he knew about Hiss — his habits, hobbies, and physical ailments. During one such hearing. Chambers remarked that Hiss and his wife were avid bird-watchers and had once expressed excitement at spotting a rare specimen, a prothonotary warbler. When Hiss later appeared before HUAC, an amateur ornithologist on the committee maneuvered Hiss to the topic of his bird watching. Without prompting. Hiss gushed about his exhilaration at having once seen a prothonotary warbler. The committee was convinced: Chambers knew Hiss.

With cinematic timing, between the two hearings at which Hiss would damn himself by mentioning the bird, the president of the United States denounced the investigation into Hiss as a “red herring.”19 President Truman called the Hiss investigation a cheap political ploy by “do-nothing” Republicans to distract from their own sorry legislative record. Campaigning for president that year, President Truman summarized HUAC’s investigation as if the entire case came down to the resumes of the two men: “If you work for Time, you’re a hero. If you work for the State Department, you’re a heel.”20 Democratic National Committee Chairman J. Howard McGrath attacked HUAC, saying it had “no future” if it “continue[d] to act as it had in the past.”21 Indeed, the entire Social Register of the liberal establishment backed the patrician. Harvard-educated Soviet spy. Felix Frankfurter and Adiai Stevenson offered to be character witnesses for Hiss. Eleanor Roosevelt said she believed Hiss. Truman’s Justice Department asked the FBI to determine whether Chambers had ever been institutionalized for mental illness and began investigating Chambers for perjury.22 On one hand, a Soviet spy might have been turning over vital government secrets to the nation’s mortal enemy. But on the other hand, a Harvard man was having his reputation besmirched.

HUAC’s investigation could no longer be held behind closed doors. When Chambers pleaded with Nixon to continue holding hearings away from public view, Nixon warned Chambers: “The Department of Justice is all set to move in on you in order to save Hiss. They are planning to indict you at once. The only way to head them off is to let the public judge for itself which one of you is telling the truth. That is your only chance.”23 As Nixon said, “If the American people understood the real character of Alger Hiss, they would boil him in oil.”

Nixon was right. The public saw and believed Chambers. Despite the press’s relentless attacks on HUAC, in September 1948 — one month after Truman had scoffed at the Hiss probe as a “red herring” —  a Galiup poll showed four out of five Americans supported HUAC.24 Three out of four disagreed with Truman’s charge that Republicans were “playing politics” with the hearings. This included 71 percent of Democrats surveyed, but — judging by their coverage — 0 percent of reporters.

Hiss had indignantly demanded that Chambers make his charges outside of a congressional hearing room and thus subject himself to a suit for slander. Chambers would soon have the opportunity to do just that. He agreed to be interviewed on the radio program Meet the Press. As Chambers described the program, it was  enlivened by an unprecedented personal venom,” consisting of “a savage verbal assault and battery on the guest, without pause and with little restraint or decency.”25 One of the hosts — and three of the four were hysterical Hiss partisans — dared Chambers to restate his charges on the radio. Chambers said, “Alger Hiss  was a Communist and may be now.” He then added, “I do not think Mr. Hiss will sue me for slander or libel.”

For an unusually protracted period of time. Chambers was right. To the bewilderment of  his supporters. Hiss  did not leap at his chance to sue Chambers. This was despite the fact that he had powerful friends eagerly offering pro bono legal assistance, investigative work, and money of mysterious origin.26 Yet Hiss waited an interminable three months before finally being shamed into suing Chambers for slander. Hiss’s legal team leapt to action in classic Democratic fashion. They launched sadistic attacks on Chambers, claiming he was mentally unstable and a

homosexual.

One member of Hiss’s psychiatric team worked up a unique theory of Chambers’s insanity based on a book Chambers had translated, Class Reunion. The psychiatrist found amazing similarities between Chambers and a fictional character from the translated work, who neurotically makes false charges against a more talented and brilliant classmate, ruining his life. Chambers’s only connection to the book was that he had been paid to translate it. This is what Chambers did for a living — he translated books not chosen by him. As historian Alien Weinstein said. Chambers had also once translated Bambi; that did not prove he “was a gun-shy deer.”27 But Hiss’s Harvard-educated legal team was captivated by the harebrained theory. Ed McLean, a named partner at Debevoise, Plimpton & McLean and a Harvard man, urged Hiss to alert FBI investigators to the Class Reunion theory.28 Harvard Law School is precisely what it used to be.

In their depositions of Chambers, Hiss’s lawyers seemed unduly interested in Chambers’s brother, Richard, who had committed suicide years earlier. Hiss attorney William Marbury maliciously referred to Chambers’s deceased brother only as “Dickie.” Chambers was perplexed by the obsessive focus on his brother. Only much later did Chambers learn why. It was, as Chambers said, “a story so inconceivable that it seemed to me that only a mind deformed by something more than malevolence could have excreted it. What kind of beasts am I dealing with? The fact that men and women could be found to credit and spread a lie so disgusting and so cruel remains the measure of the Hiss defense and the pro-Hiss psychosis.”29 Chambers says no more about the matter. Alien Weinstein reports in his book Perjury that the Hiss defense team was ready to launch the theory that Chambers had a homosexual relationship with his own brother and that “the motivation of Chambers in making his accusations against Hiss” was that “Chambers had a subconscious impulse to be reunited with his brother in death.”30

Avalanche

2003-08-10 16:00 | User Profile

Though Hiss’s investigators logged many hours in their quest to portray Chambers as a nutcase, they came up dry. This was despite sympathetic mental health professionals anxious to take up Hiss’s case. Hiss told his brother about one psychiatrist who “feels so strongly about my case that he would not have allowed considerations of professional ethics to play any part in his actions.”31 In the end, neither Hiss’s investigators nor the FBI found any evidence that Chambers was ever hospitalized for mental illness.

One of Hiss’s little helpers was Truman’s secretary of state. Dean Acheson. There is evidence that Acheson was furtively passing government secrets to Hiss’s lawyers to help with his case. Alien Weinstein writes in Perjury, “Whether or not Acheson, once he rejoined State, provided the Hiss defense with confidential departmental information in the midst of the Justice Department probe has never been determined, but some officials at State complained to the FBI the following year about such practices by the Secretary.”32 (Emphasis added.) To be sure, it was never proved, much like the case against 0. J. Simpson was never “proved.” But State Department officials not only believed Acheson was passing on secret information to Hiss’s lawyers, but were so appalled that they complained to the FBI about it. It is a sobering thought to realize that, as secretary of state, Acheson was very likely giving confidential State Department information to the legal defense team of a Soviet spy.

Until the Democratic defamation team sprang to action. Chambers lad tried to limit the damage to Hiss, his former friend. But Hiss had sued. His lawyers attacked Chambers’s wife and made her cry. Hiss had smeared Chambers as a psychotic and homosexual. In Hiss’s written response to HUAC’s report. Hiss called Chambers a “queer” four times.33 Chambers would no longer conceal the details of Hiss’s espionage. Years earlier, Chambers had entrusted his nephew Nathan Levine with an envelope containing confidential government documents Chambers had received from Hiss. Among the documents were copies and summaries of State Department papers written in Hiss’s own handwriting. For years, the documents had been  secreted away in the dumbwaiter shaft of a relative’s house in Brooklyn, New York. Hiss’s lawyers were demanding proof. Chambers, now living in Maryland, took a train to New York and retrieved the envelope. When Chambers produced the documents. Hiss’s lawyers were flabbergasted. Presented with such damning evidence, even the Harvard-educated lawyers realized the jig was up. They would have to alert the Department of Justice.

What happened next should stir the hearts of all patriotic Americans. The copied State Department documents were delivered to the head of the Criminal Division at Justice, Alexander M. Campbell. Campbell promptly directed that the documents be examined — quote — “so that it can be determined whether Chambers has committed perjury.”34 Chambers! Chambers had produced breathtaking documentary evidence that Hiss had spied on his own country. In response, the Truman administration decided to indict Chambers and throw a party for the traitor.

Apparently the Truman administration’s decision to protect Hiss did not come as a surprise to a lugubrious fellow like Whittaker Chambers. In fact, perhaps fearing just this turn of events, Chambers had withheld the most damning material from Hiss’s lawyers. He was about to set off a nuclear explosion with the documents he had withheld. As Truman’s Department of Justice prepared to indict Chambers —  working hand in glove with Hiss’s lawyers35 — puzzling leaks about the investigation began appearing in the press. Members of HUAC were intrigued. They asked Chambers if he had any more information relevant to the committee’s investigation of Hiss. He said he did.

On December 2, 1948, Chambers and two HUAC investigators drove to his farm in Maryland. In one of the most dramatic moments in U.S. history. Chambers reached into a hollowed-out pumpkin and produced microfilm of highly confidential documents from the Navy and State Department. At least three documents had come from Alger Hiss’s office. The Pumpkin Papers, as Perjury author Alien Weinstein said, “provided definite proof of one of the most extensive espionage rings in the history of the United States.”36

The pontifical, patrician Hiss launched a series of evasions and outright lies in response to the Pumpkin Papers. He claimed the documents did not come from his typewriter, but was unable to produce the typewriter he owned when the documents were transcribed. He said he could not even recall the kind of typewriter it had been.37 Later it was determined that the Hisses’ typewriter was a Woodstock given to Mrs. Hiss by her father. The FBI located documents typed on the Wood-stock typewriter by Hiss’s father-in-law and matched the typeface to the State Department documents. When it could no longer be denied that the classified government documents had been typed on Hiss’s typewriter. Hiss explained to an inquisitive  grand jury: “I am amazed, and until the day I die I shall wonder how Whittaker Chambers got into my house to use my typewriter.”38 The grand jurors laughed at him. But the New York Times wondered how Chambers had done that, too. The Nation magazine is still wondering.



Evidence of Hiss’s guilt was overwhelming. It included Chambers’s Pumpkin Papers, the Woodstock typewriter, Chambers’s intimate knowledge of the details of Hiss’s life (including the prothonotary warbler sighting), multiple independent witness identifications, and documents from Soviet defectors identifying Hiss as a Soviet spy. Chambers agreed to take a lie detector test without hesitation. Hiss refused. (This was before such tests were largely discredited.) Indeed, Hiss even refused a supporter’s offer to examine him privately under a truth serum — something he never told his lawyer.39

Eventually, after years of hearings and drama and public turmoil over Chambers’s accusations. Hiss was convicted of perjury for denying under oath that he had spied on his own country. He escaped a direct espionage charge only  because the statute of limitations had expired. Every few years for the rest of his life. Hiss would claim to have unearthed some mythical “new evidence” that would finally prove his innocence. But despite Hiss’s numerous ludicrous appeals, the court repeatedly upheld his conviction.

Avalanche

2003-08-10 16:03 | User Profile

Almost fifty years later, the release of the decrypted Soviet cables proved indisputably that Hiss was a Soviet spy, sending a shock wave through the New York Times building.

President Roosevelt had been warned repeatedly over the course of a decade that Hiss was a Soviet spy, but continued to promote Hiss to positions of greater influence. Hiss had been at President Roosevelt’s side at Yalta, where Roosevelt notoriously handed over Poland to Stalin. Britain and France had started World War II over Poland, but at Yalta Roosevelt cavalierly relinquished Poland to another totalitarian despot. The man advising Roosevelt during this transaction was Alger Hiss, Soviet agent.

Truman kept Hiss on as director of the Office of Political Affairs at the State Department. Hiss supervised the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, which helped create the United Nations, and he later served as secretary general of the San Francisco Conference, which drafted the United Nations Charter. In a final gift to his country, the Soviet spy bequeathed us the United Nations. When Chambers publicly accused Hiss of being a Soviet spy, Truman’s Department of Justice tried to indict not Hiss but Chambers. Had that prosecution gone forward, the Truman administration would have destroyed the sole witness against Hiss. Two FDR-appointed Supreme Court justices, Felix Frankfurter and Stanley Reed, had testified as character witnesses for Hiss at his criminal trial. A future Democratic presidential candidate, Adiai Stevenson, would join them in attesting to Hiss’s good character. Democrats were indignant when Joe McCarthy started referring to Stevenson as “Alger — I mean, Adiai . . . ,” but not so indignant that their party had become a refuge for traitors.

The usual leftist Kool-Aid drinkers spent decades tirelessly working on Hiss’s rehabilitation. As the esteemed literary critic Lionel Trilling wrote, “The educated, progressive middle class, especially in its upper reaches, rallied to the cause and person of Alger Hiss, confident of his perfect innocence, deeply stirred by the pathos of what they never doubted was the injustice being visited upon him.”40 Hiss “became a steady, if unspectacular, fixture on the university lecture circuit,” attracting a new fan base in the 1960s “among college audiences, faculty and students, both in this country and in England.”41 His first speech after leaving prison was at Princeton, where he was given a standing ovation.42 He lived in Manhattan’) and was a celebrity guest at parties on the Upper West Side.43 Bard College has a chair in his name, the “Alger Hiss professor of social studies.”44 William Reuben, the James Carville of the Hiss case, called Hiss “an American saint.”45

After Nixon was defeated in the 1962 California gubernatorial election, CBS News ran a special, titled “The Political Obituary of Richard Nixon.” Among the expert guests was traitor and social critic Alger Hiss.46 In 1972, Hiss’s membership in the bar was reinstated, making him the “first lawyer ever re-admitted to the Massachusetts Bar following a major criminal conviction.”47

Decades later, the New York Times was still complaining about “the smarmy air surrounding the House inquiry.”48 The air. Hiss was a Soviet spy, and liberals were snippy about the “air” in the room where he was exposed. Indeed, according to Times, the air actually “cast doubt on Mr. Chambers’s credibility.” Hiss may have been a traitor to his country, but at least he was not some flag-waving yahoo Republican. Liberals would never give up on a man who spied for Stalin against America. Right up until the Soviet cables were declassified, they were still heatedly proclaiming Alger Hiss innocent.

In 1992, a few years before Soviet cables proved that Hiss was guilty, the Washington Post ran a news item stating three times that there was “no evidence”  that Hiss was a Soviet agent.49 That same year, the New York Times published a letter by John Lowenthal, director of the Cold War Archives Project, The Nation Institute, stating categorically that Alger Hiss “was not a spy.” He said, “All disinterested historians must welcome the closing of this distressing episode.”50 The Hiss case was “over.” That same year, a writer mused in the pages of Times that among the “Cold War mysteries” that might be answered by the Soviet archives was the devilish question of Hiss’s guilt.51 In 1994, the New York Times reported, “The  Hiss case remains as uncertain as before.”52

In 1995, it was no longer uncertain. That was the year the Venona Project was unveiled, revealing Soviet cables that established that Hiss was a Soviet agent to everyone’s satisfaction except direct relatives of Alger Hiss. Nonetheless, the New York Times still instinctively trots out the theory that Hiss was innocent. It’s some psychological block liberals have. Their minds are fine, but the woman wells up in them. In 1996, Times described Hiss as “one of the great riddles of the Cold War,” and blandly noted that some — “many of them on the left” —  continued to revere Hiss.53 One struggles in vain to think of anyone not “on the left” who believed Hiss after Chambers produced the Pumpkin Papers, much less after the Venona Project was declassified.

As recently as September 8, 2002, Times said of Hiss, “He was convicted [of perjury] in 1951. It was later learned that some evidence supporting his claim of innocence was covered up.”54 Hiss was “accused” but it was “later learned” that evidence of his guilt was cooked! In one of the many official “corrections” to Times’s ritualistic proclamation that all Soviet spies were innocent, a later correction admitted that the “later learned” evidence was merely one of many red herrings thrown up by Hiss. It was never accepted by any court. Times’s correction said the original article had “omitted attribution for the suggestion that documents supporting  Hiss’s innocence were covered up. This was the position of Hiss and his supporters in a petition to set aside his conviction. The petition was denied and later appeals failed.”55

Lying about Hiss’s innocence was only part of the Hiss Rehabilitation Project. There was also the small matter of Chambers to be dealt with. Interestingly, Chambers’s reception in polite society was not so welcoming as Alger Hiss’s. After Chambers produced documentary proof that he was telling the truth about Hiss, Chambers was nearly

=====================

As much as I've scanned... Hope y'all enjoyed it! (Did it make yer blood boil?!

Ruffin

2003-08-10 17:56 | User Profile

"The only two non-Jews in the communist conspiracy were Chambers and Hiss. Every other one was a Jew and it raised hell with us." ~ Richard Nixon