Comparing Hussein to past presidents for better or for worse has turned into a parlor game, yet nobody has compared Hussein and Richard Nixon in relation to Alger Hiss. That’s strange because no other president offers a more effective counterpoint comparison than does President Nixon.
Showing the differences between Hussein and America’s past presidents, Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Reagan, et al., usually comes down to comparing their characters —— character flaws in Hussein’s case. President Nixon is the one president who ties Hussein to treason. Then-Congressman Nixon was the one who nailed Alger Hiss.
Mr. Nixon hated everything Hiss stood for. To this day Hussein represents everything Hiss advocated:
A fair comparison shows the vast differences between the two men not only in ideology, but in the men themselves. Hussein is a Communist while Nixon hated communism and Communists. Nixon loved this country. Hussein hates a non-Communist, sovereign, America as did Alger Hiss.Today, the importance of understanding Hiss’s ideological commitment has never been more vital. His advocacy of collectivism and internationalism still resonate among the political elite, . . .
Note that Hiss and his pals expected to be punished if they got caught; whereas, in Hussein’s America, and Administration, treason is a virtue deserving a reward.
Nixon is the man the Left loves to hate because of Alger Hiss. Hussein is the man the Left loves to love because he is implementing everything Hiss betrayed the country for.
Also, Nixon’s tenacity triggered bitterness on top of the hatred the Left felt for Nixon over Hiss.
When JFK stole the presidency from Mr. Nixon in 1960 media Lefties condoned the theft —— confident that Nixon was done. By the time of Watergate those same pieces of media crap portrayed themselves as great defenders of the Constitution.
After Mr. Nixon lost his bid to become governor of California in 1962 the Left was certain they had seen the last of their nemesis.
When Mr. Nixon won the presidency in 1968 American Socialists descended into suicidal fits of depression.
When Mr. Nixon was reelected in 1972 the Left’s bitterness became a permanent part of their psychs:
To become confused or mentally deranged.
In closing, let me point out that it is about the United Nations; it is always about the United Nations and the traitors who do their dirty business for the United Nations. Christina Shelton's book should be read for that reason alone.
Finally, the truth about Soviet spy Alger Hiss
Find out why the cover-up of U.N. architect's betrayal continues
Published: 2 days ago
WASHINGTON – Former U.S. State Department official Alger Hiss was the darling of the Franklin Roosevelt Democrats and the architect of the United Nations.
That he was also a Soviet spy remains one of the most well-guarded secrets of the 20th century.
But a new book, “Alger Hiss: Why He Chose Treason,” shatters the veil of secrecy so well maintained by “progressives” in the Democratic Party and a complicit media establishment.
It all began unraveling in 1948, when Hiss was accused of being a Soviet spy. Because the statute of limitations on espionage had run out, he was convicted only of perjury. Decades later – after the Hiss trial had been long forgotten by most – archival evidence surfaced confirming the accusations: a public servant with access to classified documents had indeed passed crucial information to the Soviets for more than a decade.
Yet many on the American Left still consider Hiss an iconic figure – an innocent victim accused of unsubstantiated crimes. They prefer to focus on the collectivist ideals Hiss stood for, rather than confront the reality of a man who systematically and methodically betrayed his country.
U.S. Intelligence analyst Christina Shelton employs an in-depth knowledge of Soviet intelligence affairs as well as recently released Hungarian and KGB archival material to shine a fresh light on one of the most famous espionage cases. The story is dramatic, but Shelton’s analysis goes beyond sensationalism as she explores both the ideological motivation behind Hiss’s behavior and the lasting influence it has had on U.S. foreign policy.
Why exactly were the intellectual elite so determined that Hiss was innocent? His accuser, Time magazine senior editor Whittaker Chambers – originally Hiss’s Soviet handler and author of the classic “Witness” – presented compelling written evidence. However, the intelligentsia were intent on supporting one of their own. They ignored the facts, a willful blindness that helped contribute to a polarization still in place in our country today.
Thirty years of intelligence analysis gives Shelton the expertise to approach the story from many different angles, especially:
∙ Her persuasive argument that communism and fascism are not polar opposites, as has so long been claimed, but highly similar ideologies.
∙ How Hiss’s central role at the Yalta Conference and the founding of the United Nations are examples of the significance of Soviet intelligence recruitment of high-level Americans who could influence U.S. foreign policy in their favor.
∙ Why the silence surrounding the implications of Hiss’s espionage continues—and why apologists fear that smearing his name would undercut New Deal policies and the United Nations. Shelton doesn’t just detail the body of evidence pointing to Hiss’s guilt; she suggests new layers of meaning in light of the current political landscape.
Today, the importance of understanding Hiss’s ideological commitment has never been more vital. His advocacy of collectivism and internationalism still resonate among the political elite, making this book an important and timely analysis of American thought at this critical juncture in our country’s life.