Chapter V. The Irresponsible and Un-American Left Wing At the Time of the Death of Mr. Kennedy

      Harvard Professor H. Stuart Hughes in the “far left” publication Nation, December 14, 1963, expressed his disappointment that the assassin of Mr. Kennedy was not a “southern racist” by saying, “Indeed, if we look deeply into our souls, I think many of us will recognize that we were disappointed to learn that such was not the case.
A great American, M. Stanton Evans, editor of the Indianapolis News, said in the National Review bulletin December 10, 1963: “Professor Henry Steele Commager of Amherst concluded the ultimate blame for the President’s murder rested with those who had, inter alia, stirred up antagonism toward Russia.” His reason is—if a Communist murders our President, the fault belongs with those who tell us we should worry about Communism. Stubbornly, many of the liberals still refuse to consider the fact that Communism internally took the life of the President of the United States.
Max Lerner in the ultra-liberal New York Post said, in trying to blame the anti-Communists and conservatives fort the death of the President: “When right-wing racist fanatics are told over and over again that the President is a traitor, a Red, a nigger-lover, that he had traduced the Constitution, is handing America over to a mongrelized world state, there are bound to be some fanatics, dull-witted enough to follow the logic of the indictment all the way and rid America of the man who is betraying it.” It is amazing that Mr. Lerner, in his responsible position in one of America’s best-known newspapers, refuses to recognize the threat of internal Communism which took the life of his President, John F. Kennedy.
A leading clergyman who tried to fix the blame on the anti-Communist community of the United States, was Bishop James A. Pike of the Episcopal Church, leading “light” of the National Council of Churches. Bishop Pike said: “In fixing the blame, we must include all those who, by their race hate and extreme radical right-wing propaganda, have constantly supplied the fuel which would fire up such a assassin.”
It is apparent now that the liberals were disappointed that the assassin did not turn out to be a member of the John Birch Society, Christian Anti-Communist Crusade, Daughters of the American Revolution, American Legion, or Christian Crusade. Within one hour after the death of Mr. Kennedy on the streets of Dallas, Friday, November 22, the television networks were blaming the anti-Communist community for the tragic event. Continually, they referred to the appearance of Adlai Stevenson in the same city a few weeks before, at which time he was picketed and allegedly spit on and hit on the head by a picket sign. There are some interesting “postscripts” to the treatment of Adlai Stevenson in Dallas when he appeared during the latter part of October, 1963 to address a Pro-United Nations rally. In the first place, Dallas has over 400 Cuban exile families with a total population of 1200 Cubans. There are pro-Castro and anti-Castro groups among these Cubans. The assassin, Lee Oswald, himself was an organizer of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and he lived and worked in the Dallas area. According to reports from people who observed the picket line in Dallas on the night that Stevenson spoke, the line was predominantly Latin Americans, and probably Cubans, not “right-wing” Americans.
Even until the day this book is being written, the press is still hashing over the Stevenson affair in Dallas, but I have yet to read a report concerning the later appearance of Governor George Wallace of Alabama on the campus of Harvard University in Boston. In the December 17, 1963, issue of the National Review publication, a Michael J. Cronin of Revere Beach, Massachusetts, reports: “Last evening Governor George Wallace of Alabama spoke at Harvard concerning his views on segregation and states’ rights. Upon his arrival at Sanders Hall, he was met by a student demonstration of approximately 150 participants who spat at him, cursed him with hysterical fervor, and attempted to assault him. After his speech, he was prevented from returning to his automobile by a howling group of 300. His car’s tires were slashed by members of the “non-violent” group and his auto was damaged. We are all familiar with the way our news media waxed indignant over the disgrace of the Stevenson incident. I am writing this letter twelve hours after Governor Wallace’s speech, so I have no seen any comment in the news. But I am willing to bet my vote for Goldwater that there will be very little said about the Harvard demonstrators.” Indeed, Mr. Cronin was right. In fact, the author has never seen any report in any newspaper in the United States on this disgraceful treatment which a governor of a sovereign state received on Harvard’s campus. To our knowledge, it was not carried by either the Associated Press or the United Press International, although certainly it was “news.” Only those stories which will put the “anti-Communist” community in bad light will be featured by the wire services. Those stories that would expose the “Far Left” and the liberal community will be ignored and, in most instances, killed by the manipulators of the wire services.
Arthur Krock of the New York Times pointed out in his column that our U.S. tax-supported overseas broadcasting facilities, Voice of America, began immediately to blame the “extreme right-wing” for the assassination of the President within a few minutes of the death of Mr. Kennedy at 1:59 p.m., Friday, November 22. Other left-wingers and far-leftists blaming the anti-Communists for the death of the President included Ralph McGill of the Atlanta Constitution, James Restin, Jimmy Breslin, Walter Lippman, Marquis Childs, Bob Considine, William B. Shannon, Harriet Van Horn, and Inez Robb. (Inez Robb said: “But the radical right…the superpatriots…prepared the climate for assassination.”
One of the Senators from the State of Oklahoma, Senator Howard Edmondson, devoted one-half of his monthly “Reports to the People” in December, 1963, to an article written by the leftist columnist, Walter Lippman entitled “Murder Most Foul” which had previously appeared in the left-wing newspaper, the Washington Post. As you might expect, Walter Lippman refused to consider the Communist threat internally and, in fact, suggested that the future of the American Republic is “at stake when extremists go unrestrained.” He, of course, is not referring to extremists on the left; he is referring to what he believes to be extremists on the right. In fact, in his one reference to “the left,” Mr. Lippman makes an interesting comment: “In his alienation, Oswald turned to the left, but that was incidental.” Mr. Lippman feels that the Communist affiliation of Lee Harvey Oswald was unimportant. The important thing was that he lived in a city which was predominantly right-wing or anti-Communist and this is the thing that caused him to take the life of the President.
This author write to Senator Edmondson and reminded him, “It is strange to me that neither you nor Mr. Lippman have had anything to say about Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the American Civil Liberties Union, in both of which Lee Harvey Oswald, the President’s assassin, had an interest. In fact, in our Tulsa Daily World, Thursday, December 12, there was an Associated Press article saying that the Communist who assassinated Mr. Kennedy, Oswald, had attended a meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union on the campus of the Southern Methodist University less than one month before the assassination. At that time, he was shown a real hate film called “Suspect,” put out by the ACLU. The film is designed to turn the liberals against the anti-Communists and conservatives of the United States.
“So if Lee Oswald assassinated the President because of a hate climate, may I assure you that, based on fact, Mr. Oswald’s motivation was a hate film put out by an organization called the American Civil Liberties Union. He was not influenced by, let’s say, ‘Operation Abolition’ put out by the House Committee on Un-American Activities or ‘Communist Encirclement’ put out by Harding College, but anti-Communist films. It was not an anti-Communist film that angered Mr. Oswald. If indeed he plotted the assassination of the President because of a ‘hate climate’ in Dallas, it was one which had been created by the liberal leaders of that community.
“It would be extremely difficult for either you, Senator Edmondson, or Mr. Lippman to blame the assassination of the President of the United States on the anti-Communist community. Surely you know, as a lawyer, that the law of the land simply states that to falsely accuse innocent persons of being accessories to the crime of murder is criminal libel. Furthermore, it is a fact today that those who allege that all of us must share the blame for the murder of the President are either dupes who do so ignorantly or they are agents of the Kremlin who do so to detract attention from the Communist assassin.”
When you take a look at Walter Lippman’s background, it is not surprising that he would completely overlook the internal threat of Communism and would, in fact, blame the anti-Communist elements in America for this tragic event. In September, 1958, when the Communists and their sympathizers were propagandizing for surrender of Quemoy and Matsu to the Red Chinese, Lippman proposed that Formosa, the island where Chiang Kai-shek and the anti-Communist Chinese are exiled, be “neutralized and de-militarized.” He even advocated that the anti-Communist Chinese who had fled to Formosa for refuge should be “repatriated to the mainland of Communist China.”
Lippman is famous for his defeatist and “surrender to the Communist line” philosophy. It is little wonder then that the Communist Worker gives such enthusiastic support to the editorials written by Walter Lippman. However, the best look at Walter Lippman can be gained by reading his philosophies expressed in his column of September 16, 1963, in the Newsweek magazine, at which time he said: “No civilized society has long tolerated the despotic theory of private property. This conception of property is alien to the central truths of Christendom which have always held that properly is not absolute but is a system of rights and duties that are determined by society.” Here Mr. Lippman show his complete contempt for the American free-enterprise system and his loyalty to Socialism.
In my letter to Senator Edmondson, I also pointed out that the “current talk of hatred by these left-wing columnists and politicians is a concoction of the minds of people who would coldly seek to use recent tragic events for political purposes.”
Raymond Molley pointed out in his editorial in the New York Herald-Tribune, December 8, 1963, that “Such collective indictments are in themselves a form of mob violence. They do not destroy hate. They are the very seeds of hate.”
A man who has probably done more to discourage patriotism and evangelistic Christianity in the South than any other individual is Ralph Emerson McGill, publisher of the Atlanta Constitution. In column after column in his Atlanta Constitution which is, in turn, syndicated to other newspapers in the left-wing camp, McGill attacks the conservatives, anti-Communists, and orthodox clergymen.
In his much-publicized new book, The South and the Southerner, McGill equated sincere ministers of the gospel and [with] the Ku Klux Klan’s speakers and lumped them together as the enemies of democracy and justice in the South. His contempt for “old-time religion” is expressed in one column in the New York Herald-Tribune on June 24, 1962: “The celebrated old-time religion was pretty bad. It was composed mostly of sulphuric hellfire and damnation. It was a religion of fear, coercion, and two-hour sermons.”
In a column in 1963, he accused General Edwin A. Walker of becoming “warped in perspective and emotion by his obsession with unidentified things which even he can only describe, and not always coherently, as hidden.” This, of course, is in keeping with the nonsense of the “mental health enthusiasts” of the “far left,” that everyone who disagrees with them is a neurotic and in need of psychiatric help. This obsession that political opponents are mentally sick is shown in Ralph McGill’s column on March 8, 1962 in which he says: “Perhaps the most pathetic and psychologically naked young men in America are the so-called conservative ‘Young Americans for Freedom’ in New York.” Anyone with any degree of fairness knows of the excellent work that has been done by the YAF, Mr. McGill, to the contrary.
In the same column he minimized the threat of Communism internally, saying: “The Communist enemy constitutes a definite threat, but it is an external threat, not a domestic threat.”
In one column on Thursday, February 8, 1962, he called upon the American government to “denounce the extremists” suggesting that immediate action should be taken against the anti-Communists of America.
In an editorial in the Saturday Evening Post, December 14, 1963, shortly after Mr. Kennedy’s assassination, Ralph McGill again attempted to blame the anti-Communists and conservatives for the death of the President, calling those conservatives “Peddlers of hate, Anti-Negro, Anti-Semitic, Extreme Right.” He lumps them all together in one big pot, marked in big, bold letters—“Un-American.” Again, as with the rest of his “far-left” cohorts, Mr. McGill refuses to consider the threat of Communism internally and does not reveal any information concerning Fair Play for Cuba, of which Lee Oswald was an officer. One of the reasons that Mr. McGill will probably say nothing about Fair Play for Cuba or other pro-Castro groups is that he himself was one of the most enthusiastic backers that Fidel Castro had, even after the overthrow of the Cuban government. In his Atlanta Constitution on Thursday, January 8, 1959, Ralph McGill told his readers that we should “aid the revolution of Castro.” Then, refusing to accept the obvious—that Castro was a Communist—he said: “It should be obvious that Fidel has no intention of going Communist…It is apparent that if this revolution does not succeed, the next one will go far to the left…First, we should recall Ambassador Earl E. T. Smith. He several times referred to the revolutionists as ‘bandits.’ This stamps him as a most unobservant man, and an Ambassador who failed to give his country sound information.”
Because Ambassador Smith tried to warn the American Government of the Communist inclinations of Fidel Castro, McGill branded him as a “most unobservant man.” Now in light of later events, I wonder what decent men would say of Ralph McGill and his enthusiastic support of Castro?
That Ralph McGill has powerful friends in Washington, there is no doubt. On the night of the Mississippi crisis when James Meredith was being enrolled at Oxford, Mississippi, the Attorney General of the United States, Robert Kennedy, personally introduced Ralph McGill to a nationwide television audience to give his comments on the affair in Mississippi.
According to the Atlanta Journal on Wednesday, January 10, 1962, Ralph McGill was “named to a committee to advise the Pentagon on the best ways to teach servicemen about Communism.” His appointment was made by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara.
In the Atlanta Constitution on Friday, March 2, 1962, there was a notice that Ralph McGill, publisher of the Atlanta Constitution, “has been named by President John F. Kennedy to the new fifteen-man general advisory committee of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.” Patriotic Americans can only shudder when they think of the influence that this extremely unjust and biased far-left liberal has on men in high places of government.
Probably the most outspoken pro-Communist daily newspaper in the United States is the Gazette and Daily published in York, Pennsylvania by one J.W. Gitt. An article during 1957 by Howard Norton, of the Moscow Bureau of the Baltimore Sun newspaper, provided an interesting comment on Moscow’s opinion of the York, Pennsylvania Gazette and Daily published by Gitt. In regard to the Gazette, Mr. Norton wrote: “Among the better American newspapers in the opinion of the Soviet press is the York Gazette of York, Pennsylvania. The Daily was the only bona fide daily newspaper in the United States which came out for Henry Wallace for President in 1948.”
In the Wednesday, December 4, 1963 issue of the Gazette and Daily, York, Pennsylvania, Publisher Gitt and Editor Higgins, in an editorial entitled “No Absolute Security,” completely overlooked the Communist affiliations of the President’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. Of Oswald, they say: “He was a disturbed man who may have had no motive whatsoever than that of retorting in this way to the ills, real and imagined, he had suffered at the hands of society.” It doesn’t take a scholar now to figure out who is responsible for the “suffering” of Lee Harvey Oswald which drove him to the assassination of Mr. Kennedy. Of course, the right wing is to blame, according to Moscow-favored paper Gazette and Daily of York , Pennsylvania.
On the same page in an editorial entitled “Food for Thought,” Mr. Gitt specifically blames the conservatives of Texas for the death of the President and further suggests that this spirit of conservatism “did not original in Dallas, Texas, but it had a lot of support there and in other parts of Texas, and so did Billy Hargis and his outfit of character assassins, and so did a lot of other paranoiacs and gold diggers who plucked a lot of the precious metal or its equivalent from ignoramuses who had found liquid gold, oil. and lacked the mental balance to use it for good purposes.” Wrapped up in one sentence is the entire philosophy of J.W. Gitt. Anyone who fights Communism is a “character assassin” Anyone who supports an anti-Communist cause is a “paranoiac.” And in the first place, Texas didn’t deserve all the wealth that they have because they are a bunch of “ignoramuses.”
In the Thursday, December 5, 1963, issue of the Gazette and Daily, the Gitts again tried to blame the anti-Communists for the assassination of the President: “The point is that characters such as McIntire, Billy James Hargis, Fred Schwarz, and many more, no matter what their professed intentions, have been busy stirring up the emotions of upset Americans and focusing suspicion on political persons of one level or another with whom they disagree. They have been producing a climate of hate—of that there is no doubt whatsoever. They have been creating an explosive atmosphere.” Then with a veiled threat, this York, Pennsylvania Gazette and Daily says: “We shall see, too, if many of us are going to continue in our indifference to the poison they…(McIntire, Hargis, Schwarz)…have been spreading, telling ourselves ‘Well, after all, what real harm does it do?’ Isn’t the answer to that clear enough now?”
That a paper like the York, Pennsylvania Gazette would blame the anti-Communist movements and leaders as equally responsible for the assassination of the President should come as no surprise, especially in view of a report which had been put out by the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, April 25 through May 16, 1961, entitled “Fair Play for Cuba Committee.” Here in this Government report there is a copy of an ad which appeared in a Communist publication on March 6, 1961, advertising a Fair Play for Cuba Committee Rally (Page 159). The speaker is announced as “James Higgins, Editor, York, Pennsylvania Gazette and Daily.” It is no wonder that Mr. Gitt would like to shift the blame from the Fair Play for Cuba and the Communist Party to the anti-Communist movements, considering the fact that the editor of his newspaper has been a spokesman for the organization of which Lee Harvey Oswald was a member.
Newspaper editorial writers and television commentators were not the only ones who were clearly disappointed that a right winger could not be blamed for the death of the President. Before the apprehension of the Communist assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was made known, famed Americans such as Chief Justice Earl Warren were blaming the right wing. Even after the identity of Oswald became public information, Judge Warren, in his funeral oration at the bier of President Kennedy, said: “What moves some misguided wretch to do this horrible deed may never be known to us, but we do know that such acts are commonly stimulated by forces of hatred and malevolence, such as today are eating their way into the bloodstream of American life. What a price we pay for this fanaticism.” Senator Mike Mansfield joined Judge Warren by blaming the “apostles of hate.” As M. Stanton Evans pointed out: “Warren’s stentorian utterance was particularly ironic. It is the Warren court which has turned the American Communists loose by the carload lots, struck down significant anti-Communist legislation and held that the Communist advocacy of violence is a mere abstraction not actionable under the U.S. Constitution. For Warren, under the circumstances, to speak as he did was an act of daring which leaves the mind limp with incredulity.”
Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican of Arizona, tried to set the record straight in his syndicated column, Friday, December 6, 1963: “In the nation’s initial shock at the assassination of President Kennedy, there was little time or opportunity for objective assessment of motivation. Immediately following the shooting, there were some misleading statements to the effect that the assassination had been engineered by the so-called ‘radical right.’ Even the U.S. Information Agency, in its broadcast to Russia, said the assassination had taken place in Dallas and described that city as a center of right-wing extremism. This broadcast was at the root of the Soviet contention that rightists were responsible for the killing and that the subsequent slaying of Oswald was part of a plot to cover up the conspiracy. Efforts to tie every group to the right of center, whether extreme or not, into the slaying have continued since, despite the long Communistic background of Lee Oswald himself. One columnist even suggested that ‘extremists’ are bent upon such acts of violence and therefore we should do away with free speech. His reasoning was that our constitutional right of free expression leads to violent dissension and intemperate acts.”
Former Major General Thomas A. Lane wrote an interesting editorial entitled “’Right’ is Blamed Wrongly” a few days after the assassination of Mr. Kennedy:
“The tragic death of President Kennedy should cause all Americans to pause and examine carefully the direction of our political institutions. Dangerous errors have invaded our thinking.
“Within a few hours of the President’s death, Moscow radio was attributing the assassination to right extremists in the United States. When an American broadcasting representative was asked to explain the basis for this Soviet conclusion, he replied that he had heard this same attribution on the Voice of America program.
“Why did our Voice of America initiate so obvious a theme of Soviet propaganda when there was no evidence to support such an inference?
“In addressing the Senate soon after the news of the assassination was received, Senator Mansfield related this tragedy to sharp divisions within our society. Similarly, Chief Justice Warren said Mr. Kennedy was assassinated ‘as a result of the hatred and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by bigots.’
“These leaders expressed what was in the minds of most Americans. The consensus of our fears reveals how completely our minds have been conditioned by press, radio and television to believe that our radical right would be capable of so monstrous a crime.
“At the same time, we have been conditioned to believe that Communism is not a force in this country. As the Communist connections of the apparent assassin became known, our new agencies and our leaders became stunned and silent. They tried to ascribe the crime to personal motivation of the assassin. They continued to deplore the political divisions which were not related to the crime but avoided mention of the Communist motivation which was the direct cause.
“The truth is that U.S. political forces holding power have created massive propaganda misrepresenting the purposes and methods of native political forces challenging the status quo. The distrust directed at bona fide American political movements provides cover for Communist underground political action. A list of the unsolved crimes and misdemeanors which have been attributed by U.S. public opinion to the radical right would be formidable.
“It is clear how greatly the Communist cause would have been served if the assassin had escaped. The crime would have been charged to those groups of the political right which have strongly opposed the Kennedy policies. Excoriation of the innocent would have been unrestrained. The fabric of our political institutions would have been seriously strained. Our public information agencies were poised for such an operation.
“Why is there no storm of righteous indignation against the Communist perpetrators of this dastardly crime? Why, against all we know abut the Communist operating methods, do we pretend that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?
“The closest parallel in recent history to the assassination of President Kennedy was the murder of Leon Trotsky in Mexico City in 1940. The behavior of Oswald so closely paralleled that of the Trotsky assassin as to suggest that both had the same training.
“The murder of Oswald looks like the underground retribution for an agent who had failed to destroy himself.
“It is now time for Americans to realize that we have no native political groups of the left which condone the use of crime as an instrument of politics. In the Western world, only Communism maintains a criminal underground for this purpose. We have obscured these realities with the verbiage of domestic politics and sacrificed our capacity for objective judgment.”
In concluding this subject, let me add that the Communist influence in the United States is apparently so strong that every effort possible has been made to blame the anti-Communists for the death of the President, in spite of the fact that the assassin himself was a Communist. This is the only logical explanation.
William F. Buckley, Jr., in his column of November 27, 1963, stated: “The opinion makers of the country…were getting ready to turn the President’s tragedy into an excuse for a program against the American Right. Within a matter of minutes nationally known radio and television commentators had started in, suggesting that the assassination had been the work of a right-wing extremist…Goodness knows what would have happened if Lee Harvey Oswald had not been apprehended, or even if he had been apprehended a day or two later. Even as it was, the disappointment was more than some could bear, and the genocidal fury here and there broke its traces.”
These opinions of Mr. Buckley of a possible bloodbath in the United States, had an anti-Communist been responsible for the assassination of Mr. Kennedy, are verified by a report written by the French correspondent, Hilaire du-Berrier, who was visiting in Dallas on the day of the assassination. His report is frightening but it deserves consideration:
“Out of the Dallas crucible came facts which realistic America must face: for meanness, viciousness, dishonesty, and absence of all sense of honor, the groups referred to as the American Right are no match for the organized, entrenched, and internationally-supported Left lined up against them. Radio, TV, the press, government agencies, and militant politicians took a position against America’s interests and for the Left. Your correspondent was in Dallas when it happened. The first announcement of the killing was still coming over the air when the first threatening telephone call reached the home of General Edwin A. Walker who also lives in Dallas. A woman’s voice said, ‘We’ll get you, you bastards.’ For three days and nights the telephone threats and insults continued. Other known conservatives were likewise menaced. General Walker was out of Texas at the time of the death of the President. Had he been in Dallas, he would have been assassinated by the Left that is shouting ‘Hate Mongers! Bigots!’ today. A man ran up on the Walker lawn and threw the American flag to the ground. Day and night automobiles prowled the neighborhood ‘casing’ the Walker residence. Though out in force, Dallas police never stopped or questioned a driver circling the home of the General, who had been shot at on April 10, 1963, by the same Communist assassin who would later take the life of the President of the United States. These threats continued despite the fact that Oswald, the pro-Communist, had already been charged with the crime.
“No apology came over the phone lines of those marked for the harassment by the Left. Intimidation is the Left’s weapon. Truth being no obstacle, Moscow immediately laid the crime on the Right. The Voice of America did likewise for like reasons. The Left was striking while the iron was hot. Only protagonists of the extreme left, hoping that a right winger had killed the President, would have made such statements without basis of fact. It was no accident. Chief Justice Earl Warren and Senator Maurine Neuberger (Democrat-Oregon) said the political right wing was responsible and abroad their statement supported Moscow. All the time in America cries against hate mongering and bigotry against a right that had never contemplated more than hand bills, signs, and paid announcements in the press, yet America said nothing.
“Within a matter of hours after the slaying, Boston’s extreme left winger, Gordon Hall, was given the use of nationwide TV networks to ‘pooh-pooh’ Oswald’s communist connections and direct American fury against the Right.
“What points emerge from this marshalling of the facts? First the American in the street showed himself to be unstable, incapable of thinking or acting in the crisis to save himself. Agencies and officials that should have shown themselves responsible, spontaneously became the tools of a revolutionary Left. What if an insane Rightist had committed the crime? There would have been no hog-wash about ‘extremism on both sides’—only the Reuther program against the right.
“Suppose Oswald had made his getaway to Mexico that afternoon. The witch hunt (a favorite Leftist term) would have been in full swing against conservatives. Conditions were ideal for it: The Attorney General, with all the police and justice machinery of America within his grasp, was the slain man’s brother. Vengefulness, veneered by a generation of wealth, would have been unleashed. Every man, group, and organization forming a counter-balance to the Left would have been destroyed. Patriotism, branded subversion. Opposition, dismantled. Only organized labor would have been allowed to exist as a force. Her citizens disarmed, America would be ripe for the takeover. The machine was in place. There was only one hitch: Oswald was caught and his Communist background revealed.”
In an article published in many newspapers around the nation on December 14, 1963, Drew Pearson stated that the Earl Warren investigating commission was actually “investigating the FBI.” This vicious left-wing propagandist went on to say: “What the public doesn’t realize is that for the first time since the days of Warren Harding, the FBI itself is under investigation.” Pearson further wrote as follows: “President Johnson knew the FBI would be in for investigation and also knew the sacrosanct position of the FBI when he went to great pains to pick a Presidential Commission of unimpeachable integrity to probe the Dallas tragedy.”
What Pearson did not tell his readers, among other things, was that the U.S. Communist conspirators called for “an Extraordinary Commission” to be “headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court” and “composed of citizens and experts who enjoy the confidence of the nation” at least three days prior to the announcement of the establishment of the Warren Commission. The Communist call for such a commission came in a feature front page editorial in The Worker of November 26 which undoubtedly went to press prior to that date. Since selection of the commission under Justice Warren, the Reds seems well satisfied with in, except for expressing doubts about two or three members of the commission.
Newspaper columnist Holmes Alexander and Senator John Tower of Texas brought up some much more fruitful prospects for an investigation than the investigation of the FBI which Pearson claims will take place. In an interview with Mr. Alexander, Senator Tower said:
“We have reports from Texas that the rightist figures were closely watched during the President’s visit on November 22. It appears that the leftist figures were not watched..” In this interview Senator Tower also said: “The radical right is the symptom of the disease we call extremism. The radical left is the disease itself.”
Let all thinking Americans ponder this analysis carefully. The radical left is the disease. Any excesses on the right are the result of this cancerous disease of the extreme left which is leading our nation into totalitarian tyranny. Americans might fight the roots of the disease itself and not the symptoms. Once the symptoms are destroyed, the disease itself is hidden and will not be discovered until it is too late.
In his syndicated column regarding the Tower interview, Holmes Alexander brought up some pertinent and extremely important questions. He wrote:
“Was there a failure in high places to take the Marxist menace as seriously as the Birchite menace? Did that failure contribute to the President’s coming within gunfire of a leftist crackpot? It is a hideous thought to contemplate but it cannot be discarded for that reason. Why wasn’t Oswald under surveillance? Was it because the Federal Government, and to some extent the general public, have really come to believe that foolish, ill-mannered hecklers who spit on Adlai Stevenson represent a graver danger than the Communist system whose members and fellow travelers are the terrorists in Venezuela, the guerillas in Viet Nam and the conquerors of Cuba?…”
In spite of the absolute, indisputable evidence that Lee Oswald’s mind was molded by Communist conspiracy propaganda, that his hatred was of the American free enterprise system and all it embraces, and that no one with even the remotest connection with what is considered to be the extreme right has any remote connection with the entire hideous affair, the propaganda voices of the left continue to try to blame right wing conservatives for creating the atmosphere of “hate” which caused Oswald to commit the assassination of President Kennedy. Do they really think the American people are that stupid?
Seventy-four hours after the assassination of Mr. Kennedy, on Monday Afternoon, November 25, at 3:00 p.m., this author wrote an article entitled “Reflections on the Death of the President” which was printed in our Weekly Crusader on December 6, 1963, which said at that time:
“It may be difficult for my readers to understand my fear upon hearing the right-wing accused of participation in President Kennedy’s death. May I assure you, as one who has gone through a hate campaign directed at me by the liberals and left-wing element, and having seen the degree to which they will go to destroy anyone who stands in their way, my heart told me that their hatred knew no limitations and their vengeance knows no bounds.
“I know—and you know—that no true conservative in the United States would stoop to taking the law into his own hands. I know—and you know—that any man who would assassinate the President of the United States, in these days when we still have ‘due process of law,’ would not be a conservative or a patriot, but an anarchist. I hold them in the same contempt that I hold the Communists or any man who would go beyond the law to achieve an end. In my thinking, the end never justifies the means.
“Conservatives stand for law. We preach obedience to the law. For that reason, we opposed the racial demonstrators who took the law into their own hands and carried on racial agitations, defying state and local laws, without regard to ‘due process of law.’ My main criticism of the racial agitators is the fact that they have no regard for the law—that they go beyond the law in an emotional period of American history to accomplish their end. No American—no minority group—no majority group—can ever justify breaking the law to accomplish their self-justified goals.
“You would have to lead an Anti-Communist Movement to know what the liberals are capable of—the hatred, incriminations, intimidations and coercion they constantly throw at the leaders of the anti-Communist cause. I cannot describe adequately the heartache and persecution heaped upon any leader of an anti-Communist movement by the liberal left-wing. With unlimited finances, and being in control of the national media—television, radio and publications—they can destroy a man without any shrug of conscience or regard for ‘due process of law.’ It is this lawless spirit that is preached by the Communists, and practiced by far too many liberals that we oppose.”

Back to The Far Left