Communist Goals in 1963

The following was entered into the Congressional record by Albert Sydney Herlong, Jr.,  a Floridian who served in Congress from 1949-69.  Granted, the Soviet Union is gone (at least in name) and some of the other issues no longer apply, but I thought you might want to see how they are doing so far.






Thursday, January 10, 1963


Mr. HERLONG: Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.


At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:


  1. US acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war
  2. US willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war 
  3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the US would be a demonstration of “moral strength”
  4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war
  5. Extension of long term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites
  6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination
  7. Grant recognition of Red China, and admission of Red China to the UN
  8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision of the UN
  9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the US has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress
  10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the UN
  11. Promote the UN as the only hope for mankind.  If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one world government with its own independent armed forces.  (Some Communist leaders believed the world could be taken over as easily by the UN as by Moscow)
  12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party
  13. Do away with loyalty oaths
  14. Continue giving Russia access to the US Patent Office
  15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the US
  16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
  17. Get control of the schools.  Use them as transmission belts for Socialism, and current Communist propaganda.  Soften the curriculum.  Get control of the teachers associations.  Put the party line in text books.
  18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
  19. Use student riots to foment public protest against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
  20. Infiltrate the press.  Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
  21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures
  22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression.  (An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings”, substitute shapeless, awkward, and meaningless forms.)
  23. Control art critics and directors of art museums.  “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
  24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
  25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography, and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
  26. Present Homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy.”
  27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion.  Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
  28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
  29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out-of-step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
  30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers.  Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
  31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of “the big picture.”  Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
  32. Support any Socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
  33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
  34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities
  35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI
  36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
  37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
  38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies.  Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat
  39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
  40. Discredit the family as an institution.  Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
  41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents.  Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
  42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition:  that students and special interest groups should rise up and use “united force” to solve economic, political or social problems.
  43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
  44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
  45. Repeal the Connally Reservation so the US can not prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems.  Give the World Court jurisdiction over domestic problems.  Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.

Senator Charles Schumer’s Role in Today’s Economic Crisis

An important angle in the $32 billion failure of U.S. mortgage lender IndyMac that may get lost in the headlines: federal regulators pointedly cited U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., in explaining the bank’s failure in July.  In simple language, the federal regulators blamed Schumer for a run on the bank.

Here’s from the press release issued by the director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, John Reich, IndyMac’s regulator: “The OTS has determined that the current institution, IndyMac Bank, is unlikely to be able to meet continued depositors’ demands in the normal course of business and is therefore in an unsafe and unsound condition.  The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York.”  The letter expressed concerns about IndyMac’s viability. In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts.

“Would the institution have failed without the deposit run?” Mr. Reich asked reporters. “We’ll never know the answer to that question.”

Mr. Schumer quickly fired back.

“If OTS had done its job as regulator and not let IndyMac’s poor and loose lending practices continue, we wouldn’t be where we are today,” Sen. Schumer said. “Instead of pointing false fingers of blame, OTS should start doing its job to prevent future IndyMacs.”

You might be asking yourself, why is a New York Senator asking a regulator to look into a California bank’s “solvency”?  Sen. Shumer is a member of multiple committees, each of which gives him a call on the financial markets and banking sector: Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs & Finance are two of his key Senate committees.  He also Chairs the Senate Subcommittees on Economic Policy (Banking).

Having established that he has an oversight interest in the banking world, just what is he doing writing letters that could be seen to encourage panic on the part of depositors?

The answers to the questions may have been answered in the October 18th edition of the Wall Street Journal which suggests something far more sinister.  Senator Schumer not only served on the Senate Banking Committee giving him access to privileged information but he also was serving as Chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee.  As chairman, he made fund raising calls to investment industry firms seeking donations to the committee.  One such firm was Oak Tree Capital Management LP.  Oak Tree and a group of investors has “made more than $700,000 in donations to Senate Democrats and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in the four years Senator Schumer has chaired the campaign committee.”

At the time Senator Schumer released his letter to the public, Oak Tree was engaged in an insiders examination of the books and assets of IndyMac Bank.  The Journal reports that by mid-June they were not “interested in buying the bank, but were scouting assets that might become available if the bank failed and was taken over by the government,” an event made almost certain by the public release of his letter on June 26, 2008.

This is not the only area where Senator Shumer’s fingers have been in the middle of causing much of what is happening in today’s economic woes.

Even as Senator Schumer continues in his attempts to blame Wall Street’s recent economic upheavals on a lack of regulation by the Bush administration, he may have some inconvenient facts to confront.

Until the current credit crisis, Mr. Schumer had been a leading voice for deregulation: He has championed the repeal of a Great Depression-era law that prohibited commercial banks from underwriting securities; he has written an op-ed piece calling for the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to be “re-examined,” and he has opposed a bill that sought to reduce taxpayer risk in the event of a housing market slowdown by requiring Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to sell their entire investment portfolios of about $1.5 trillion worth of mortgage assets.

Mr. Schumer’s opposition to regulation is beginning to come under scrutiny for the first time.  “He is responsible as one of the leading senators in the banking committee for much of the problems that we’re facing today,” a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Peter Wallison, a former general counsel to the Treasury Department under President Reagan, said of Mr. Schumer.  “He failed to regulate where there was an opportunity to reduce the taxpayers’ liability.”

Mr. Wallison was referring to a bill that was before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in 2005.  At issue was a Republican-supported provision that would have required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to sell off the $1.5 trillion in mortgage assets that the companies were holding as investments.  The bill would have “considerably altered” the business models of the two companies by transforming them from “very large investment funds” into “conduits” that only bought mortgages, packaged them into securities, and sold them on the market, according to a Congressional Research Service report on the bill.

Mr. Schumer framed the debate not as one of regulation versus deregulation, but one of economic ideology: “We tend to believe there should be a little more government involvement,” he said.  “And the folks on the other side of the aisle, with every good intention, agree there should be a little less.”

It is understandable that Senator Schumer would not want a full investigation of his part in these matters and neither Congress nor the main stream media seems interested in doing so.  It might, however, be one reason for Schumer’s support of passage of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” which would virtually silence one possible threat to exposing those involved in the economic collapse.

If all of the pieces of this puzzle that have been outlined here are accurate, and I have found no reason to think otherwise, Senator Charles Schumer should resign.  Since that is unlikely, I would hope that either George Pataki or Rudy Giuliani would run against him as the Republican candidate.

Both of these gentlemen have the name recognition and a strong following and organization in New York already.  Both would be good Senators, not just for New York, but for America.  Let’s hope one of them chooses to take Senator Schumer on.  This is one incumbent Senator that needs to be defeated!

I urge any reader to support any candidate running against Senator Schumer.  Spread the word about his involvement in these matters.  Contact his opponents and offer to help, even if you don’t live in New York.  Write letters to news organizations.  Donate money to his opponents.  Help get him defeated!   Chuck Schumer is not a patriot!

Richard Dreyfus Interview on Huckabee

It is my belief, and I have said it many times, that partisanship has gone too far in this country.  People today disagree and refuse to listen to the ideas or view of others based solely on political affiliation.  Believe it or not, some Republicans have some good ideas and so do some Democrats.  There are actually some sound, level-headed thoughts expressed by liberals and the views of conservatives aren’t all wild-eyed and hate-filled.    There are enough bad ideas coming from all sides to keep our stress levels at super-high levels, so let us not discount the good ideas when they appear.

A couple of weeks ago, while watching the TV show, ‘Huckabee,’ I saw an interview with Richard Dreyfus.  I don’t often agree with Mr. Dreyfus on political issues, but he is right on the mark with his thoughts about some of our problems as a nation and as a people.  Don’t get me wrong.  I still disagree with his political positions generally, but I found out that he does not have a closed mind and could have a discussion with his conservative host without any sign of hostility from either gentleman.

What impressed me the most about the Dreyfuss interview was the discussion about how Mr. Dreyfuss is concerned about how uninformed Americans are today about how our government works.

Mike Huckabee led into the conversation with, “One of the reasons I wanted to have you on the show was because you’ve gone from what you have called a partisan role to a pre-partisan role to focus, not so much on the outcome of issues, but how do we get there; the process that leads to that.”

Mr. Dreyfuss’ reply included the following:

This is the greatest system of government ever created.  It’s the only one that requires some involvement of the civic body-the only one.  It is the best answer to the question, “How can people live together in some sense of decency and freedom and opportunity and mobility.”  There has never been a better answer than the United States.  We don’t know that any more.  we don’t teach it to our children. 

We wouldn’t know the whys and wherefores of how we got here any more than we would know a snowflake from a Chevy.  And the rest of the world does.  That’s why they come here.

There’s a curse that mankind has lived with for 12 thousand years and it’s known so well that nobody ever has to talk about it.  And the curse is that you and yours will never rise.  You are a serf and your children and grandchildren will be serfs and my heel will always be on your neck, until America said, “Wait a minute!  If you can get here, if you can take the stuff that life throws at you, if you work hard and are lucky, you might rise.”  And that’s the most important political message in 12 thousand years and we don’t teach it.  We are a country bound not by common ancestry, religion, location, people, sect, place.  We are bound only by ideas.  And if you don’t teach those ideas, we are not bound.”

Huckabee then inquired, “How do we get there?  Let’s specifically talk about students, because that’s what we have to be worried about.  Does the next generation understand what an incredible gift they have when they have citizenship in this country?  How do we get them to appreciate that?

Mr. Dryfuss’ reply, in part, was

It is my opinion, and I went to Oxford for three years to study for this, that you have to make people, kids, fall in love with America and fall in love with the America of ideas…

Mr. Dreyfuss went on to talk about how we don’t teach how to deal with many of the complexities of the world and explains how the time to make important decisions has been reduced to the point that it could be dangerous for us all.

I appreciated being enlightened to this opinion of Richard Drefuss because it is something that I believe and feel strongly about as well.  We need to begin teaching about America in our schools and our homes again.  We need to spread the word to our children of America’s greatness.  We need to talk about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the words and beliefs of our Founding Fathers.  We need to express why it is important and how it effects us all!  

For those who would like to see the complete interview, click on this link: .  It’s worth the time to see and hear.  It is also refreshing to watch and hear two people on opposite sides of the political spectrum have a rational conversation that could spark the beginning of something good happening in our country…people expressing ideas of how to make America better and getting along while discussing it.

A Slight Change in Future Content

After some time off, I have decided to slightly change the direction of what I write. 


With the election of 2008 behind us, I am finding a number of people who are in a state of depression or anxiety about what they fear is in store for us in the future.  Too many people are wringing their hands about the last campaign.  Everyone seems to want to cast blame at this candidate or point to that decision that should or shouldn’t have been made.  Many are talking about what this party or that party needs to do and describe how this election proves their point.  


I have a slightly different position.  Barack Obama won the election.  It’s over.  Everyone should wish for a peaceful transition and wise decisions in the future.  Let’s all get busy trying to keep America strong and free.


While I will continue commenting on issues of the day, especially if the press seems to ignore it or sweep it under the rug, I plan to take a more positive approach than the pundits I’ve been watching on tv and reading their opinions and begin the campaign for 2010.  I feel that it is counter-productive to do otherwise at this point because I believe in our system of government.


I plan to highlight office holders, new or potential candidates and other national or local personalities who are supporting views that are both pro-American and pro-Constitution in my opinion.  In other words, I will be highlighting those who I believe to be Patriots and encourage support for them.  At the same time, I will also highlight people who are not what would be considered Patriots in using the same criteria.  I intend to encourage a lack of support for them. 


I will take time to try to bring some historical and current reasons to be proud of our country and our heritage because there is such a lack of it around today.  I will also be bringing to light certain important issues that will be potentially effecting us as citizens or the country as a whole.


I hope the information will prove to be useful and I will try to keep it interesting.  I will continue to welcome comments from readers and suggestions or ideas for future articles.

Finally, The Election Campaining is Over…Or Is It?

For those of you who believe that the election of 2008 seemed to go on forever, it is finally over.  We can now all relax and get on with our normal lives.  Right?


Not so fast!  It seems that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has scheduled a trip to Iowa for later this month!  He is schedule to appear at the Iowa Family Policy Center’s “Celebrating the Family” banquet in suburban Des Moines on November 22nd.  While in the state, he also may to go to Cedar Rapids to see some of those areas impacted  by the summer floods.


This will be his first trip to Iowa, said his spokeswoman Melissa Sellers.


The Christian conservative organization is led by Chuck Hurley, a well-known activist who first backed Sam Brownback before switching over to Mike Huckabee in this year’s GOP nomination battle.


When asked about the event, the governor deflected talk of presidential hopes. “This is a good group. I was happy to try to help them by speaking at their event, try to help them raise these dollars. It’ll be helpful for us to build certainly relationships between our two states,” he said.


“As we have written before, politicians NEVER – we can’t stress this enough – go to Iowa accidentally. They know exactly what a trip to Iowa means,” wrote Chris Cillizza, a national political blogger for


And so, my fellow followers of political news, the campaign for 2012 begins later this month.  Enjoy the two weeks off!



















Congratulations to Barack Obama

Having won a decisive victory in yesterday’s election, Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States on January 20th.  I salute President-elect Obama on a brilliant campaign and will support him as our president as long as I do not have to go against my own personal values to do so.  Please don’t take that as a slap at the new president, I would have said the same thing had John McCain won.

I have hope that the nation can begin the healing process that has been long needed.  In his speech in Chicago last night, Obama stated that we will no longer be red states and blue states.  We will be the United States.  That would be a change worth supporting.

I encourage everyone to support the new president.  His administration will be facing serious challenges and the country will continue to face many threats.  It is time to get past the pure partisan political disagreements just for the sake of partisanship’s sake. 

Senator Obama has said that he will work with the opposing party and he will be taking an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  Until he shows that he will not, I will support him as our leader and I will urge others to do so as well. 

If you have a religious background, please say a prayer for our country and our new President.  If you don’t, cross your fingers.

Who Will Get the Blame For Election Loss?

When the presidential election is finally over, there will be those who will begin to point the finger of blame for why the losing candidate lost.  Where will the finger be pointing?  Well, that will depend on who loses the election and who is doing the pointing.

If John McCain loses the election, there will be those who will point the finger at Sarah Palin as the reason.  She has been beaten pretty badly in the press and many will continue to do so.  Part of the reason for this is because neither the press nor the moderate wing of the Republican party want to see her as a major figure in Republican national politics in the future.  She’s too poplular outside the elite east and she is too conservative.  In other words, she is a threat and they want to continue to take her out. 

Some will say that the candidate’s handling of the economic crisis was to blame.  “Frankly, John McCain might still have lost the election, but he should have come out against the bailout and voted no on the bill,” they will say.

Others will say that nobody could have beaten the media bias and the amount of money Obama raised (legally or illegally–and it doesn’t matter which it was now that the election is over!).  It was just too much to overcome.

If Barack Obama should come out on the losing end of the election, the press and the vast majority of his supporters will say it is because America is a racist county.  They will be wrong, but their minds are made up that that is the case before election day has arrived.  You never hear anyone from either of those groups say that the candidate is too far to the left and that his views are not that of mainstream America.

There will be a very few who might point the finger at the Clintons being behind why Obama might have lost.  There has been a feeling of conspiracy brewing since the primaries and it will continue for some.

An even fewer amount of people will say that Joe Biden’s gaffes hurt the candidate and that if someone else (like Hillary for instance) was on the ticket he would have won.

The big difference will be if John McCain loses, there will be more people blame the candidate than there will be blaming Obama if Barack Obama loses.  Republicans are a little more used to blaming their candidate than Democrats.  Democrats always seem to want to blame someone else for why their candidate lost.