Bring Back the House Un-American Activities Committee

Alger Hiss standing behind Stalin, Roosevelt & Churchill at Yalta conference, USSR 1945. Click on photo for a larger view.

In the years immediately following World War II, most American were understandably  concerned about Communist infiltration at the highest levels of the U.S. government.  For example, how could anyone forget the photograph taken at the Yalta Conference, February 4-11, 1945, in which Alger Hiss, a deep-cover Soviet agent, was seen leaning over FDR’s shoulder, whispering advice to him as he negotiated with Churchill and Stalin?  Hiss served as Roosevelt’s senior advisor on political affairs.

Roosevelt arrived in Yalta carrying copies of the Morgenthau Plan, which advocated that the post-war occupation of Germany include measures to eradicate Germany’s ability to wage war, and to remove or destroy other key industries basic to military strength.  The Morgenthau Plan was the brainchild of yet another deep-cover Soviet spy in the highest echelons of the Roosevelt administration, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White.

But it was not until the Cold War and the US-Soviet arms race became a fact of life that most Americans became fully aware of the dangers of Soviet expansionism and the extent to which Soviet agents had infiltrated the U.S. government.  It was then that Congress took steps to facilitate the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), created in 1938, with the passage of the Communist Control Act of 1954, and similar measures.

Alger Hiss shaking hands with new President Truman at first United Nations conference, USA 1945. For a larger view click on photo.

The HUAC was abolished in 1975, but now, in the early years of the 21st century, we find ourselves confronted by an enemy every bit as ruthless as the enemies we faced in World War II and the Cold War, but far more numerous.  If, as some Muslim apologists suggest, only 5 percent of the world’s Muslim population are radicalized, the number of potential airplane hijackers, suicide bombers, and jihadists we face is approximately 70 million.  In World War II, the combined military forces of the Germans, Japanese, and Italians numbered only 31.4 million.

A recent article in Investor’s Business Daily, describes the recent formation of the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO).  It provides a clear insight into how far Muslim infiltration of the U.S. has advanced.  The report tells us that, “With an eye toward the 2016 election, the radical Muslim Brotherhood has built the framework for a political party in America that seeks to turn Muslims into an Islamist voting bloc.”

IBD cautions, “This development bears careful monitoring in light of the U.S. Brotherhood’s recently exposed goal of waging a ‘civilization jihad’ against America that explicitly calls for infiltrating the U.S. political system and ‘destroying (it) from within.’ ”  The IBD article explains that this subversive plan was spelled out in hundreds of pages of documents seized by the FBI during a raid on a Muslim Brotherhood leader’s home in a Washington suburb after 9/11.

The article goes on to quote Nihad Awad, Founder and Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as saying, “Muslim voters have the potential to be swing voters in 2016.  We are aiming to bring more participation from the Muslim community.”

One might ask, “Is that a proffer, available to the highest bidder?” Liberals and Democrats have always been known for their willingness to embrace almost any special interest agenda so long as that special interest brings enough money and votes to the table. Is it possible that they might be tempted to adopt the cause of radical Islam, ignoring the fact that they and their families are as much targets of radical Islam as conservatives and Republicans?

The Democratic Party has been very successful at tap-dancing around the disparate interests of a large coalition of special interests, each demanding some self-serving policy or program from government.  However, it is probably too much of a stretch to think that they would be so reckless as to adopt the anti-American, counter-cultural, agenda of radical Islam.  Given the danger that radical Islam represents, they would do so at their own peril.  Even they are smart enough to understand that an ant should not contemplate swallowing an elephant.

Such was the case when the Communist Control Act of 1954 was under consideration.  The Communist threat during the early years of the Cold War led most liberals to overlook the fact that the CCA suspended citizenship rights of Communist Party members.  Few liberals and Democrats offered more than token opposition; most ardently supported the CCA, as they did the unconscionable internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

The Communist Control Act of 1954 made membership in the Communist Party a criminal act, conviction of which carried a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for five years, or both.  However, it should be noted that, while no administration has ever attempted to enforce it, the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of the CCA.  Provisions of the act outlawing the Communist Party have not been repealed and could easily be customized in our efforts to protect our country and our culture from the internal threat posed by radical Islam.

Reading Section 2 of the CCA, it is easy to see how the act could be tailored to meet the threat of Islamic jihad. By removing references to Communists and the Communist Party and substituting references to Islam, Section 2 of the Act could be paraphrased to read as follows:

Sec. 2. The Congress hereby finds and declares that Islam, although purportedly a religious sect, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States.  It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to individuals of other religious denominations, but denying to all others the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.  Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, the policies and programs of Islam are secretly prescribed by the foreign leaders of Islam.  Its members have no part in determining its goals and are not permitted to voice dissent to Muslim objectives.  Unlike members of political parties, members of the Islamic community are recruited for indoctrination with respect to Islamic objectives and are organized, instructed, and disciplined to carry out assignments given them by their leaders, including the order to kill and maim innocent men, women, and children by acting as suicide bombers.  Unlike political parties, Islamic jihad acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members.  As a segment of the U.S. population, Islam is relatively small numerically and gives scant indication of its capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means.  The peril inherent in the existence of Islam arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence.  Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States.  It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of Islam, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services.  Therefore, the organization known as Islam shall be outlawed in the United States.

As the prominent sociologist, Ernest van den Haag said at the time of passage of the CCA, there is “no place in a democracy for those who want to abolish [it], even with a peaceful vote.”  Nor is there a place in a democracy for Islamists who acknowledge no respect for U.S. constitutional principles or the rule of law.

Perhaps the next Republican president will sign legislation expanding the Communist Control Act of 1954 to cover the activities of radical Islam.  His signing statement might echo President Eisenhower’s CCA signing statement of August 24, 1954, declaring, “The American people are determined to eliminate from their midst organizations which, purporting to be “religious,” in the accepted sense of that term, are actually conspirators dedicated to the destruction of our form of government by violence and force…”

The Muslim infiltration of old Europe is such that some very old cultures are in serious danger of extinction. In Sweden, for example, one in every four Swedish women are victims of sexual assault, while more than three out of four convicted rapists in Sweden are Muslim immigrants from North African nations. They demonstrate no respect whatsoever for the people or the laws of nations that have thrown their doors open to them, making the great liberal experiment in multiculturalism a complete failure.

Radical Islam poses a clear and present danger to the lives and property of the American people, and to the continued existence of western civilization.  So that the American people can be fully cognizant of the subversive activities of Islamic jihad and to the dangers posed thereby, the Congress should take immediate steps to outlaw Islamic fundamentalism and to document its eradication by reestablishing the House Un-American Activities Committee.

It matters little to Muslims whether the conquest of the West takes 10 years, 100 years, or 1,000 years.  They have endless patience and the only way to deal with the threat is to confront it courageously and forthrightly.  Islam must be made to understand that they will never gain full  acceptance in the Western world until such time as they renounce all forms of violence against non-Muslims, and Christians, Jews, and other religious denominations are accorded full religious freedom throughout the Muslim world.  That is the line in the sand that must be drawn… nothing less will suffice.

RELATED STORY: Material Support to Terrorism: The Case of Libya

EDITORS NOTE:  The featured photo of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg’s sons, Robert, 6 (left) and Michael, 10, looking at a 1953 newspaper is courtesy of the New York Times . The Rosenberg sons finally admitted in 2008, based on new testimony, that their father was in fact a Soviet spy.

---