Forum: Is Religious Freedom Seriously Threatened In America?

The Watcher’s Council

Every week on Monday morning, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum with short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture or daily living. This week’s question: Is Religious Freedom Seriously Threatened In America?

The Razor: A year ago everyone was dumping buckets of ice water on their heads. Now they are making everyone cakes. I think this is a mass freakout by both sides – by the religious who believe that our culture is spiraling into the abyss, and by the liberals who want to punish people for their beliefs, but in a subtle way that makes headlines but poor case law. I consider myself an ally of the LGBTQWERTY or whatever acronym people use these days to identify their non-standard sexual preferences, but honestly, what is happening in Indian is not Selma, and Indiana Governor Mike Pence is not Bull Connor. Liberals love to wage Total Culture War, and Conservatives just can‘t seem to fight back. As Penn Jellett said in a recent CNN Crossfire on the topic, Indiana restaurant owners are not being forced to have gay sex. Likewise the Catholic Church is not being compelled to marry a pair of women, so I don’t see religion seriously threatened.

What I do see are religious people getting tired of a gay obsessed mass media. As an ally I’m sick of it too. Things would be much better for everyone’s sakes if people stopped talking about their sexuality all the time. But it took several months for the ice bucket thing to die down and I think the same thing will happen here.

Don Surber: Religious freedom died long ago along with free speech. Socialists killed it when they extended it to Wiccans and other weird religions. God does not like to be mocked. We had better step carefully.

Wolf Howling: If one defines religious freedom as the right to be left alone to live according to the dictates of one’s religion and the freedom to impart one’s religious values and morality to one’s children, than yes, religious freedom is today under mortal threat in America. The attack on religious freedom is a component of the left’s larger effort to do away with the Judeo-Christian religions in this country. To understand the threat to religious freedom, one needs to understand how the threat manifests within the context of this larger effort.

When socialism was born in the crucible of the French Revolution, its founders immediately began a brutal war on the Catholic Church and its clergy with the goal of eliminating the Judeo-Christian religion from their country. Denis Diderot, a hero of the Revolution, proposed to his fellow revolutionaries that they strangle the last priest with the “guts of the last king.” The left’s war on the Judeo-Christian religions had begun, and it has never ended since.

Simply put, the socialist left needs to eliminate the Judeo-Christian religions so that they can replace God with government as the final source of morality, laws and, indeed, approved thought.

In whatever nation they take root and at whatever historical period, the left’s playbook for attacking religion has always been the same, at least in those places where they could not simply ban the Judeo-Christian religions. Step one is to marginalize religion in society. Step two is to intercede in between the family and the child, to take over children’s education and impart left wing values. The third and final step is to use the police powers of the state to establish the primacy over religious conscience, in essence delegitimizing religious values and putting the final nail in its coffin.

In America, step one for the left began near a century ago, when the ACLU, an organization explicitly founded to advance socialism, began to bring cases before left leaning courts arguing that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause – That Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion – meant that there must be complete separation between church and state.

Even the most superficial look to our history will show that such was never the intent of our Founders. The sole purpose of the Establishment Clause was to prevent our government from giving preferential treatment to any Judeo-Christian religious sect, as was the custom in Europe. None-the-less, the ACLU argued, on the basis of a single phrase in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, that the Establishment Clause in the modern era should be read to create a “wall of separation between Church and State.” Our Courts, the most dangerous branch of our government, reinterpreted the Establishment Clause and, ever since the 1947 decision in Everson, have been engaged in systematically removing all of the symbols, trappings and influence of the Judeo Christian religions from our schools and public institutions. This line of cases was taken to the radical extreme in the 2002 Lawrence v. Texas case, when the Supreme Court majority held that religion can no longer be viewed as providing a “rational basis” for our nation’s laws.

A second component to this initial step, to marginalize religion, has been to muzzle political speech by religious organizations through restrictions in the tax code. Throughout our history, our religious institutions were free to speak without limit in the political realm. And indeed, in 1776, the Congregationalist and Presbyterian sects in large measure drove our American Revolution on religious grounds, equating the concept of British liberty with biblical scripture. When Benjamin Franklin proposed a design for the Great Seal of the United States in 1776, he suggested that the motto adorning the seal be “Resistance To Tyrants Is Obedience To God.” That was a very pithy and accurate summation of religious thought in the colonies at the time of our Founding. And yet in 1954, the left, led by then Senator Lyndon Johnson, made changes to the tax code that allowed the IRS to strip any religious organization of its tax exempt status for overt political speech, thus circumscribing what church leaders could say from the pulpit and effectively dampening concerted action by congregations.

The second step in the war on religion in America could be termed a war on families. It has been an effort to put the state in place of the family, with the goal being to impart socialist values in place of the family’s own religious, moral and ethical values. When Hillary Clinton said many years ago that it “takes a village to raise a child,” that was a very pithy summation of the left’s mindset. An even clearer example came a few years ago from Prof. Melissa Harris Perry.

Once the left claims the children, what they teach them begins with sex. The social justice values that the left seeks to teach come later. It is sex that provides the bedrock foundation for the left’s efforts at supplanting the family and establishing the primacy of socialist values. It is not hard to see why.

Sex is a basic human instinct. Untamed, it is an animalistic instinct, devoid of emotional content or commitment and, while resulting in the greatest of physical pleasures, it is also an act that can have the most profound physical and emotional consequences. A major concern of the Judeo-Christian religions has always been to make sex only acceptable in relationships between a married couple, man and woman. This significantly eliminates the potential negative consequences of sex and places a greatest value on the basic building block of society, the family. So it has been since time immemorial, and that is why the left long ago opted to use sex as its primary tool in its effort to have the state stand in loco parentis. As Bookworm Room wrote a few years ago, “The state has driven a wedge into the family unit, using the most potent endorphin driver available to motivate and reorient young people.”

At law, the left has been successful in supplanting the family when it comes to sex. As a result of recent court decisions, a girl today of any age can walk into a pharmacy and purchase birth control and even abortifacients without parental knowledge. In NYC and in many other locales, birth control and abortifacients are made freely available through public school systems and a child or teenager may access them without any parental notification or approval. In California and many other states, a sixteen year old girl can “get birth control, get abortions, and get treated for sexually transmitted diseases, all without a parents’ knowledge.”

In a brilliant piece of analysis, Bookworm Room, in an article Sex and State Power, examines the relationship between sex, individuality and the goals of the left and other statists. Therein she gives numerous examples of how the left, often through our schools and under the ostensible guise of teaching tolerance, is seeking to normalize and promote values and mores concerning sexuality that are decoupled from and antithetical to religious morality. This is, she argues convincingly, a necessary step in moving the child towards socialism. Indeed, as Bookworm sums up:

[I]f you’re getting an itchy feeling between your shoulder blades when you contemplate your child’s hyper-sexualized reading list and gender-bending sex education curriculum, you need not fear that you have turned into a repressed, homophobic Victorian. Instead, there’s an excellent chance that you are someone with a deep respect for individual freedom who resents the Leftists’ efforts to co-opt your child’s body as a necessary sacrifice to the State.

And that brings us to the third and final stage of the assault on religion, using the police power of the state to establish the primacy of state approved thought and values, and to use that same police power to punish those who would stand by their religious values and conscience.

If you wonder how the “gay rights” movement has exploded so quickly onto our national stage, you need look no further than our Courts. Left wing judges have stood primed for the last century to move our nation ever father to the left. Laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman are being struck down left and right by judges using an utterly laughable interpretation of the Equal Rights clause of our 14th Amendment. No one can argue, with a straight face, that gay rights were in the contemplation of the people who drafted and passed the 14th Amendment in 1868. And yet our Courts have wholly at their whim reinterpreted that provision and now use this novel legal theory to uphold a newly found Constitutional right to gay marriage. That has set the stage for the “gay rights” movement to begin the final push, targeting Christians and Jews who refuse to violate their religious conscience by taking any action to validate “gay marriage.”

This war on religious freedom is also at the heart of the Obamacare HHS mandate,discussed at length here, that all Americans purchase insurance policies that include, and that all employers provide coverage that includes, free birth control and abortifacients. This is a gross intrusion on the rights of religious conscience, and yet the Obama administration provided only a very narrow category of people and institutions who would be allowed to object. This could not be more of a fundamental attack on the freedom of religion. The final decision on whether this HHS mandate will stand and in what contexts still, in many ways, remains up in the air, though the Supreme Court, in a bare majority 5-4 decision, did rule in favor of one religious employer, Hobby Lobby, in their opposition to the mandate. The Beckett Fund is handling a significant number of these cases.

One would think that rights of religious conscience would be a final and effective bulwark against these attacks from the left on religious freedom. After all, immediately after the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the Free Exercise clause states that “Congress shall make no laws . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion.]” But whether our leftward bending Courts will uphold rights of religious conscience from attacks by the left looks doubtful. It was just last year that the Supreme Court refused to review a New Mexico decision punishing a wedding photographer for refusing to service a gay wedding. If that stands, then there is no longer any right to religious freedom in this country and the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause is a nullity.

So, is religious freedom under attack in America? Not only yes, but it’s been under continuous, sustained attack for the past century on multiple fronts, and now is fighting a rear guard action, perhaps on the final battlefield. This is a zero sum game for the left, and they will not stop their attacks until the Judeo-Christian religions have been delegitimized in this nation. It is quite literally a battle for the heart and soul of this nation, and if religion loses, the left will become permanently ascendent. Those who value religion need to understand the many battlefields on which the left is attacking religion in this nation and figure out ways to effectively fight back in each of them. Clearly though, one of those ways must be to demand reforms to our out of control Court system, where unelected judges make of themselves petty tyrants, taking questions of social policy with profound implications for our nation out of the hands of the people.

JoshuaPundit: Every year since I started paying attention, I’ve seen freedom in general attacked and reduced by government. I live in California you know, the trendsetter for this sort of thing. Part of it is simply economic, the New Feudalism as I call it, enriching our newly enthroned Ruling Class on the backs of the rest of us.

And remember Proposition 8? It was California’s own elected officials refusal to honor their oaths of office and defend the state’s laws that led to one openly homosexual judge cancelling out the votes of over 60% of California’s voters. And the subsequent cowardly decision by the US Supreme Court to punt on the matter because they claimed the state’s residents ‘had no standing’ is what led to the avalanche of lawfare and the current situation.

In my examination of the gay marriage issue, I set out a number of big picture reasons why I felt thatsame sex marriage was bad for the country that had nothing to do with my or anyone else’s religious beliefs, and the effects are gradually being felt.

The attack on religious rights is prog fascism 101, because after all, we can’t have people answering to a higher authority than the state, can we? Every totalitarian regime in modern times from Hitler to Stalin to Mao to the Kims has done this, proof that they’re really the same folks wearing slightly different hats at the same party. But the use of homosexuals as a wedge has certain subtexts that I think many people miss.

First, there is the massive amount of fundraising for the Democrat Party involved. As no less an informed political animal named Rahm Emanuel put it, “This is huge, Gays are going to be the new Jews when it comes to fundraising for Democrats.” He’s right, and creating a new, well to do victim class is a goldmine for the Democrats. It also potentially gives them a particularly vicious and unprincipled thug class to use. It’s not much remembered nowadays, but Ernst Röhm, Edmund Heines, Karl Ernst and a large contingent of Hitler’s most brutal SA men were all active homosexuals. So was Baldur von Schirach, leader of the Hitler Youth.

Second, aside from diminishing the moral authority of religion, the current campaign also severely weakens the family, another source of authority government doesn’t want people paying attention to. And the Left is already using the public schools to indoctrinate the coming generation. After all, if your pastor or your mom and dad can be portrayed as bigots and anti-American, why pay attention to them? In fact, why not turn ‘em in for that shiny new medal?

This is much more pervasive and serious than many people realize. It’s a battering ram being used to break down the gates to the fortress of rights we’ve enshrined for our entire national history and allow tyranny to storm in a destroy them.

We had better pay attention and be prepared to fight back. If America becomes a nation under the New Order rather then One Nation Under G-d as our Founders envisioned it, our decline will be swift and merciless.

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD: At the federal level, the Department of Health and Human Services recently decided that Catholic schools, charities, and hospitals are not “religious employers” that deserve religious freedom protection. As a result, these ministries will be forced to provide and pay for things that violate their moral and religious beliefs, as a part of the health insurance coverage they offer their employees.

At the state level, Alabama has passed legislation that would prevent Catholics from serving undocumented immigrants, even with basics like food, shelter, and medical services. And in Connecticut, legislators proposed a bill that would have forced the Catholic Church to change how it is structured and governed—allowing the State to remake the Church in its own image.

For all these serious threats and ominous trends here in the United States, the attacks on religious liberty around the world are far more severe—and also growing. Assassinations, the bombing of houses of worship, and the torching of orphanages out of hostility to religion are unfortunately still common in many countries. One recent study describes a “rising tide” of threats to religious liberty, with three quarters of the world’s population living in countries with high or Current Threats to Religious Liberty

The Glittering Eye: It’s a difficult and troubling question. Although I don’t think that religious freedom is being threatened now, I think there’s a very slippery slope ahead.

I presume this question was motivated by the overheated discussion of the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act-style law that was contemplated and which has now, I believe, been enacted into law and signed by the governor. It’s actually much more lenient than similar laws in more progressive states so it’s hard to justify all of the hyperventilating.

The scenarios painted by opponents of the law are mostly silly–practically perfect examples of strawmen. It would not be possible to start your own religion with tenets of racial superiority for the express purpose of evading the state’s anti-discrimination laws. Such notions have already been fully litigated (particularly in the area of conscientious objectorship) and if presented with such a case the courts would recognize that for what it transparently was.

I think the entire discussion suggests a complete lack of understanding about what the free exercise clause of the First Amendment means, something that was fully explored in The Federalist before the Constitution was adopted. It was not a license for people to do whatever they wanted. It was a means of allowing people to do what they must, what they were obligated to do.

Having been a church musician for 30 years this is something of a sensitive subject for me. A Catholic surgeon may not in good conscience perform abortions, at least not without abandoning Catholicism. A Catholic priest may not officiate at the “marriage” of two men or two women. If it were demanded of me that I sing at such a “marriage” service, I guess I’d have to go to jail. That’s a very fine example of religious persecution. Given a choice between abandoning the teachings of my faith to honor someone else’s beliefs I would be obliged to honor the teachings of my own faith whatever the consequences to me.

Portraying the Catholic church as anti-gay is foolishness. It is neither anti-gay nor homophobic. It does not teach that homosexuality is evil. It teaches that homosexual inclinations are to be resisted, prescribing chastity for those who struggle with such inclinations. I can only speculate that’s too fine a distinction for a radical activist to appreciate. There are many worse fates than chastity but apparently that violates the beliefs of some of my fellow citizens. I can tolerate their religious beliefs why can’t they tolerate mine?

In a remarkably short time we have been asked to go from tolerating open homosexuality, which, since I’ve had homosexual friends and acquaintances since I was a young teenager, I have no problem with, to transforming the fundamental structures of our society in ways that will have implications for which no one can predict the effects. What was the position of the most progressive president of the United States in almost a century just a few years ago is now being lambasted as intolerant, homophobic, and primitive.

What I think we’re seeing right now are some very intolerant and totalitarian impulses being expressed by what I hope is a fairly small segment of the population. If they are granted free rein, religious freedom will in fact be threatened. I don’t think we’re quite there yet.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason: While these manufactured “equal rights” and “discrimination” battles continue to hit the news cycle, the left gleefully calls for boycotts and incites its base in a campaign to vilify those who merely ask to be permitted to exercise their God given and constitutionally protected right to live their lives in accordance with their faith. Many of our ancestors came to this country because they could enjoy this most basic of freedoms.

Possibly at no other time in America’s history has religious freedom been more in peril. We have a generation of young adults indoctrinated by the left that faith and religion are ancient superstitions and those who profess a belief in God or a Creator are to be mocked and ridiculed. As the left pushes its agenda they continue to attack the core precepts of our country’s founding.

The reason the faithful are being attacked so vociferously is because it is difficult to control a people who believe their rights are inherent and do not come from government. Therefore the faithful must be destroyed… or at the very least marginalized and humiliated.

Those being attacked by the left generally possess the most tolerant of attitudes towards others. Their faith is predicated on tolerance and love. If these attacks continue they will become less willing to speak out and defend others being targeted. And with no one willing to stand and defend our religious freedom the outcome looks increasingly bleak.

The Independent Sentinel : I’m not sure we have religious freedom at this point. The government can make us buy things, sell things, provide services that violate our rights to conscience. We’re still in transition but there’s almost no pushback and the future for our First Amendment is bleak.

Bill O’Reilly talks about the secular progressives war against religion in this country and I agree with him.

On Fox & Friends Thursday, he said ”the totalitarian left is pretty much out of control in America” and we have a media which “sympathizes with the Fascists.”

“The totalitarian left is pretty much out of control in America and that’s because the media, generally speaking, sympathizes with the Fascists, so if you’re against abortion, you’re not a person of conscience sticking up for the unborn, no, you’re against women, you’re declaring war on women’s reproductive rights. This is how the media spins it. If you’re against gay marriage because you believe in Scripture, it’s not that you’re a religious person, whose belief system should be respected, no, you’re a homophobe, you’re a bigot”.

“Now, this is put out there, distributed by the mainstream media so that the fanatics in the secular progressive community, and that includes a lot of entertainment figures, they know they can get their attacks unchallenged in the media. Unchallenged. And that puts a lot of pressure on the person being attacked…”

The really sad thing is it’s a minority of people abusing the majority.

Traditional America and our Constitution are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. The Fascists want it destroyed.

They hate the founders and the Europeans who settled the land. They see them as evil.

Once religious values are relegated to theirs, there will be peace and safety in their view.

The Fascists are on the march. They’re in our colleges, in our government, in our media, in churches. They’re instilling their values in our youth but religion is an impediment. It’s in the way of their Utopia.

Rhymes With Right: This week’s Watcher’s Council Forum question asks if religious freedom is seriously threatened in America. Sadly, I believe it is, despite the clear promise of the Bill of Rights that free exercise of religion is a right guaranteed to every American. The reality is that this particular liberty has been under assault for some time, and that it will only get worse.

Who is leading the assault? Secular leftists and those ostensibly a part of religious communities (often in leadership positions) who have been co-opted by the siren call of progressive ideology. The Secular Left has long been contemptuous of people of faith. Want an example? Just look at the “bitter clinger” rhetoric of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Listen to entertainers like Bill Maher, John Stewart, and Stephen Colbert. Consider the manner in which our elite institutions treat religious believers, especially Christians.

Sadly, though, the weapon they wield is one placed in their hands by a conservative man of faith — Justice Antonin Scalia. His opinion in Employment Division v. Smith overturned several decades of Free Exercise jurisprudence that had shown deference to freedom of conscience and required that government show a compelling interest before it burdens the free exercise of religion. The long history of both legislative and judicial accommodation of religious belief and conduct was therefore jettisoned in the name of what was deemed to be an originalist interpretation not particularly supported by either the text of the Constitution nor the writings of the Framers. Indeed, it is not unreasonable to speculate that Scalia’s decision was based more on an antipathy to drug use than fidelity to the text of the First Amendment or longstanding precedents.

Initially, religious believers of all stripes united to see that the customary religious protections were written into statutory law. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and later the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), were efforts designed to see that the law respected religious freedom. But when the principles of religious freedom the two sides agreed upon ran into the liberal desire to see gay marriage and government mandated health insurance become a part of America’s social landscape, the demand that traditional religious believers be free to opt out of participation in elements of both that offended their faith led the Left to reject Free Exercise outside of the confines of church buildings and the privacy of one’s home.

This past week we saw this matter come to fruition, as activists in two states forced changes into state RFRAs that will guarantee that Christian (and Muslim and even some Jewish) businesspeople choose between honoring their faith and honoring the law. Nobody is talking about banning members of any protected class from their businesses — they are simply seeking to opt out of participation in specific events that offend their religion. But in the name of non-discrimination, those who believe as a matter of faith that homosexual marriage is an abomination before God will be forced to participate despite the fact that they view doing so as endangering their immortal soul — and failure to do so could cost them their businesses and their life savings, and perhaps even result in their incarceration.

Unfortunately, the same “civil rights” laws that require these people of faith to accommodate sin are not reciprocal. Just last week, in the midst of the dispute over RFRAs in Indiana and Arkansas, the state of Colorado ruled that it was not an act of unlawful discrimination for a baker to refuse to provide a cake expressing traditional Christian beliefs on marriage.

Now we all know that the state would not have accepted the argument that a baker would not serve anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, who sought a cake for a same sex wedding. The reality is that the agency is allowing someone a way out of complying with non-discrimination law that they would allow in no other situation. Thus there is no longer equal protection of the law when it comes to matter of non-discrimination law, and the deck is stacked against believers.

We know what is coming next. Ross Douhat asked a series of questions about how far conformity should be enforced on matters of gay marriage. Should people be denied employment or lose employment for holding the wrong view? Should religious institutions that reject gay marriage be legally disadvantaged for that belief? Should attempting to pass on traditional views on sexual morality be deemed child abuse and result in the loss of parental rights? In other words, should the holding of religious beliefs that were mainstream and consistent with the law a mere two decades ago become an offense under the law? Sadly, many of the commenters on his piece were supportive of undercutting religious freedom.

The more I’ve looked at this matter over the last week, the more I have come to realize that for Christians the future may come to look very much like the situation that faced the first followers of Christ in the decades following the crucifixion until the time of Constantine.


And sadly, the same will be true of our Torah-believing Jewish brethren — the days of Antiochus Epiphanes will be revisited upon them by the Progressives, cheered on by the their secular Jewish cousins. But this will not, I would suspect, be the case for the followers of Islam, which has come under the special protection progressives due their shared value of anti-Americanism.

The Right Planet: I think freedom itself is seriously threatened in America. When the term “political correctness” entered the lexicon, it signaled a move away from the freedom of expression toward censorship; lest one find themselves at odds with the capricious will of the mob. The First Amendment couldn’t be any clearer when it comes to the right of the individual to freely worship and practice their faith as they see fit: “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

As far as the recent controversy over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is concerned, I think there is more at play here than meet’s the eye. What I see is the forced acceptance of a certain “lifestyle.” One must accept, and even embrace, gay marriage, for example. If one does not embrace gay marriage, and the gay “lifestyle” in general, it is called “hate” and “discrimination” by the militant forces who are attempting to ram their “morals” down the throats of those may not agree with them. Funny, coming from those who constantly rail against anybody ramming their morals down their throats. To me, it is all about the freedom of association; and whether or not I, as an individual, have the right to associate with those I choose to associate with.

What really angers me about the recent controversy over religious freedom are the methods being deployed against those of faith. Take the case of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana, for example. Following a reporter asking one of the owners of the small pizza shop whether they would cater a gay wedding, and the owner responding that it violated their religious convictions (despite the fact the owners did not refuse to serve gay customers), all hell broke loose. They were deluged with death threats and a torrent of hate that was just off the charts.

The First Amendment grants Americans the right to peacefully protest; but it does not grant the right to violently protest, or harass people, or create a public nuisance, or file false charges, or threaten arson, and so on. Perhaps it’s people of faith who should be given “protected class” status. But that’s a whole ‘nuther can of worms.

Well, there you have it!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the week’s nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it… or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?


The Clenched Fist—Revisiting Golitsyn’s Predictions

By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet

Many people have probably never heard of Anatoliy Golitsyn. I had never heard of him until several years ago after I started heavily researching the history of the Soviet Union, and the strategy and tactics Communists employ against their adversaries.

Golitsyn’s name was again brought up during a lengthy discussion I had with author Trevor Loudon back in 2014. I decided right then and there that I needed to look deeper into this intriguing character.

Rare photo of Anatoliy Golitsyn (Credit: Wikipedia)

Rare photo of Anatoliy Golitsyn (Credit: Wikipedia)

Anatoliy Golitsyn was an ex-KGB officer who spent 15 years in Soviet intelligence work, which put him in contact with high-ranking Soviet officials. He defected to the West in 1961. Golitsyn wrote two books that outline in painstaking detail the Soviet’s “grand strategy” against the West and the non-communist Third World: New Lies for Old (1984) and The Perestroika Deception (1995).

Both books contain some astonishing and disturbing predictions. In a nutshell, Golitsyn claimed that the alleged fall of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent end of the so-called “Cold War,” was nothing but a ruse designed to lull Western powers and non-communist nations into believing Communism had been defeated—when, in fact, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Golitsyn wrote in New Lies for Old:

The feigned disunity of the communist world promotes real disunity in the noncommunist world…. False alignments, formed with third parties by each side against the other, make it easier to achieve specific communist goals, such as the acquisition of advanced technology or the negotiation of arms control agreements or communist penetration of Arab and African states. In Western eyes the military, political, economic, and ideological threat from world communism appears diminished. [1]

Communist strategy has long used the tactic of “controlled opposition” to deceive and lull their enemies into complacency. The purpose of “false opposition” is to further confuse and undermine any genuine opposition in the communist world. Vladimir I. Lenin best summed up the dialectical strategy of controlled opposition by stating, “The best way for us to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”

The dialectic of this offensive consists of a calculated shift from the old, discredited Soviet practice to a new, “liberalized” model, with a social democratic facade, to realize the communist planners’ strategy for establishing a United Europe. At the beginning they introduced a variation of the 1968 Czechoslovakian “democratization.” At a later phase they will shift to a variation of the Czechoslovakian takeover of 1948. [2]

Granted, when one examines claims by former intelligence operatives who allege to have “seen the light” and are now trying to warn us for solely altruistic reasons, one should exercise a healthy amount of caution and skepticism. They may be acting as a double-agent; or they could be an outright fraud altogether. So it is wise to test their claims and allegations and ask oneself, “To whose benefit?” Does it stack up? How do their revelations compare to other defectors of a similar vein?

What makes Anatoliy Golitsyn stand out is the uncanny accuracy of his predictions.  Mark Riebling wrote in his spy book Wedge: The Secret War between the FBI and the CIA, “[O]f Golitsyn’s falsifiable predictions, 139 out of 148 were fulfilled by the end of 1993—an accuracy rate of 94 percent.” [3]

One of the goals behind the Soviet Union’s “false liberalization” facade was to put a “happy face” on Soviet-style communism. Golitsyn predicted the emergence of a “younger leader with a more liberal image, who will continue the liberalization more intensely.” [4] By falling for the Soviet “liberalization” ploy, the West begins to question its massive defense expenditures; since it seems wasteful and unnecessary now that the “Cold War” is allegedly a thing of the past.


Further warnings Golitsyn tried to impart to the West in the 1960s included his predictions that the Berlin Wall would come down, East and West Germany would be reunited, and the Warsaw Pact would be dissolved. The goal of all these tactics was to create a “neutral, socialized Europe.” All of these predictions have come to pass. We now see a “neutral, socialized Europe” in the form of the European Union (EU). Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky once referred to the EU as the “pale version of the Soviet Union.”

Concerning the six-percent of Golitsyn’s predictions that were left unfulfilled, a plausible explanation could be, that since Golitsyn had defected to the West in 1961, any changes in Soviet strategy following his defection would be unknown to him, since he was no longer privy to top-secret KGB intelligence. Plans change as circumstances dictate.

It is worth noting, too, that Golitsyn’s predictions were penned several years prior to his first manuscript for News Lies for Old being published in the West in 1984.

One of the most important revelations by Golitsyn had to do with the Sino-Soviet split. For many years there has been a widely accepted belief in the West that there was a serious rift between Red China and the Soviet Union. Billions of dollars in massive U.S. aid programs were poured into the USSR in an effort to exasperate and prolong the so-called Sino-Soviet split.

Golitsyn warned (emphasis added):

There are a number of strategic options at the disposal of the communist strategists that can be used in various combinations to achieve their ultimate objectives. It would be impossible to list them all but five likely interconnected options are as follows:

  • A closer alignment of an independent socialist Europe with the Soviet bloc and a parallel alignment of the United States with China. Japan, depending on whether it remains conservative or moves toward socialism, might join either combination.
  • A joint drive by the Soviet bloc and a socialist Europe to seek allies in the Third World against the United States and China.
  • In the military field, an intensive effort to achieve US nuclear disarmament.
  • In the ideological and political field, East-West convergence on communist terms.
  • The creation of a world federation of communist states.

In each of these the scissors strategy will play its part; probably, as the final stroke, the scissors blades will close. The element of apparent duality in Soviet and Chinese policies will disappear. The hitherto concealed coordination between them will become visible and predominant. The Soviets and the Chinese will be officially reconciled. Thus the scissors strategy will develop logically into the “strategy of one clenched fist” to provide the foundation and driving force of a world communist federation. [5]

The concept of the “swinging pendulum” applies here—well-understood by the devoted Communist. As the United States bounces back and forth between East and West in search of alliances with foreign powers that are, in fact, hostile to U.S. interests, America finds it self caught between the jaws of a dialectical, geopolitical bear trap—specifically, the convergence between Russia and China. Golytsin used the analogy of being caught between the blades of a pair of “scissors” in New Lies for Old.

[Emphasis added]

After successful use of the scissors strategy in the early stages of the final phase of policy to assist communist strategy in Europe and the Third World and over disarmament, a Sino-Soviet reconciliation could be expected. It is contemplated and implied by the long-range policy and by strategic disinformation on the split. The communist bloc, with its recent accretions in Africa and South- East Asia, is already strong. European-backed Soviet influence and American-backed Chinese influence could lead to new Third World acquisitions at an accelerating pace. Before long, the communist strategists might be persuaded that the balance had swung irreversibly in their favor. In that event they might well decide on a Sino-Soviet “reconciliation.” The scissors strategy would give way to the strategy of “one clenched fist.” At that point the shift in the political and military balance would be plain for all to see. Convergence would not be between two equal parties, but would be on terms dictated by the communist bloc. The argument for accommodation with the overwhelming strength of communism would be virtually unanswerable. Pressures would build up for changes in the American political and economic system on the lines indicated in Sakharov’s treatise. Traditional conservatives would be isolated and driven toward extremism. They might become the victims of a new McCarthyism of the left. The Soviet dissidents who are now extolled as heroes of the resistance to Soviet communism would play an active part in arguing for convergence. Their present supporters would be confronted with a choice of forsaking their idols or acknowledging the legitimacy of the new Soviet regime. [6]


Andropov’s proposals about improving relations with China are not aimed at undermining China’s relations with the United States, but at stimulating a revival of an American interest in closer relations with China, which are presently perceived as weakened after the departure of such strong proponents of United States-Chinese military cooperation as Brzezinski and others. Its main purpose is to facilitate the acquisition by China of American weaponry and military technology. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan also may be designed to create more favorable conditions for China’s penetration into Moslem countries, capitalizing on China’s success with Pakistan. The recent trip of China’s premier to Africa, which included visits to Egypt, Algeria, and Morocco, confirms another point in the book about the existing division of labor between the Soviet Union and China. It seems that the influencing of Moslem countries has been left to China by the Soviet strategists. As for China’s role in the realization of communist strategy in Europe, the Sino-Soviet rivalry might be exploited by China’s intervening in European politics under the pretext of resisting “Soviet hegemony.” In this case, the Chinese strategists might try to gain a Rapallo [see Rapallo Treaty of 1922] type of arrangement with some conservative governments of Western Europe. [7]

Another oft-employed strategy by communists worldwide is exploiting what is known as a “Popular Front.” The concept behind a popular front is the creation of a temporary alliance with disparate elements of a populist rebellion or political movement that is often times local or regional in scope. The leaders of a popular front may believe they are in sole charge of it; when, in reality, it is being controlled and coordinated by outside forces (like the KGB/FSB, for example) working behind the scenes.

Popular fronts in their violent manifestation are sometimes referred to by radicals and revolutionaries as “wars of liberation.” Consider the war between Iraq and Iran during the 1980s:

… The Iraqi attack on Iran looks like a concerted effort by radical Arab states, each of which is in a united front relationship with the Soviet Union against “imperialism,” to use dual tactics (hostilities by Iraq, assistance by Syria and Libya) with the single overall objective of bringing Iran into an anti-Western alliance with them. The object of the alliance would be to gain control over a strategically vital area of the Middle East. Its success could but serve the strategic interests of the communist bloc. Despite Saddam Hussein’s alleged purges of communists in Iraq and the moderation in his attitude toward the United States, he is continuing to receive arms supplies from communist sources, as are his Iranian opponents. [8]

Such a scenario, as described above, may seem preposterous to the uninitiated. Many may not realize Iraq had the largest Communist Party presence in the Middle East at one time. Additionally, Iran also has its communist elements as well.

The victory of the 11th February 1979 [Iranian Revolution] resulted in the emergence of a political atmosphere in which for the first time, after 25 years political parties and organisations were allowed to organise freely. Tudeh [Communist] Party of Iran was among those too.


On the 1st of October 1991, the Tudeh Party of Iran celebrated its fiftieth birthday and in February 1992, the Party held its 3rd Congress after more than 43 years and reaffirmed its commitment to the principles of Marxism – Leninism. The Tudeh Party elected a new central committee and re-elected comrade Ali Khavari as the chair of the party. [9]

Some Kurdish groups, like the YPG and PKK, currently battling ISIS in Syria and Iraq are themselves Marxist-Leninist organizations, and are even on terrorist watch lists by both the United States and the EU. Granted, while many of us in the West are indeed rooting for the Kurds in their life and death struggle against the barbaric and ultra-violent Islamic State, and understandably so, it is worth remembering just who some of these Kurdish groups are in the grand scheme of things, particularly as it concerns the overall geopolitical goals of Russia and China.

One particularly chilling passage in New Lies for Old covers what Golytsin called the “Czechoslovak rehearsal,” in reference to the Prague Spring of 1968, implying it was a dress rehearsal of sorts for a much larger “grand strategy” set for the appropriate time in the future.

Also mentioned in the same passage is the so-called reforming of the KGB—which, by the way, did occur. The KGB is now known as the FSB or Russian Federal Security Service.

Political “liberalization” and “democratization” would follow the general lines of the Czechoslovak rehearsal in 1968. This rehearsal might well have been the kind of political experiment Mironov had in mind as early as 1960. The “liberalization” would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party’s role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed. An ostensible separation of powers between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary might be introduced. The Supreme Soviet would be given greater apparent power and the president and deputies greater apparent independence. The posts of president of the Soviet Union and first secretary of the party might well be separated. The KGB would be “reformed.” Dissidents at home would be amnestied; those in exile abroad would be allowed to return, and some would take up positions of leadership in government. Sakharov might be included in some capacity in the government or allowed to teach abroad. The creative arts and cultural and scientific organizations, such as the writers’ unions and Academy of Sciences, would become apparently more independent, as would the trade unions. Political clubs would be opened to nonmembers of the communist party. Leading dissidents might form one or more alternative political parties. Censorship would be relaxed; controversial books, plays, films, and art would be published, performed, and exhibited. Many prominent Soviet performing artists now abroad would return to the Soviet Union and resume their professional careers. Constitutional amendments would be adopted to guarantee fulfillment of the provisions of the Helsinki agreements and a semblance of compliance would be maintained. There would be greater freedom for Soviet citizens to travel. Western and United Nations observers would be invited to the Soviet Union to witness the reforms in action. [10]

Naturally, if you are an American who believes in the unalienable rights of the individual and the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, the eery accuracy of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s predictions should certainly give one great pause. Golitsyn was either a clairvoyant, or he knew the score.

Equally as ominous as Golitsyn’s predictions was the inexplicable and chilly reception he received in the West by the press and U.S. intelligence experts. The wall of opposition that Golitsyn crashed into when he attempted to warn the appropriate Western authorities is both infuriating and bone-chilling.

… So thoroughly was his information discounted and his credibility questioned that he began to fear for his life. Eventually, he was also repudiated by [William F. Buckley, Jr.]

Had it not been for the CIA’s chief of counterintelligence, James J. Angleton, the astonishing Golitsyn revelations might never have reached the public. Golitsyn sought to convince CIA officials that there would be a complete turnabout in Communist strategy. In 1963, almost everyone at the CIA scoffed at Golitsyn’s contentions, prompting Angleton to have Golitsyn transferred to his supervision.  [11]

Having read similar accounts by other defectors from socialist and communist nations, a disturbing pattern emerges: there is a regular and consistent pattern in the West to try and silence and disparage former intelligence operatives from communist regimes who have attempted to warn Western governments and intelligence services about the active communist conspiracy that is unceasingly plotting and working against the Western world, both in the past and at present. What is especially troubling is the historical resistance toward those with intimate knowledge of communist designs against the West.

Over the past 20 years or so, a lot of new and unsettling information has come out that reveals an incredible level of infiltration at the highest levels by Soviet “agents of influence,” communists and fellow travelers (sympathizers). Sources such as the Venona decrypts, Mitrokhin Archives and Vassiliev’s Notebooks, among many other sources, are chock full of references to high-ranking U.S. government officials and well-known Americans that were actively working with the Soviets and the KGB (I will have more details on some of these individuals in an upcoming article on Sen. Joseph McCarthy).

Several very well-researched books*, with plenty of footnotes, have also been published over the past few decades that further pull back the covers on just how bad the infiltration truly has been (and, I suspect, still is). Consider our current president, Barack Obama, and his troubling connections with leftist radicals … people like Bill Ayers and Frank Marshall Davis, just to name a few.

For Western intellectuals and Establishment types—whether they are of the Maoist or Marxist-Leninist or Trotskyite or similar schools—it would behoove them to consider just what sort of world it would be if the scourge of “pure socialism” were to take root in the form of a global federation of communist states (i.e. world government).

KGB defectors like Anatoliy Golitsyn and Yuri Bezmenov (a.k.a. Tomas Schuman) have warned that once the situation has been “normalized” (see “Prague Spring”)—meaning, the full implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat—the Gramcsiist Communists (“useful idiots,” “Cultural Marxists,” etc.) and Anarchists (“useless idiots”) will be ruthlessly swept aside. They will have served their intended purpose—to prepare the populace to accept pure socialism; and they will have no place in a communistic world.


Because the despotic tyrants that would rule over the aforementioned individuals know full and well they would become their most ardent enemies once they discover just how repressive and oppressive pure socialism truly is in its undiluted and toxic form.

In the new worldwide communist federation the present different brands of communism would disappear, to be replaced by a uniform, rigorous brand of Leninism. The process would be painful…. [12]

One need look no further than Putin’s Russia or Red China to see how counter-revolutionaries, anarchists, minorities, religions, bourgeoisie, homosexuals, and the like, are dealt with—mercilessly and ruthlessly.

You’ve been warned.

But who’s listening?

* A few recommended books on the subject matter: M. Stanton Evans’ Blacklisted by History, Herbert Romerstein & M. Stanton Evans’ Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government, Weinstein & Vassiliev’s The Haunted Wood, Haynes, Klehr & Vassiliev’s Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, Diana West’s American Betrayal, Herbert Romerstein’s The Venona Secrets, Christopher Andrew & Vasili Mitrokhin’s The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB.


  1. Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1984), p. 182.
  2. Ibid., p. 349.
  3. Mark Riebling, Wedge: The Secret War between the FBI and the CIA (Simon & Schuster, 2002), pp. 407-8.
  4. Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1984), p. 350.
  5. Ibid., pp. 337-8.
  6. Ibid., pp. 345-6.
  7. Ibid., p. 351.
  8. Ibid., p. 337.
  9. History of the Tudeh Party of Iran, Iran Chamber Society. Retrieved from http://www.iranchamber.com/history/tudeh/tudeh_party03.php
  10. Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1984), p. 339.
  11. John McManus, William F. Buckley, Jr.: Pied Piper of the Establishment (The John Birch Society, 2002), p. 85.
  12. Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1984), p. 346.

Related Articles:


Connecting the Dots: Iran, Immigration & National Security

By: Michael Cutler
Right Side News

320px-Seyyed Ali Khamenei

“Seyyed Ali Khamenei” by Seyedkhan

This past week John Kerry, bargaining from a self-imposed position of weakness, continued to negotiate with Iran, the world’s most pernicious state sponsor of international terrorism even after America’s allies walked away. It might be said that Kerry agreed to take “No” for an answer. Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu left no doubt about his grave concerns about the wisdom of the agreement being hammered out at the behest of the Obama administration that legitimizes Iran’s nuclear program and therefore poses an existential threat to Israel.

Mr. Obama has said that a deal with Iran would be “Historic.”

My concern is that Obama’s statement will be prophetic. History records as many tragedies as successes. The Hindenburg explosion was certainly historic. So was the loss of the Titanic and two of our space shuttles.

In point of fact, every major war has been historic as has been the Holocaust.

Many of the events recorded in history books were written with blood- rivers and, indeed, oceans of blood!

The news media has reported on Netanyahu’s concerns and noted how a nuclear Iran would, indeed, pose a threat to Israel’s survival. What has not been considered is that a nuclear Iran would pose no less a threat to America.

There is a saying that when confronting several adversaries in a dark alley you should not go after the smallest adversary but the largest. The reasoning is that if you beat up the smallest guy first, you will then have to fight your way up until you wind up fighting the largest adversary last. By then your strength and ability would have been largely depleted.

On the other hand, if you successfully take on the biggest adversary first, the other guys will run away and you will prevail.

Undoubtedly when Iran looks at Israel and the United States, the United States is that largest adversary.

Iran is operating in the Western Hemisphere as has been for many years. Their presence in our hemisphere and indeed our country, leaves us vulnerable to a devastating attack.

On April 21, 2010 the Washington Times published a report entitled, “Iran boosts Qods shock troops in Venezuela.”

On February 3, 2012 ABC News which posted an article, “Exclusive: Israel Warns US Jews: Iran Could Strike Here,” that had a clear and unambiguous title.

On March 21, 2012, the Huffington Post published an extremely disturbing article that was entitled: “Peter King: Iran May Have ‘Hundreds’ Of Hezbollah Agents In U.S.”

The basis for the Huffington Post article was a hearing that was conducted that day by the House Committee on Homeland Security that is chaired by Congressman Peter King of New York, the topic of the hearing was, “Iran, Hezbollah, and the Threat to the Homeland.”

Here is how the Huffington Post article began:

WASHINGTON — Iranian-backed Hezbollah agents, not al Qaeda operatives, may pose the greatest threat on U.S. soil as tensions over Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program ratchet up, according to the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

“As Iran moves closer to nuclear weapons and there is increasing concern over war between Iran and Israel, we must also focus on Iran’s secret operatives and their number one terrorist proxy force, Hezbollah, which we know is in America,” said New York Rep. Peter King at a Wednesday hearing of his committee.

The hearing, which featured former government officials and the director of intelligence analysis for the New York Police Department, follows a foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C., and testimony by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in late January that Iran’s leaders are “more willing to conduct an attack inside the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”

Opening the hearing, King said, “We have a duty to prepare for the worst,” warning there may be hundreds of Hezbollah operatives in the United States, including 84 Iranian diplomats at the United Nations and in Washington who, “it must be presumed, are intelligence officers.”

Congressman Peter King focused primarily on the threats posed by Iranian diplomats and, indeed, these diplomats should be of great concern to us. However, these diplomats are readily identifiable. We know their identities and the fact that they are officially connected to the Iranian government. There are other Iranians who are present in the United States whose relationship with the Iranian government and its goals of destroying the United States are not so readily identifiable.

On Friday, May 24, 2013 the newspapers, “The Blaze” and “My San Antonio” reported on the arrest of Wissam Allouche by the FBI and members of the JTTF (Joint Terrorism Task Force) in San Antonio, Texas, for lying on his application for naturalization to acquire United States citizenship. The article published by “My San Antonio” was entitled: “Alleged member of Hezbollah arrested here” while the article in “The Blaze” was entitled: “Infiltration? The Alarming Details Surrounding Alleged Hezbollah Member’s Arrest in Texas.”

Here is an important excerpt from “The Blaze” article:

The federal indictment revealed Allouche had married a U.S. citizen and was going through the naturalization process when he was arrested. When asked by officials if he had ever been associated with a terrorist organization, he replied no. That apparently turned out to be a lie.

According to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, he was a militant with the Amal militia in Lebanon in the early to mid-1980s. He was reportedly captured as a Israeli prisoner of war, but was later released to become a commander of the Amal militia.

“News reports at the time said Hezbollah was formed by religious members of the Amal movement.”

In addition to lying about his terror ties, Allouche is also accused of lying about his relationship with his ex-wife. He falsely claimed on his application forms in 2009 that he and his wife were married and living together for the past three years. In reality, they had no lived together since May 2007 and they filed for divorce in December of 2007.

While Allouche’s allegedly committed fraud in filing his application for naturalization, it must be noted that if the allegations are accurate, that he also gamed the the process by which he had been granted lawful immigrant status years earlier. He had a Green Card (Alien Registration Receipt Card) for at least three years before he applied for United States citizenship. The 9/11 Commission identified such fraud as being an integral part of the strategy terrorists have used to enter the United States and embed themselves.

At the time of his arrest Allouche, was applying for a security clearance in order to work for the Department of Defense and had also applied for naturalization. Allegedly he lied by claiming to have never been a member of a terrorist organization when in fact, according to the FBI, he had not just been a member of Hezbollah, but had been a commander of that terrorist organization.

On May 29, 2013 both of those newspapers published follow-up reports in conjunction with disclosures made by prosecutors during the bail hearing.

The title of the Blaze article was, “God of Death Bombshell Revelations About Alleged Hezbollah Commander Arrested In Texas.”

The article published in My San Antonio, “Accused Ex-Hezbollah Member Referred to as God” included the following excerpt:

Allouche was arrested by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force here last week after being indicted on charges of not disclosing, during his quest to obtain his U.S. citizenship, his membership in the Amal militia and Hezbollah in Lebanon in the 1980s.

He’s also charged with not disclosing his prior membership in those groups when he applied for a security clearance with the Defense Department as he sought a contracting job.

Before 2009, Allouche worked for L-3 Communications, which provides linguistic services for the U.S. military, and he was deployed for several months to Iraq. He has lived in the U.S. since about 2002, and once owned Windcrest Mobil, a gas station at Walzem Road and Interstate 35, his lawyer said.

In view of the charges lodged against Allouche, it would be important to know what the vetting process was that enabled him to be put in a position of trust. He was deployed with American troops in Iraq as a translator. This means that he may have assisted in the questioning and vetting of suspected terrorists and with those applying to work with our military. This raises some obvious and important questions.

What classified documents or people did he have had access to? Did he come to meet with covert officers whose identities must be preserved? Did he meet with suspected terrorists and, perhaps, have the capability to alter what the record reflects that they did or did not say? Might he have learned the identities of foreign nationals who for whatever reason decided to become cooperators? Has this endangered their lives and the operations that they were providing information for? Might he mistranslated statements made by terrorists seeking to gain entry to military bases to subsequently kill American soldiers?

The Allouche case is hardly an isolated one. Furthermore, the threat of terrorism is not just limited to Iranian citizens but may involve terrorists from other countries that are funded and otherwise supported by Iran.

Let us now consider yet another example of ineptitude that is beyond description or comprehension.

The Inspector General that has responsibility for the Witness Protection Program, conducted an audit of that program and found gaping holes in the system. While it is important for the government to protect witnesses whose testimony and information is vital to conducting successful investigations and prosecutions of criminals and terrorists, it must also be remembered that witnesses can themselves, pose a threat to public safety. The Witness Protection Program is commonly known by an acronym, WITSEC that stands for “Witness Security.”

Perhaps the important WITSEC program should henceforth be referred to as “WITLESS Security!”

Here is the headline from a May 16, 2013 article that was published by The Atlantic Wire, “How Did U.S. Marshalls Lose Suspected Terrorists in Witness Protection?”

Here is an excerpt from this article:

This is not the good news Attorney General Eric Holder was likely hoping for. A public memorandum issued on Thursday by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General indicates that in July 2012 the U.S. Marshal Service, the federal law enforcement agency of the DoJ of Tommy Lee Jones notoriety, was unable to locate two “known or suspected terrorists” participating in the Witness Security Program, the well-known protection program (of Goodfellas fame) administered by the Marshal Service. “Through its investigative efforts,” the Inspector General writes, the agency “concluded that one individual was and the other individual was believed to be residing outside the United States.”

The mishap was apparently one of many incidents where the agency inadvertently allowed protected witnesses, who were also identified as “known or suspected terrorists,” to travel freely out of and within the United States. Indeed, the agency is only beginning to track how many witnesses have been tagged as such. From the inspector’s report:

We found that the Department did not definitively know how many known or suspected terrorists were admitted into the [Witness Security Program]. The Department has idenitifed a small but significant number of USMS WITSEC Program participants as known or suspected terrorists. As of March 2013, the Deparment is continuing to review its more than 18,000 WITSEC case files to determine whether additional known or suspected terrorists have been admitted into the program.

The 18-page report goes on to list a number of problems (described as “significant issues concerning national security”) with the way the U.S. Marshal Service deals with suspected terrorists, such as neglecting to share valuable case information with other agencies like the F.B.I.

The Atlantic Wire article provided a link to a CNN report which contained even more details: First on CNN: Witness Protection Program lost two ‘known or suspected terrorists.’

Here is a truly disconcerting paragraph from the CNN report:

The IG summary said that although the Marshals Service was giving known or suspected terrorists who participated in the WITSEC program and their dependents new names and identity documentation, the Justice Department “was not authorizing the disclosure to the Terrorist Screening Center,” which operates the terrorist watch list that helps provide information to the Transportation Security Administration’s No-Fly and Selectee lists. “Therefore it was possible for known or suspected terrorists to fly on commercial airplanes in or over the United States and evade one of the government’s primary means of identifying and tracking terrorists’ movements and actions,” the summary said.

Think about that paragraph the next time you wait to be screen by the TSA before you board an airliner.

On December 1, 2013 the Huffington Post ran a worrying report, “America Is ‘Less Safe’ Than 2 Years Ago, Intelligence Committee Chairs Say.”

The report focused on statements made by Senator Dianne Feinstein, who, at the time, chaired the Senate’s Intelligence Committee, when she was interviewed for CNN’s program, “State of the Union.”

Here is how the report began:

Interviewed on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she believed that there are now more terrorists with the technological means to carry out a bombing in the U.S.

Here is an additional important excerpt from the Huffington Post article:

“I think terror is up worldwide,” said Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee. “There are new bombs, very big bombs, trucks being reinforced for those bombs. There are bombs that go through magnetometers. The bomb-maker is still alive. There are more groups than ever. And there is huge malevolence out there.”

Feinstein added that there was “a real displaced aggression in this very fundamentalist jihadist Islamic community, and that is that the West is responsible for everything that goes wrong and that the only thing that’s going to solve this is Islamic Sharia law.”

On the same day, December 1, 2013 Newsmax posted the report that provided an even more dire warning, “Sen. Feinstein, Rep. Rogers: Terror Threat Greater Than Before Sept 11.”

This report began with this unambiguous assessment:

The U.S. is in greater danger of a terrorist attack than it was prior to September 11 and has less ability to prevent such aggression by Islamist radicals, key congressional intelligence leaders said Sunday.

On September 20, 2013 CAPS (Californians for Population Stabilization) posted my article about the failures of the vetting process for alien applicants who apply for immigration benefits, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Background Checks Require a Reality Check.” The focus of my commentary was that simply running the unverifiable name an applicant provides in an application for an immigration benefit leaves the proverbial door wide open to aliens to use false aliases- especially when we are discussing aliens who have evaded the inspections process designed, in part, to prevent terrorists, criminals and fugitives from entering the United States.

In the parlance of the open borders / immigration anarchists, these aliens are “undocumented.” Such aliens have no official, reliable identity documents to verify their true identities including their names, dates of birth or even countries of birth.

There is no way to readily determine when, where or how such aliens actually entered the United States .

Running their fingerprints may well not yield any meaningful results. Many times the fingerprints from aliens from Third World countries or countries that do not have good relations with the United States will simply come back as a “no hit.”

On July 30, 2012 CAPS (Californians for Population Stabilization) posted my commentary: “Fraud: The Immigration Vulnerability That Undermines the Immigration System and National Security.”

On November 20, 2013 ABC News reported, “Exclusive: US May Have Let ‘Dozens’ of Terrorists Into Country As Refugees.”

This is not a new problem, on July 13, 2011 the Washington Times published a truly disturbing article, “Visas reviewed to find those who overstayed / Aim is to find any would-be terrorists.”

The next time you hear some politician talk about “First securing the U.S./Mexican border” I want you to consider what the 9/11 Commission had to say about the way to counter terror threats-

Approximately a decade ago, on March 10, 2005 I testified before a hearing conducted by the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on the topic, “INTERIOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES.”

My prepared testimony at that hearing included a quote from the 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel. Here is an excerpt from my testimony that included that quote:

The 9/11 Commission ultimately came to recognize the critical nature of immigration law enforcement where the War on Terror is concerned. In fact, page 49 of the report entitled, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel, A Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States contains a sentence that reads, Thus abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. This page incidentally is contained in the chapter entitled, Terrorist Travel and Embedding Tactics.

The issue of the interior enforcement of our immigration laws is a critical- indeed, key component of national security and today, under the wrong-headed policies of the administration- there is no meaningful enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States. This encourages still more illegal immigration. To paraphrase my testimony at subsequent hearing conducted by the Senate Immigration Subcommittee approximately two years ago- the failures of the immigration system and statements made by political leaders about the “solution” to millions of illegal aliens who evaded the vital inspections process amount to firing the starter’s pistol for aspiring illegal aliens from around the world. The message is clear- if you can ultimately enter the United States, no matter how you manage to do this, you will ultimately be given lawful status.

It is dishonest and misleading for our leaders to state that in order to gain control of our immigration system we must “First secure the (U.S./Mexican border).” On February 5, 2015 FrontPage Magazine posted my article, “The ‘Secure Our Border First Act’ Deception” that exposed this supposed “solution” to America’s immigration crisis. Although that bill failed to pass, it provided evidence that members of Congress of both political parties are as much a part of the problem as the administration.

The administration should be given the MVP award by international terrorist and criminal organizations, providing millions of illegal aliens with lawful status and admitting tens of thousands of refugees who are not being vetted.

On February 28th I was a guest on Fox & Friends and interviewed by Anna Kooiman on the broad issue of the risks to America’s national security that are created by our dysfunctional immigration system, especially where the political asylum program is concerned. We also narrowed our focus to the situation that now exists in Minneapolis, MN where a community of 30,000 Somali refugees was established.

Fox News posted the video of the interview under the title, “Somali refugees in Minnesota raise terror fears.”

On February 24, 2015 Progressives For Immigration Reform posted my commentary, “The Immigration Factor Naturalized U.S. Citizen Added to FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists List.”. about a naturalized United States citizen who was born in Somalia and has been placed on the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists List.” The FBI press release actually expressed extreme concern that because this individual who is now believed fighting on the side of ISIS overseas had been a taxi driver in Washington, DC and therefore has an intimate familiarity with the infrastructure of our nation’s Capitol that could help him or his confederates to launch a debilitating attack in Washington.

On December 19, 2014 Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) posted my extensive article,

“Obama’s ‘Gift’ to International Terrorists: Immigration Executive Action.”

On the local level so-called “Sanctuary Cities” and even “Sanctuary States” are provided outrageous opportunities for sleepers to embed themselves in their jurisdictions. On January 23, 2015 FrontPage Magazine published my article, “Sleeper Cells: The Immigration Component of the Threat” which focused on how terrorists are able to hide in plain sight.

The lunacy must stop before, God forbid, the next terror attack(s). Our borders and our immigration laws are our first line of defense and last line of defense against those who would kill us.

Someone needs to send Mr. Obama the memo: “Our president is supposed to defend and protect our citizens and our allies and frighten our enemies.” Somehow it would seem he got that memo’s message reversed!


 Don’t miss Michael Cutler on The Glazov Gang discuss Sleeper Cells in America:

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, on YouTube and LIKE it on Facebook.

About Michael Cutler

Michael Cutler is a retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He served as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent who rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch. For half of his career he was assigned to the Drug Task Force. He has testified before well over a dozen congressional hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as state legislative hearings around the United States and at trials where immigration is at issue. He hosts his radio show, “The Michael Cutler Hour,” on Friday evenings on BlogTalk Radio. His personal website is http://michaelcutler.net/.


Support the Most Shocking Political Documentary in US History

New Zeal

The documentary version of Trevor Loudon’s book The Enemies Within:Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the US Congress will expose a problem that most American voters have no concept of. The extensive Marxist infiltration of the US Congress.

timthumb (2)

As Loudon often states in his speeches around the United States:

So far, a highly skilled film team has been assembled and several interviews have been filmed.

We aim to raise the production costs of $400.000 mainly through private investors, but also with contributions from the public, through the crowdsourcing website Indiegogo.

If you’d like to get The Enemies Within into theaters in 2015, please go here to support this vital project.