Is Our National Security Actually Taken Seriously?

You can’t imagine my shock and disillusionment when I recently discovered that not only had the Soviets invaded our supposedly most secure government agencies over 60 years ago, but that our own government employees aided and abetted their perfidy. We might be consoled by the belief that the Russians today have infiltrated our government to a much lesser degree, but in their place the Chinese Communists, American Marxists and Islamists are collaborating to take down our country.

How did all this deception and invasion begin?

Some of the most damning actions took place during Franklin Roosevelt's administration. He was determined to ingratiate himself with the Soviets, regardless of whether it was beneficial to the United States. Diana West, in her book American Betrayal, provides an overwhelming amount of data to substantiate cooperation by US officials with the Soviets, and her discovery of the Venona project confirms her suspicions:

The historical fact is, secret Soviet forces had made massive incursions into the federal government following FDR’s first election in 1932 and reached every kind of inner sanctum during the United States’ wartime alliance with the Soviet Union (1941-45)—the one really and truly ‘special relationship.’

A large part of her data dive went into the Venona project, Soviet cables that, to this day, have not been decrypted or deciphered.

Although we have many communists and socialists today embedded within several levels of government, it’s difficult to determine just how influential they are, whether in government and other institutions. Many may not publicly acknowledge their membership in these groups.

Today, instead of Russia, we mainly have the Chinese Communists, leftists and the worldwide Islamist community threatening our national security. What could they possibly have in common? Let’s take a look at the Left, Marxism/Socialism and the Islamists:

Prominent leftist scholars like Noam Chomsky and Judith Butler have expressed support for such terrorist groups as Hamas and Hezbollah and have described them as part of the international and progressive left. If you remove the Islamic imagery from Islamist extremism, you'll find a world outlook based on a Marxist world view—a power struggle between the exploiters and exploited that demands a revolution to set things straight. This world view fuels and is fueled by resentment and indignity. It sees right and wrong as a binary. It is a viewpoint in which boils everything down to power dynamics. There are oppressors and the oppressed, colonizers and the colonized, good and evil. It is a totalitarian way of thinking—all human relationships are seen through power dynamics and cannot be examined through any other lens. In other words, the boxed-in way both groups see the world is the same.

To provide a picture of the Chinese threat, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability conducted a hearing on the invasion of our national security:

At the hearing, experts detailed how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has successfully waged an influence and infiltration campaign that jeopardizes critical U.S. industries, including America’s military readiness, technology sector, financial markets, agriculture industry, intellectual property, and education systems. The Committee’s government-wide investigation into CCP political warfare has revealed federal agencies have failed to combat China’s dangerous tactics, and too much of the Washington bureaucracy appears unwilling to address the ongoing threat.

James E. Fannell, US Navy (retired), explained how we’ve allowed China to take advantage of us:

In my experience in the IC [Intelligence Community], what we had was this threat deflation…we were getting information about China and we were seeing things happen, but because of this overriding engagement policy that we’ve had as a nation towards China since the opening up of China, we thought if we engage with them, that they would change their behavior at some point in time. Because that mindset permeated Washington and our institutions, the IC became ensnared with that and became less likely to make the connections and to see what was really happening.

Let’s take another look at the collaboration between Islam and Communism, two organizations that have become enthusiastic partners over the years, as Trevor Loudon explains in his “Trevor Loudon Reports”:

He delves into the history of Islam in America, beginning with the Nation of Islam and its direct links to communism, followed by the establishment of the Muslim Brotherhood as a front in the 1960s. Loudon explains how communism has shaped America’s immigration policies, leading to a surge in Muslim immigration. He highlights the radicalization of Muslim communities within the U.S. and warns of the potential for Islamic republics to emerge in major American cities. Trevor Loudon insists that the dilution of the native population through the influx of third-world immigrants, often carrying revolutionary ideologies, plays a critical role in the subversion of host nations.

What can we conclude from these descriptions of these assaults on our national security?

• There is a long history of insiders collaborating with foreign enemies to share information that threatens our national security, going back to FDR.
• The underlying mindset in almost every situation is that we wanted to have good relationships with these countries. (We wanted/want them to like us.)
• In pandering to these countries, we assumed that we would ingratiate ourselves with them and influence their ideology, rather than they affecting ours.
• In some cases, American citizens actually supported the ideologies of these groups.

The alarming truth, however, is that befriending and cooperating with these groups puts our national security in danger. Even worse, we know that China/Communism, Islamism, Russia, and now the Democratic Socialists of America are bent on the destruction of the U.S., and there is no serious effort to stop them.

Isn’t it time we finally take our national security seriously?

[Originally published in American Thinker]