Saturday, October 3, 2015


via Verne Strickland Facebook and USA DOT COM

ResistNet and CommieBlaster ^ | October 29, 2010 | Asst Natl Dir Mellie 
Posted on 10/30/2010, 11:26:51 PM by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Communists, Socialists, Marxists, Maoists and Islamics are in the US Government. They all believe in a government that’s opposed to the US Constitution and, thus, the America our founders created. They want America to give up its sovereignty and to become a member of a one-world socialist government. For simplicity, let’s call them all “commies”.

We began researching Obama and other commies in US Government and Media about 18 months ago and were shocked. Here’s the high-level overview of what we learned, which is chronicled in great detail at
- America has been at war with communism for over 90 years. The Cold War with Communist Russia did not end with the collapse of the Berlin War -- it just took a different form. A new war has commenced… a bloodless war aimed at taking all of our wealth and giving it to Communists, so they can rule America. This well-planned, decades-old, Communist Takeover is now in progress and we’ve been losing this war because Communists captured our media long ago and they hid this plan from us for years.
- The public code words for Communism now are “Progressive”, “Democracy” and “Social Justice”. You probably never heard these terms much until Obama took office, but you hear them now a lot these days.
- The Democratic Party is now a Socialist Party. Through its freely admitted, long term alliance and coordinated initiatives with The Party of European Socialists, the Democratic Party is openly connected to Chinese and Russian Socialists, as well as a full range of international commies and terrorists.
- Right now in the US Congress, there’s a publicly admitted Socialist, a couple of socialist Islamics, lots of criminals (assault, bribes, etc.), lots of anti-Constitutionalists, and way too many people who are taking money from Islamic terrorist-connected organizations. But don’t let that fool you. There are over 100 US Congress Members who are commies. Most belong to and/or are associated with members of Democratic Socialists of America and the Communist Party USA. The FBI states that the Communist Party USA and the United Nations are departments of the Russian KGB.
- Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Saebarkah), the 44th President of the United States of America is a communist. Obama precisely fits former FBI head, J. Edgar Hoover’s definition of a communist. He has associations with members of the Communist Party USA and Democratic Socialists of America, was raised by communists, spent his adult life with communists, was mentored by communists, supports communists, belonged to at least one communist organization, attended at least one communist rally, worked for at least two communist bosses, is advised by communists and now, while in office, regularly meets with communists on a daily basis.
- Obama is an ideological zealot and radical. His core skill is “communist rabble-rousing”. George Soros directly and indirectly funded Obama’s presidential campaign. Obama is George Soros’ puppet. Obama is told what to say by a teleprompter’s script that is written by a George Soros-funded group of commie writers. Obama has a PR organization of over 300 commies.
- Our research strongly suggests George Soros is the face of the USA Communist Takeover. Obama works for George Soros. Most of the media works for George Soros as his propaganda department. Hundreds of socialist, activist and union organizations work for Soros as a means to siphon government money from you, generate votes for commie Democrats and fund the Communist Takeover. Examples of the organizations Soros funds include the Democratic Party, SEIU, ACORN, Tides Foundation, National Public Radio, ACLU, Open Society Institute, and Obama’s favorite fake media outlet, the Huffington Post.
- Goldman Sachs works for George Soros. There is a strong body of evidence to suggest that George Soros, with the help of Jeffrey Sachs of Goldman Sachs, caused the 2008 US financial collapse (Soros and Sachs have done this in other countries before). “Crisis” is Phase Two in the four-phase Communist Takeover Plan. Soros and Sachs can further crash or damage our economy pretty much whenever they want.
- George Soros is a very bad dude and is a far, far greater threat to America than al Queada. George Soros is not only converting America to communism, he’s doing the same in other countries. Remember “the Domino Theory?” Soros may also be coordinating with al Queada and/or terrorists through his connections with Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and/or other radical organizations which Soros funds.
- George Soros’ “boss” is one or more of the following: Communist Russia, Communist China and/or a band of Ultra Rich Global Elites. Soros’ supporters and co-conspirators include Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates (Microsoft), Eric Schmidt (Google), Jeffrey Sachs (Goldman Sachs), NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Warren Buffet, Oprah Winfrey and a vast group of other global elites. Their combined wealth is greater than many countries.
RESISTING THE TAKEOVER: Exposure and awareness of George Soros, Obama, commie Congress members and their international criminal conspiracy is the key to Americans winning this war. Once the conspirators are exposed, they can be researched, contained, neutralized and prosecuted. So educate yourself and tell others. Vote out all Democrats.
THE TAKEOVER PLAN’S PRIMARY WEAKNESS: There is a very substantial body of evidence that indicates Obama is ineligible to serve as US President (father’s British citizenship, multiple social security numbers, foreign student, no long form birth certificate, no hospital that will claim him, no US State certified him as constitutionally eligible to be President, tremendous efforts undertaken to prevent access to Obama’s past records, etc., etc.). If Obama is found ineligible to serve, the Communist Takeover Plot will unravel fast. All laws signed by Obama will be nullified. Then, once unraveled, we can pursue the relationships of all of George Soros’ commie organizations and prosecute all of the related criminal conspirators to the maximum extent of US law.
So don’t you think that when the GOP takes over one or both Houses of Congress in January, they ought to immediately ask Obama for proof of his eligibility to serve? If not, what does that tell you about who may be running the Republican Party? Maybe the takeover is further along than we think?


October 3, 2015


The gunman who opened fire at Oregon's Umpqua Community College singled out Christians, according to the father of a wounded student.

Before going into spinal surgery, Anastasia Boylan told her father the gunman entered her classroom firing.
"I've been waiting to do this for years," the gunman told the professor teaching the class. He shot him point blank, Boylan recounted.
Others were hit too, she told her family.
Everyone in the classroom dropped to the ground.
The gunman, while reloading his handgun, ordered the students to stand up and asked if they were Christians, Boylan told her family.
"And they would stand up and he said, 'Good, because you're a Christian, you're going to see God in just about one second,'" Boylan's father, Stacy, told CNN, relaying her account.
"And then he shot and killed them."

Verne Strickland: 
Want a hot story? How about one about a lone terrorist, reported to be a muslim (making him a jihadist), who somehow got twelve (count 'em) weapons, who hated Christians, plotted to kill them and did, identifying them by their answer to his question about their religion?

 Oh, yeah -- for our liberal media who despise Jesus, and Christianity, what a chance to play up a weird guy who achieved his most fervent wish to mock Christ, act on his hate, and do a big favor for Satan -- all in the space of less than ten minutes. Well, guys and gals, not many (perhaps none) of the MSM writers who covered the story seemed to want that honor. 

Any signs of a hate crime targeting Christians was buried deep in the copy -- marked "Forget about it." No sympathy here for the God people. Obama helped them ignore the truth by running like hell from the obvious, stated motives for the heinous crime. Oh, well, another day at the news office, wot? 

This is America, lest we forget.

Friday, October 2, 2015

Our Marxist President Will Not Resist -- and Our Enemies Know it.

 The 2 mega-ton gorilla in the room is the nuclear  first-strike option. 

  By Rick Kallieg  October 1, 2015

I believe we are living in the most dangerous time since the dropping of Fat Man and Little Boy. It isn't just because our military is being crippled by administrative cuts, decommissioning of our Naval fleets, reductions in active-duty troops, failure to maintain equipment, reductions in our Air power... not even the unilateral reductions in our nuclear arsenal.
We are living in the most dangerous time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki because we have a devout Marxist as President, who our enemies know will not lift a finger in effort to counter their strategic gains throughout the world; AND who have always wanted to see America destroyed. The extreme former communist-KGB turned uber fascist -- Vladimir Putin -- is pushing Obama around like a 200 lb. bully in middle-school does to scared little wimps willing to give up their lunch money for the illusion of safety.

I think -- and no one seems to want to talk about this (like race relations) -- the 2 mega-ton gorilla in the room is the nuclear first-strike option. We, America, are being out flanked by an unusual triumvirate of nations -- Russia, Iran and China. All want us out of the picture, all have failing economies and want global domination to control their own destinies, and all see America first and Israel second as the major impediment to their success.

That said, I believe it, more than ever, an option all three find at least in war-gaming, acceptable due to the extreme weakness of Barrack Obama, by which our will and maybe even ability to respond, has been severely compromised. And, if it appears to those nations that a real conservative such as Ted Cruz, might stand a better than even chance of getting elected next year -- it may seem even more tempting to rid themselves of us.
The fact is, accomplishing a nuclear attack upon the USA could be done without a massive high profile ICBM assault, just by providing the right weapons to the right terrorists, at the right time. Obama will, of course, be playing golf, in an area not designated as a target of their destruction.


Verne Strickland  Oct 2, 2015
To me, the main thing to come out of the mass slaying at Umpquah Community College was -- ten martyrs. That is undeniable.
The death list continues to grow hour by hour, but ten or more students were gunned down in cold blood after courageously identifying themselves as "Christian".

They could have denied Jesus Christ, but they didn't. They enter heaven as members of a select group -- martyrs.
Here is what Christ said about this: "Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."
No mistaking the meaning of that. It is a stunning revelation. Jesus was not known for making casual statements. He spoke clearly and succinctly about the most important thing in our march from mortal life unto death -- where we will spend eternity. That's a long time.
I think about two types of victims who faced the shooter's rifle. A main group was Christian. The rest? Not Christian -- or so they said. This latter group, friends, did not know Jesus. They have spent their days on earth either ignoring or simply not being aware of the loving identity of the Son of God who created them.

For that -- at least for the moment -- they are dangerously adrift in an amoral vacuum. When they die, and die they surely will, they will have no Jesus to greet them on the other side, and thus will go to the spiritual dumping ground we describe as "hell".

Enough about the eternal for now.
The obvious delay in "admitting" that we have a grand religious quandary here is not surprising, but keenly, deeply disappointing. Our society and culture have become so totally screwed up that spiritual and religious designations have been demoted to the lowest possible consideration in our "modern" world.
This arbitrary ranking has the most obvious effect on the way such traumatic events are described by news media. Race seems to be the most important and thus the first mentioned. In every case there is the adversarial divide -- who committed an act of violence, and who was killed or wounded?
The most popular way to approach this is through racial definitions. If the assailant is white and the victim(s) black, we have a major news story, with implications regarding victimization and hate crime.
If the assailant is black and the victim(s) white, what's your problem? It is a shocking and revealing dilemma. We have a "dominant" race, achieved, oddly enough, by being part of a minority (whites are in the minority now -- a fact not willingly conceded by liberals.)
We've seen this go both ways. When a black is "breaking the law", the media stall and obfuscate. When it's a white in the same position, the fangs come out, and the race to vilify the alleged perpetrator is on.
But, drifting further from the types of situations we like to report on is the religious quagmire. Muslims are given a pass beginning with the top leadership rung -- the President. He clearly favors Islam and may even be a Muslim. He claims to be a Christian, but would have been the last man on earth to claim kinship with Jesus if quizzed about his deepest loyalties.
Dead givewaway. He looks on passively in the face of mass slaughter of Christians anywhere and everywhere in the world.
We all have our opinions here. I am especially incensed and embittered at Obama's curious attitudes in view of the fact that I am a Christian. I take this damned seriously. I don't trust or admire my president. I think he is wrong-headed and even un-American in his attitudes. I don't believe we have ever had a chief executive in our history so ambivalent -- and ineffective -- at discharging his duties.
I will follow the events in Oregon and in the Oval Office with aggressive interest and concentration. I don't expect any pleasant surprises from either. I do vow this -- there is no way that the sacrifice of the lives of these Christians will be ignored or pushed out of the news cycle.
These shocking developments have always been important to
Americans. Now this has become the Christian's battle first and foremost.
I have not done the job I would liked to have done on this. But I am a "lone wolf" reporter and commentator -- conservative, Christian, patriotic American. Under the circumstances and staffing shortage, I have done the best I could.
Verne Strickland October 2, 2015.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

A Government Shutdown and the Future of the Right-to-Life Movement

via Verne Strickland Facebook & USA DOT COM

A Government Shutdown and the Future of the Right-to-Life Movement

by Carol Tobias, PresidentNational Right to Life

File:Capitol Building Full View.jpg

WASHINGTON (September 18, 2015) – The government’s fiscal year begins on October 1. A lot of news stories are being written about whether or not the government will shut down on that day because members of Congress and pro-lifers want to defund Planned Parenthood.
We know that Planned Parenthood is a vile organization. It kills more than 300,000 innocent preborn children every year. The videos released this summer by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) have given us a unique opportunity because they exposed Planned Parenthood for its callous practices and the trafficking of body parts from aborted babies.
It makes sense that pro-lifers would want elected officials to take away every cent Planned Parenthood gets from tax-funded programs. Nobody wants to defund Planned Parenthood more than National Right to Life does.
The right-to-life movement now finds itself at a crucial crossroads.
There are two different roads that we can take. One is to insist that no more money go to Planned Parenthood and cause a government shutdown (which won’t result in actually defunding Planned Parenthood). The other is to take a slightly longer-term approach, taking advantage of the fact that we have the attention of the country as probably never before, laying the foundation to defund Planned Parenthood after we elect a pro-life president in 2016, by conducting hearings and passing a series of bills that will not only educate the American public about Planned Parenthood, but make members of Congress show, by their votes, if they support the largest abortion provider in the nation.
As a movement, we can only choose one of those roads. We must choose wisely, and we must choose quickly, because this unique window of opportunity will not last long.
So, the questions before us are: 1) how can we achieve our goal of defunding Planned Parenthood and educating the public about their massive abortion business; and 2) how can we avoid missteps that will actually hurt our efforts?
National Right to Life believes that the evidence points to the wisdom of taking the second road – namely, taking advantage of this chance to shine a light on Planned Parenthood and the entire abortion industry and educate the American public about their callous disregard for unborn babies and the women they purport to “help” through the sale of their deadly service.
Why do we believe this is the wisest road to take? Let’s look at some of the basic realities:
  • A September 9, 2015, Wall Street Journal editorial entitled “Obama and Clinton want a showdown over Planned Parenthood,” states, “[m]ost Americans know the organization [PP] as a women’s health clinic, not as the country’s largest abortion provider. The videos and Congressional hearings are slowly changing that public misperception, but a standoff that becomes a shutdown will inevitably focus the public on the shutdown, not the videos.” The column points to an August Quinnipiac poll, and recent history, showing that a shutdown would damage Republicans in Congress, not the Democrats or President Obama.
  • According to a Fox News poll, amazingly only 49% of American voters had either watched or heard of the CMP videos. Maybe a few more people have seen or heard of them since that poll, but too many Americans don’t even know what the fuss is about.
  • On September 14, CNN released results for a nationwide poll conducted September 4-8. That poll found 58% of respondents believe abortion should be illegal, or legal in only a few circumstances. (Those numbers showing a majority of Americans opposing the vast majority of abortions track with other polling conducted recently by Gallup and The Polling Company.) CNN asked another question of respondents about which is more important for Congress to do: “[a]pproving a budget agreement that would avoid a government shutdown” or “[e]liminating all federal funding for Planned Parenthood.” A large majority—71%—said it was more important for Congress to avoid a government shutdown. There is no category—age, gender, income, education, party or philosophical affiliation—that supported a government shutdown over defunding Planned Parenthood.
  • Additionally, as reported recently, a study by the Congressional Research Service found that the majority of federal funds flowing to Planned Parenthood would not even be temporarily interrupted if the government shut down over this issue, because the funds flow through “entitlement” programs such as Medicaid – and those entitlement programs do not do not depend on enactment of the annual funding bills.
It is also important to understand that federal spending bills do not include any “line items” that specifically designate money for Planned Parenthood. Rather, Planned Parenthood affiliates tap into funds from big programs like Medicaid and Title X. In order to deny Planned Parenthood such funds, a new law must be enacted to specifically prevent such funding. But for Congress to approve such a law will require 60 votes in the U.S. Senate, to overcome the filibuster.
An August vote showed that at most, 55 senators are willing to defund Planned Parenthood. There is no evidence to suggest that any of the 45 senators who support Planned Parenthood will change their minds or that a government shutdown will convince at least five senators to switch their position. In reality, in a shutdown context there would be less than 55 votes against Planned Parenthood, not more.
There’s an alternate legislative process, known as “reconciliation,” that may provide a route by which the Senate could approve a partial cutoff of funds to abortion providers, by a simple majority vote. National Right to Life fully supports any such “reconciliation” strategy, which would not risk a government shutdown and the resulting political damage to our allies.
However, any bill—funding bill or reconciliation bill —can be vetoed. And that is exactly what will happen if any such bill that contains an anti-Planned Parenthood provision reaches the desk of President Obama. The grave reality is we currently have a pro-abortion ideologue occupying the Oval Office. There is no prospect whatever of achieving the two-thirds vote required to override a veto in either house of Congress, much less in both. The grim fact is this: in order to defund Planned Parenthood, we must have a pro-life president.
But, should the “battle” be fought anyway, even though it is a battle that President Obama cannot lose? That is the course that some commentators and some lawmakers are advocating. But let’s consider what could happen if Congress were to refuse to fund the federal government, in an attempt to defund Planned Parenthood.
President Obama issued a statement that he will veto the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, if passed by Congress. Obama’s subservience to the abortion lobby is so complete that he now threatens to use his pen to protect the abortionist who would kill a baby born alive, rather than to protect that helpless baby.
So yes, President Obama would be willing to shut down the government, take money away from the military, take money away from the national parks, and put millions of federal employees on leave. He will do anything and everything to keep that money flowing to Planned Parenthood.
How long would the government be shut down? Two weeks? Two months? Six months? 15 months? I do not believe that Obama will “cave” to demands to sign legislation that blocks funding for Planned Parenthood, no matter how long he has to wait for the situation to be resolved—especially since he knows that every day that shutdown continues, Republican approval numbers will sink in the polls.
At the same time, the mainstream media will not talk about Planned Parenthood killing unborn children, or the CMP videos. They will, instead, uncover every story to demonstrate how hurtful a government shutdown is to ordinary Americans—and how the blame lies with every pro-life Republican in Congress.
You will hear stories about children denied access to medical treatment or a military family unable to pay their bills or family vacations ruined because of national parks being closed. And will President Obama care about any of the stories that the press might uncover during a shut down? Absolutely not.
Every well-informed pro-lifer wants to defund Planned Parenthood. I want to defund Planned Parenthood. There are wonderful pro-life men and women in Congress who want to defund Planned Parenthood. And, certainly, National Right to Life wants to defund Planned Parenthood. The difference here is in strategy.
National Right to Life is looking at the bigger, long-term picture. We need a pro-life president who will work with us to take away the tax dollars that flow to this repulsive, immoral organization. We need a pro-life president who will appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will allow legislators to restore legal protections to unborn children. We need a pro-life president who will work hand-in-hand with the right-to-life movement to ensure that the most vulnerable members of our society are protected by our laws.
All of these goals are more easily and effectively achieved if the 71% of American voters opposed to a government shutdown aren’t angry at the pro-life candidates running for president.

Saturday, September 26, 2015

Champions of Freedom: Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Jesse Helms

Champions of Freedom: Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Jesse Helms, Heroes in the War against Communism
via Verne Strickland  Sept. 26, 2015
north carolina history project

To most observers it would appear that the phrase “worlds apart” could not have any better application than when applied to Alexander Solzhenitsyn and US Senator Jesse Helms. They spoke different languages. They were raised in diverse cultures. They had dissimilar life experiences. They were separated by an ocean and an Iron Curtain for more than half a century.

In fact, an examination of commonalities in their lives and their seemingly unlikely friendship goes beyond that supposition. A closer study reveals how their lives paralleled and how much they were alike, especially in their antipathy to the political and social philosophy embodied in Communism.  It is their similarities that made it possible for them to establish and maintain a personal relationship that enhanced their ability to work effectively in fostering change in US policy that helped facilitate the end of Soviet Communist rule. 
It may be argued that their mutual battle against Communism was significantly advanced when they became allies in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Their actions and interactions are worthy of review today because the battle they waged did not end with their deaths. Their words will remain contemporary as long as nations around the world come under the control of Communist governments. 1

They were born just three years apart, Solzhenitsyn, the Russian, on December 11 in 1918; Helms, the American, on October 18 in 1921. They were raised almost 6000 miles from each other.  The Russian was raised in Kislovodsk, located between the Black Sea and the Caspian, by a young mother who had buried her husband the summer before his son’s birth. The American grew up in a small, southern town, the second born in a family whose ancestors had helped settle their part of North Carolina in the years before the American Revolution. 

 Both the Russian and the American lived in deep poverty, but each had the advantage of knowing they were secure within their family and the immediate community. Both knew from their earliest years that they had a love of words. The Russian longed to study literature and to write books. The American swept floors at the local paper by the time he was nine and saw his first by-line on a local sports story before he was in his mid-teens. The Russian made the most of the only option he had, to study mathematics at the college closest to his home. 2  The American started college near his home with the help of a scholarship then transferred for a year to a school that taught journalism. He paid his bills by working four jobs at once until he found work at the daily newspaper. By the end of his second year in college the American decided that the best place for him to learn the newspaper business was from the inside of one. 3  The Russian stayed in school and earned his degree in physics and mathematics. But, he could not ignore his gift.  As he could, he found ways to pursue his writing through essays and in correspondence. 4
Each served his country during World War II. The American was refused a battle assignment because of his hearing limitations. He was assigned to the Navy recruiting command and used his skills in communication to encourage enlistments. During his off duty hours he wrote for the local papers in the towns where he was stationed. The Russian was first assigned to drive a horse drawn carriage because of his poor health, but when his superiors became aware of his skill in mathematics he was quickly trained for an artillery unit and put at the front lines. 5  When the Russian had the time he kept in touch with an old school friend and wrote out some of his personal reflections which included guarded but negative comments about Joseph Stalin, to whom he did not refer by name, calling him only “the whiskered one.” 6

In 1945 the American completed his time in the U.S. Navy, went home to his wife and family in North Carolina and resumed his career in communications. 7  During the war years he and his wife had talked about their dream of one day owning their own weekly newspaper.  Now, at age twenty-four, the American’s future was full of hope and he had a deepened appreciation of the freedom that had once again been secured for his country.

In 1945 the Russian was tried in secret and sentenced to eight years in a detention camp. This “light sentence” was to punish the disrespect found by the censors who seized his letters and personal papers and examined them for signs of anti-government sentiment. 8  For most of those who were sentenced to the Soviet detention camps this would have been the end of the story.  In a political system where millions were swept into these camps for whatever the government declared illegal, including any form of criticism, the fate of one young soldier would not have been of interest to anyone beyond his family and friends.  At age twenty-seven, the Russian’s future was put in the hands of jailers who were determined to punish him.

With such radically different trajectories carrying them into the future there would seem to be no rational explanation for the paths of these two men to ever have crossed, let alone to be intertwined in the timeline of the history of the modern world. But, despite their geographic distance, their differences in language, the circumstances of their life, the governments controlling their countries, their inability to communicate and their unawareness of each other’s personal existence, they would find a way to meet.   These two men shared in common a clear goal in their desire to enjoy the freedom to pursue their own dreams, a determination to see that goal reached, the gift of knowing how to communicate well, and faith in God were determined to defeat a common enemy. In their pursuit of that goal, the Russian and the American became powerful allies long before they met. Looking back, it should not have been a surprise that the ripples of change created by bringing them together pushed them toward their goal.
The American took up his job at the Raleigh Times and got the politics and government beat, a top assignment in North Carolina’s capital city. By the late 1940’s he had moved to radio news but he continued to cover political news, lugging a recorder through the halls of the State House and into interviews. He got to know Willis Smith, former president of the American Bar Association and former president of Duke University. Smith, a conservative Democrat, won a tight race for his party’s nomination as candidate for the US Senate, and then won the general election in November of 1950.

Recognizing the young reporter’s understanding of government and his tenacity as a fact finder, Smith tapped the American to run his Washington office.  Smith died after just two years in office. After helping his successor settle into office, the American and his family returned to Raleigh where the American took up a new challenge as the director of the state’s association of bankers. His writing and communication skills once again drew attention, this time turning the Tar Heel Banker into the most widely read association newsletter in the nation. 9
In 1960 the American took on a new challenge in television. As the executive Vice President for WRAL-TV in Raleigh his responsibilities included the development of an editorial board and daily commentaries. 10  This was new territory in television but the station’s ownership believed that his television station had an obligation to present all sides of an issue to viewers, especially in a community where the newspaper advocated for just one side of the debate.  The commentaries proved far more popular than either the station’s owner or his plain-spoken commentator anticipated. Before long “Viewpoint” was syndicated and rebroadcast by radio on North Carolina’s “Tobacco Network.” 11  The commentator lost his anonymity forever. Whether they had ever seen him or not, by 1970 it seemed that most of the people in North Carolina had heard of Jesse Helms.

During those same years the Russian lived the anonymous life of a prisoner and an exile.  His ability as a mathematician made him valuable to his captors. After he had spent a year inside the prison correctional work camps, he was reassigned to what was known as a “special prison” to work in the scientific research facilities of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of State Security.  In 1950 he was transferred again, this time to one of the “special camps” for political prisoners. Once again he was put to work as a forced laborer in the foundries and mines and as a brick layer.  One month after the official end of his eight year sentence, the Russian was denied his freedom and was sentenced to “Exile for Life” in southern Kazakhstan. 12
Aware that his every movement was observed and his life depended on the appearance of full cooperation the Russian did as he was told and outwardly led a quiet life as a mathematics teacher in the primary school. But he could not stop writing. Knowing that the world must someday know the details of the Gulags, the violence and deprivation at the hands of the very government that proclaimed its concern for its people, he wrote whenever he was able. Even though he realized that his words might never be published – or, worse, that they might be found and read by the authorities, he was determined to see that the details of this abuse would not be a hidden part of his nation’s history. 

By 1961, the Russian could no longer wait for his work to be read.  Following the bold and risky public speech of A.T. Tvardovsky, editor of the literary journal Novy Mir at the 22nd Congress of the USSR Communist Party, the Russian dared to take the personal risk of sharing the manuscript of a novel he had written titled One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. 13
This powerful story about life in the Soviet prison camps of the 1950s was published in Novy Mir in 1962.  Government authorities moved at once to halt publication of the magazine and the novel itself. Then they stopped production of two plays that the Russian had also authored and seized the manuscript to a second novel and as many of his earlier papers as they could find.  The Russian was denounced as an anti-Stalinist and an enemy of the state. 14   But he was no longer anonymous. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich may have been kept from readers in the USSR, but it could not be repressed elsewhere. As translations spread around the world, millions became aware of the author, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and the truth he dared to tell. 

Without intending to do so, both the Russian and the American were now poised to take their places on the world stage.  In 1970 Alexander Solzhenitsyn was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.  Solzhenitsyn was under intense pressure from the Soviet government. They would not guarantee his freedom to travel to and from Stockholm for the award ceremony, nor would they cooperate with a plan to present his prize separately at the Swedish Embassy in Moscow.  The Prize was presented in absentia in Stockholm.

Explaining their choice of Solzhenitsyn for the Prize, the Swedish Academy said, 
“… the words that fly round the world are those which appeal to, and help us, all. Such are the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. They speak to us of matters that we need to hear more than ever before, of the individual's indestructible dignity. Wherever that dignity is violated, whatever the reason or the means, his message is not only an accusation but also an assurance: those who commit such a violation are the only ones to be degraded by it.” 15

Realizing the danger he was now in, Solzhenitsyn took the risk of smuggling more manuscripts out of the USSR. One of those was the undertaking of a lifetime, a comprehensive history that had taken him ten years to complete, The Gulag Archipelago.  Published in three volumes and filled with eye-witness accounts that made it impossible to dismiss the truth of his words, the book details the brutal prison system of forced labor camps established under Lenin and expanded under Stalin that had become critical to the economic success of the Soviet system. 16   This expose’ of a government that had taken pride in its claims of superiority could not be dismissed, nor could Solzhenitsyn’s claim that the structure of the prison system remained intact even if the number of prisoners had declined.

While Solzhenitsyn came under increasingly intense pressure from his government, Jesse Helms was coming under a different kind of pressure in North Carolina. For many listeners around the state Helms’s commentaries represented their own views on government policy and the rights of individuals. The more they heard from Jesse Helms, the more dissatisfied they became with their conventional political leaders. These voters believed that too many of their Senators and Representatives were in the habit of saying one thing back home when they were running for office but doing exactly the opposite when they got to Washington.  By 1970 many of these listeners were moving from wishing they could find someone like Jesse Helms to support, to wishing that Jesse Helms himself would run for office.

For his own part Jesse Helms was content with the career he had built. He had fallen into the comfortable routine of spending his day handling his responsibilities as station manager and a part of each evening in his home office working on “Viewpoint.”  He had seen the inside of government as Senator Smith’s chief of staff and he had chosen a different path. But the interest in his candidacy continued to grow, finally including the one person whose opinion he valued most, his wife Dorothy.

One evening as they were getting ready to go out for the evening, Dot expressed her personal frustration at never having found a candidate who truly followed the conservative principles they claimed to support. Then she asked, “What do you suppose would happen if you did run for the Senate and gave the people a clear-cut choice?” 17   Much to his surprise, the answer to that question came in November of 1972 when Jesse Helms became the first Republican in the 20th century to be elected to the US Senate. 18

It has been said that Jesse Helms did not go to Washington “to be somebody, but to do something.” At the top of his agenda was foreign policy. Senator Helms was convinced that America had an obligation to both be a good neighbor and to “protect our people and all we hold dear.” 19  In his view the spread of Communist influence presented a genuine threat. He saw Communism as the philosophical antithesis of the democratic principles defined in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. In spite of years of denials, and repeated efforts to build stronger ties between the US and USSR, Senator Helms was convinced that the stability of Communist governments came through coercion and the power of the bullet. He believed that “detente” was the wrong path for the US government because the Soviet régime’s actions rarely matched their diplomatic promises.

In September of 1973 Senator Helms traveled to London where he was asked to be one of the speakers at the International Peace and Freedom Rally.  The Senator’s speech on “The Survival of Freedom in an Era of Negotiation” warned of the pitfalls of agreements with the Soviets that were not contingent on an opening of their borders to the principles of free enterprise and personal freedom.  He challenged “free nations” to stand together and negotiate boldly, even in the face of Soviet military power, and take advantage of their mutual support to assure peace. 20   He closed his speech with this message on behalf people of the United States, 
“Only the free world has the creativity and resiliency to cope with changing situations. Let us never forget that each individual free citizen has the power which no state, no matter how monolithic and oppressive, can ever have; and that is the power to create a life that suits himself. Some people who tire of freedom and who crave security flock to the planned society, but they won’t find security in the planned society. Only freedom has the dynamic element which struggles to reach out to every man. Let our negotiations capture this dynamic struggle and freedom will not only survive, but constantly expand.”  21

Following his return from London, on September 10, 1973 Senator Helms presented to his colleagues the text of a speech presented at the closing session of the World anti-Communist League Conference, by Geoffrey Stewart-Smith, then a member of the British Parliament. That speech was titled “A Reply to Solzhenitsyn.”  Quoting extensively from the Russian, Stewart-Smith challenged the nations represented at the conference to listen to Solzhenitsyn’s plea that they avoid the easy path appeasement and choose instead to be motivated by a desire to see captives set free.  Senator Helms told his fellow Senators that in his judgment “Stewart-Smith has offered advice that the free world will ignore at its peril.” 22
Senator Helms was moved by Solzhenitsyn’s boldness in exposing the brutal truth about Communism that Helms had suspected and warned against for decades. It did not surprise him at all to learn that the Soviet government was intent on discrediting both Solzhenitsyn’s work and his personal integrity. He recognized the courage that Solzhenitsyn had shown in first daring to tell his story and then to risk re-imprisonment or worse by first making the decision to publish and now to speak out publically calling for his country to put aside their repression of personal freedom.

 Senator Helms wrote Solzhenitsyn to express his admiration and appreciation for the author’s commitment to the pursuit of liberty in spite of the personal cost to himself and his family. 23  Soon the two men had established a friendship through their regular correspondence that was fueled by their mutual commitment to the principle that every human being should be free from the control of tyrants.

Just five months after he had first offered the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn for his colleagues to consider, Senator Helms came before them again to introduce a bill requesting a Joint Resolution with the U.S. House of Representatives to grant Alexander Solzhenitsyn honorary citizenship. 24  This request, first presented on February 18, 1974 came just four days after the Soviet government had Solzhenitsyn removed by force from his home, stripped of his Soviet citizenship, put on a plane and sent into exile in West Germany.  It is a measure of the extraordinary nature of this proposed joint resolution to note that previous to 1974 only one person, Winston Churchill, had been accorded this honor by the United States Congress.

In a personal letter dated March 1, 1974, Senator Helms wrote to tell Solzhenitsyn that he had tried to reach him by phone in order to greet him in the free world in his own name and in the name of his friends in the US Senate.  Senator Helms relates his decision to offer the resolution and says that it has gained twenty-four co-sponsors.  In this letter, the Senator went on to declare that Solzhenitsyn was now a citizen of the world who would soon feel at home in any country because millions of people had read his books and respected him as a great writer who had also become a symbol of freedom. 25

Senator Helms then extended his invitation for Solzhenitsyn to come to the United States, beginning with a stop in the mountains of North Carolina where he could rest for a few days before coming to Washington. 26
Solzhenitsyn responded on March 5th, expressing his gratitude for Helms’s support and his regret that he was unable travel to the United States because he needed to concentrate on his literary work. 27 

Helms quickly replied by explaining that his invitation wasn’t merely social. It was Helms’s hope that the two of them could work together in helping people around the world find an orderly transition to freedom within their own cultural traditions.  Since a personal visit was not possible at that time, the Senator asked if he might send Dr. Victor Fediay to meet with Solzhenitsyn in his new residence in Zurich. 28

Dr. Fediay spoke fluent Russian and had served as the translator for Helms previous correspondence with Solzhenitsyn. Now, he was authorized by Senator Helms to offer assistance to Solzhenitsyn in the form of providing resources for his writing research and to discuss areas of common concern that both the Senator and the author shared. Fediay’s personal background included two decades of service as a staff researcher for the Library of Congress, specializing in Russian and Eastern European affairs. 29

In June Helms wrote to thank Solzhenitsyn for receiving Dr. Fediay, and to relate the impact thatThe Gulag Archipelago was having on the American public. 30  This letter was hand delivered by Dr. Fediay. It was followed by correspondence in August in which Helms’ offered assistance in pursuit of Solzhenitsyn’s interest in making a movie based on his script about the 1954 uprising in Soviet concentration camps.  Senator Helms closed that letter by expressing his appreciation for the autographed copy of The Gulag Archipelago which Solzhenitsyn had sent for him. 31 

Work on the Joint Resolution for Honorary Citizenship continued into 1975 with Senator Helms once again introducing it, without co-sponsors, as S.J. Resolution 36 on February 24th and bringing it before the Senate on March 20 with the reminder that the Senate passed an identical bill in October of 1974. 32  This time the resolution was accompanied by a letter from Solzhenitsyn to the Senate thanking the Senators for their previous support in voting for the resolution and expressing his hope to visit the United States. This letter closed with a personal story from World War II. Solzhenitsyn told the Senators that the Russian soldiers with whom he served had a great curiosity about Americans and he personally almost had the opportunity to meet an American serving along the Elbe River.  But the meeting never happened because the Communist authorities had separated him from his fellow soldiers and taken him away to face his first arrest.  “Now,” Solzhenitsyn wrote,” thirty years later, it is as if I am given another opportunity for such a meeting (with Americans). I will be happy to make this meeting a reality.” 33

Representative Howard James of New Jersey offered the companion resolution, also without cosponsors, to the House of Representatives on March 13th. The bill, H.J.Res. 322, was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, as the 1974 version had been, and never brought to a vote by the full House. 34  An editorial in the Reading, Pennsylvania Eagle in November of 1974 spoke for many who respected Solzhenitsyn but believed that it was “premature if not presumptive” to put him in the company of Churchill, who was named an honorary citizen in 1963 and Lafayette who had been declared a citizen of Maryland in 1785, three years before Maryland officially became a state. 35   In 2002 the 107th Congress passed Public Law 107-209 to assure that Lafayette would always be recognized as an honorary citizen of the United States. 

Solzhenitsyn’s opportunity to meet with Americans and the US Senate came in the summer of 1975 when he accepted an invitation from George Meany and the AFL-CIO to speak in Washington, DC on June 30th and in New York City on July 9th. When his plane from Zurich landed in Albany, New York on June 27th Solzhenitsyn was welcomed by Dr. Fediay, who took on the responsibility of translator and aide for much of the time Solzhenitsyn was in the United States. Because Solzhenitsyn did not like to fly that assistance included acting as personal chauffer.  

Their first destination was the Virginia home of Senator Jesse Helms. This visit was not anticipated by the Senator, or by his wife Dorothy who had already left for North Carolina to be with family and await Senator Helms’ arrival for the 4th of July holiday.  The surprise of seeing Solzhenitsyn did not dampen the welcome as the two men who had built a friendship through their letters and phone calls finally had the opportunity to simply sit and talk. The two men were joined that evening by Dr. Fediay and by George S Dunlop, Senator Helms’ next door neighbor and close associate. In speeches given shortly after this visit Senator Helms recalled some of his personal conversation with Solzhenitsyn, including his guest’s great concern that the US could not see the great danger of the advance of Communism. 

Helms found Solzhenitsyn to be a man of remarkable intellect and great courage.  They found much common ground around their mutual opposition to Communist rule in any nation. Their conversation touched on many topics including personal rights. Both of them felt that the freedom to worship was as basic as the freedom to speak openly without fear of reprisal. As they talked they recognized their shared faith as Christians. Their worship traditions, Russian Orthodox and Southern Baptist, were markedly different, but their trust in the power of God was identical. 

That night, in the comfort of Senator Helms’ living room, Solzhenitsyn recounted a prison experience that he had previously shared with only those who were closest to him. The story so moved Senator Helms that he retold it many times, beginning with a speech he gave on July 25, 1975 where the guest of honor was Ronald Reagan.  Others who heard or read the story, including author Charles Colson and evangelist Billy Graham have also retold it over the years.  George S Dunlop, who was present as Solzhenitsyn spoke with Helms, says that this account from Senator Helms’ speech just weeks after he hosted Solzhenitsyn is completely accurate and reflects Senator Helms’ training and skill as a reporter.  36 

Here is what Senator Helms said in that speech:
“The news accounts have failed, I fear, to emphasize the real source of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s courage and strength, which is his faith in God. He is, as Billy Graham discovered during a visit with Mr. Solzhenitsyn, a dedicated Christian.
 Solzhenitsyn has told some of his closest friends of his personal renewal of faith on what he described as his darkest day of imprisonment in the concentration camp.   “I was sitting that day,” he said, “wondering how this ordeal could be concluded with the finality of death.” It was then that a fellow prisoner, whose name he will never know, sat down beside Solzhenitsyn. Not a syllable was spoken by either of them – conversation was forbidden. But the fellow prisoner clutched a small stick which he had picked up along the road. And as the two sat together in silence, the fellow prisoner carefully scratched into the earth the symbol of the cross of salvation – the reminder that Jesus Christ of Nazareth died to give hope to mankind.
That simple little episode, Solzhenitsyn makes clear, restored his perspective. It gave him the renewed will to survive, to continue to try, to do his best to stand up – in whatever way he could—for freedom. His testimony, I would reiterate, is that no man is inadequate if he has true faith in God.”  37
A story like Solzhenitsyn’s is an encouragement to people of faith because such encounters are recognized and recounted as a sign of God’s presence at moments of crisis and danger, even imprisonment, throughout all of human history.  For Helms, this story was an affirmation of his personal conviction that any attempt by Communists or any other tyrants to outlaw religion was doomed to failure, because God refused to be silenced.

While Solzhenitsyn was warmly welcomed at the Helms residence, gaining an invitation to the White House proved to quite a different matter.  In a letter to President Gerald Ford on June 23rd Senator Helms and South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond explained that they had previously spoke with members of the President’s staff to let them know that Solzhenitsyn would be arriving in Washington for his speech on June 30th. The Senators wrote that in view of the Senate’s unanimous vote to accord Solzhenitsyn the tribute of honorary citizenship it would be fitting that he come to the White House to pay his respects to the President of the United States before addressing the American people in his first speech before the AFL-CIO which would also be his first major appearance in the US. 38 

At the urging of Secretary of SKissinger, President Ford opted against extending an invitation. 39  This snub of a public figure, a Nobel Prize winner whose words had been read by millions and whose courage was revered by many more millions who knew his story was widely criticized. It was widely reported that Kissinger believed that acknowledging Solzhenitsyn would anger the Soviets, likely setting back efforts at détente and creating a negative issue during Ford’s planned meeting with Premier Brezhnev in Moscow.

Helms took his concern to the floor of the Senate on July 7th, saying that he hoped the President himself was not personally involved in the decision and “the slap in the face to all freedom-loving people throughout the world who understand the nature of Communism.” 40  The next day he was back again to note the growing national dissatisfaction with the White House’s actions as evidenced in editorials and commentary. Helms then entered the full text of Solzhenitsyn’s Washington speech to the AFL-CIO into the Congressional Record along with an editorial from the Charlotte Observer saying “surely the spirit of détente is not so frail that it cannot survive a meeting of the American President with a man who symbolizes man kind’s highest yearnings for freedom.” 41 

The White House excuses seemed to grow with the public criticism of the President’s decision. The staff scrambled for a rationale to explain the refusal. Ron Nessen, The President’s press secretary, carefully ignored the fact that the President’s door had been open to both the 1975 Cotton Queen and famed soccer player Pele among many others, explained that the President’s schedule was crowded. Then he said the President didn’t want to appear to be helping Solzhenitsyn sell his books. Next, he stated, “For image reasons the President likes to have some substance to his meetings. It is not clear what he would gain in a meeting with Solzhenitsyn.” 42  

Historian Douglas Brinkley unwittingly added yet another excuse for the President’s decision in his biography of Gerald Ford, published in 2007. Apparently unaware that Senators Helms and Thurmond had jointly written to President Ford on June 23, after they had already spoken to White House staff members, Brinkley refers only to a 2nd letter from the Senators, written to the President after the Solzhenitsyn speech, to argue, “Unfortunately the White House failed to firmly enough cite the outrage against protocol of making demands on the President’s time with less than a half-week’s notice. Instead, as Ford himself would admit in his memoir, “I decided to subordinate political gains to foreign policy considerations.” 43
Solzhenitsyn’s supporters were not silenced by any of the excuses offered. They knew that the real issue was Kissinger’s insistence an invitation for Solzhenitsyn would scuttle a closer relationship with the writer’s former captors.  After two weeks of growing criticism, The White House issued a statement saying that if Solzhenitsyn would ask for an appointment, the President would see him. Solzhenitsyn refused, just as he refused to be slipped into the White House in the company of a few Senators for an “unannounced” meeting with the President. 44  
Recognizing the opinion of the majority of Americans who considered Solzhenitsyn a hero, a bi-partisan group of Senators, led by Henry “Scoop” Jackson, the Democratic Senator from Washington, hosted a reception for the author in the Russell Office Building.  Addressing his audience of Senators, Representatives and private citizens Solzhenitsyn thanked the Senate for twice endeavoring to make him an honorary US citizen and saying he interpreted their efforts as a way to recognize the millions who had been deprived of their rights under Communist rule, including all those who had never been able to express their opinions in the press, in parliament or in international conferences. 45  The photo of Alexander Solzhenitsyn being warmly greeted as he arrived at the US Capitol was carried in newspapers across the county.

The following day the Secretary of State was quoted as saying that “Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s militant views are a threat to peace.” Kissinger went on to say that he had recommended that President Ford not meet with the author. 46   Kissinger charged that Solzhenitsyn advocated an aggressive policy to overthrow the Soviet system and added “I believe that if his views become the national policy of the United States we would be confronted with considerable threat of military conflict … I believe the consequences of his views would not be acceptable to the American people or the world. 47

Helms once again took to the Senate floor to challenge Kissinger’s version of Solzhenitsyn’s advocacy of aggression. Helms said Kissinger’s words revealed his “complete ignorance” of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s philosophy, adding, “Here is a Nobel Prize winner … a man who literally was willing to lay down his life in defense of freedom, who was oppressed in a concentration camp and our Secretary of State does not know enough about him to even characterize Mr. Solzhenitsyn accurately, fairly or properly.”

On August 2, 1975 President Ford and Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev met at the Soviet Embassy, Helsinki, Finland and signed an agreement that came to be known as the Helsinki Accords. Supporters of the agreement hailed it as a major step on the path to détente.  

By this time Solzhenitsyn had returned to Zurich where he remained until he accepted an invitation from Stanford University to continue his work in Palo Alto, California. He took up residence on the Stanford campus in 1975. In 1976 he and his family relocated to Cavendish, Vermont where they remained for almost two decades. During his years in the United States, Solzhenitsyn continued to speak out against Communism, but he also warned the West about the danger he saw in a weakening moral fiber. These warnings drew him criticism, but just as he could not ignore what he had witnessed in the concentration camps decades earlier, he continued his campaign against materialism and pop culture.  Solzhenitsyn felt that settling for that which was base and of no lasting value was a tragic waste of freedom that opened the way for an easy submission to the lies of Socialism and Communism.  Addressing the members of the Class of 1978 at Harvard, Solzhenitsyn said, “After the suffering of decades of violence and oppression, the human soul longs for things higher, warmer and purer than those offered by today's mass living habits, introduced by the revolting invasion of publicity, by TV stupor and by intolerable music.” 48

Like Solzhenitsyn, Senator Helms continued to speak out against the threat of Communism in every part of the world. He remained in touch with his friend and ally and cited his words often in speeches of his own. While Solzhenitsyn for the most part took up the quiet life of a writer, Helms’ reputation as a US Senator continued to grow. He was recognized as a leading force in the growing conservative movement that was instrumental in the elections of Ronald Reagan and in gaining GOP majorities in the House and US Senate.  In 1995 Senator Helms became Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In this role he was able to significantly influence US policy and appointments for US State Department positions. He was unfailingly cautious about those who advocated the kind of accommodations with Communist –led governments that were embodied in the failed détente agreements the US had signed during the Ford Administration. 

In 1989 Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev established the policy of Glasnost or “openness.” In 1990 he restored Solzhenitsyn’s Soviet citizenship. The following year all of the treason charges made against Solzhenitsyn were dropped. With the Communist hold on the USSR officially ended in 1991, Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Russian homeland embarked at last on the path of freedom.  After twenty years of exile, Solzhenitsyn and his family returned to their native Russia in 1994.

For both Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Senator Helms the collapse of the Communist government in the USSR in 1991, followed by the demise of the Communist governments in its European satellites was a great triumph. But both men recognized that this victory, while truly historic, was one more battle in an on-going contest being waged in every part of the world.  While others moved on to other issues, both men remained steadfast in warning all who would listen to them that the war against the crimes of Communism could never be over as long as Communists sought to control the government of any nation. 

Senator Jesse Helms served in the United States Senate for thirty years. Following his death on July 4, 2008, the United States Senate passed a unanimous resolution expressing their sorrow at his passing. That resolution noted among his many accomplishments the fact that he was “a leader against Communism and the first legislator of any nation to address the United Nations Security Council.” 49  News accounts around the world highlighted his fight against Communism and his friendship with those who stood against it, including Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The southern boy from Monroe, North Carolina had become a powerful force for the spread of freedom around the world and one of the most important political figures of his time.

One month later, on August 3, 2008, Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s life ended also.  Lauded for his personal courage and his great body of literary works, the former prisoner who had been reviled by the Soviet government and forced into exile was now mourned by the Russian people and the Russian government along with admirers everywhere who recognized the power of his writing and his courage.  Honored in 2007 with the State Prize of the Russian Federation for his humanitarian work, Solzhenitsyn was honored posthumously in 2009 when The Gulag Archipelago became required reading for all Russian high school students. This action would have pleased its author who once said, “I am of course confident that I will fulfill my tasks as a writer in all circumstances -- from my grave even more successfully and more irrefutably than in my lifetime. No one can bar the road to truth, and to advance its cause I am prepared to accept even death. But may it be that repeated lessons will finally teach us not to stop the writer's pen during his lifetime? At no time has this ennobled our history.” 50

At the close of his personal memoir, Senator Helms reflected on his lifelong battle against Communism and said, “… this much is sure: It was never a mistake to give our support to the person or group who did not embrace Communism rather than a person or faction who did.  Communism has been tried and found wanting in countries around the world. In every case, the rule of Communism brought the death of dissidents, the banning of religion, the destruction of revered cultures and the devaluation of human life. … Communism is not truly dead.” 51

Current events have shown that Senator Helms and Alexander Solzhenitsyn knew exactly what they were talking about when they challenged those who value democratic freedoms to protect them at all costs. In the 21st century Communism is far from dead and the cruelty of Communist governments has not lessened. On February 24, 2010 reports of the death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo, 42, came out of Cuba, where Fidel Castro officially declared his government Communist in 1965. Tamayo was arrested in 2003 for the crime of disrespecting the Communist Cuban government by daring to disagree with Castro’s policy and Communist philosophy. At the time of his death Tamayo, who had already been locked away for seven years, was in the 84th day of a hunger strike to protest brutal prison conditions. This one man, arrested for disrespect, the same charge used to send Alexander Solzhenitsyn to prison in 1945, represented many hundreds of thousands of political prisoners who remain in captivity in China, North Korea, Viet Nam and North Korea.
Knowing the depth of Solzhenitsyn and Helms’ concern for those who were oppressed, we can safely assume that if they could speak to us now they would urge the citizens of the free nations of the world to come together now as they did then to do all possible to eliminate the oppressive power of Communism.