Who Was Harry Freeman? And Why Should You Care?

Harry Freeman is not a household name; most Americans have no idea who he was. Why should anyone care? Well, Harry Freeman was an example of just how devoted someone can be to a political party regardless of the drastic changes that might occur.

Whittaker Chambers knew Harry Freeman. When Chambers joined the open Communist Party in America in the late 1920’s, he worked alongside Freeman at the party’s newspaper, The Daily Worker.

Allow me to draw from what I’ve written in my book on Chambers and Reagan:

Freeman was the perfect communist in his responses to the party line. As Chambers relates, “No matter how favorable his opinion had been to an individual or his political role, if that person fell from grace in the Communist Party, Harry Freeman changed his opinion about him instantly.”

Others in the party also shifted their viewpoints to match the leadership, but Freeman was unique because he would do it “without any effort or embarrassment. There seemed to vanish from his mind any recollection that he had ever held any opinion other than the approved one. . . . More adroitly and more completely than any other Communist I knew, Harry Freeman possessed the conviction that the party line is always right.”

Freeman, after he left the Daily Worker, went on to become the managing editor of the American Bureau of Tass, the Soviet news agency. In 1976, two years before his death, he received a special award from the Soviet leadership—the Order of Peoples Friendship. His achievement, according to the Soviet government, was his devotion to strengthening cooperation between the peoples of the Soviet Union and the United States. Freeman’s commitment to the communist cause was total.

Chambers, for all his devotion to communism, could never be a Harry Freeman. He could not stomach the politics within the party, and when Stalin initiated a purge of the American leadership, Chambers saw it for what it was—a power struggle unrelated to whether or not a person was a genuine communist.

“It seemed to me,” Chambers wrote years later, “that the party, of which it had been said in Lenin’s time that it peopled the jails of Europe with philosophers, had simply gone insane. … I thought: ‘The pigmies have taken over.'” He refused to play along with this political game and dropped out of the party for a time. This made him a pariah, someone not to be trusted.

How many Harry Freemans, I wonder, exist in America today? The Harry Freemans of today are those who hold to the party line, regardless of which party, no matter how that party may shift and bend itself out of shape.

The Democrat Party in our day is not the Democrat Party of yesteryear when it had a strong anti-communist center. It never dallied with changing basic morality with respect to the right to life and marriage.

The Republican Party of 2017 has morphed also. It’s no longer the party led by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Its purported leader has little in common with Reagan’s sunny disposition, his devotion to constitutionalism, and his thorough knowledge of the conservative philosophy.

I’m concerned because I see Harry Freemans popping up all over the place. I see supposed conservatives, for instance, jettisoning basic conservative/Biblical principles for pure pragmatism.

My goal in this post is simple: it’s a warning—don’t be a Harry Freeman. Stay faithful to what you know is true and don’t bend yourself out of shape to keep up with whatever the “party” wants you to do. Maintain your integrity.

The Occupiers’ Supporters

“Occupying” seems to have become a fulltime occupation for some. Hey, it beats working, right? At least that’s the impression some of the occupiers give. Have you seen the list of organizations and individuals that are supporters of this movement? They include a variety of communist organizations, as well as the official Communist Party. And don’t forget the Nazi Party; they’re on board, too. Throw in the Black Panthers, Louis Farrakhan,B and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and you have quite an assembly. Foreign “dignitaries”  and groups who have provided verbal support include Hugo Chavez, Iran’s Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei, the Revolutionary Guards of Iran, Hezbollah, the nation of North Korea, and the Communist Party of China.

Greetings, comrades and jihadists!

Everyone’s anti-capitalist to some extent. Corporations are evil, you see. Inherently so. Don’t make any distinctions between those who provide valuable products and services, and who give massive sums to charity and those who are operated by selfish thugs. Just declare them all to be—in the words of a bygone era—Robber Barons.

Such righteousness on the part of the occupiers. Are you aware that some of the leaders have now applied for a trademark for the name “Occupy Wall Street”? How very capitalist of them.

One cartoonist created a fable of sorts to illustrate the mindset of the occupiers:

Oh, you mean there’s a political aspect to this? Is that why President Obama has made supportive statements with respect to this “movement”? Are these really the people with whom he wants to be associated?

Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to win him many votes.

The Campaign Meets the Occupiers

The presidential campaign is more than up and running; it’s in high gear. Not only are Republican contenders lining up for the nomination, but President Obama is actively campaigning while officially calling it a “jobs tour.” That way all the taxpayers receive the distinct privilege of paying for it. For Republicans, the goal is clear:

Those who want more fundamental change continue to search for the anti-Romney. They’re not convinced he is the real deal. Yet oddsmakers still put their money on him. Republicans could regret that choice:

I’ll have more to say about that in later posts. The 999 comment, of course, refers to Herman Cain. If he were to get the nomination, that might make it a tad difficult to make the case that Republicans are racist, which is a favorite tactic of the Left:

Cain has been connected to the Tea Party ever since it started. Many in the media are now trying to say that this “occupy” movement is like the Tea Party. Well, there are very few similarities. Even the slogans don’t match:

Not to mention the nature and personal hygiene of the activists. Yet President Obama, on the campaign trail, is now saying, as are many Democrats, that they support the Occupy Wall Street crowd. But there is a disconnect:

By the way, have you heard that the Nazi Party and the Communist Party have officially endorsed Occupy Wall Street? You can know a movement by its supporters.