In response to:

Why the Hiss Case Still Matters

DavidChambers Wrote: May 28, 2012 3:03 PM
Mr. Stokes, First, for the children of Whittaker Chambers – my aunt and my father – the Hiss Case cannot go (or stay) far enough away. Next, for years, politicos on both sides have cited both men out of context. They often stretch the views of Chambers and Hiss untenably to bolster their own views. Today, you added your share. Chambers, a “Tea Party” proponent? Hiss, an “Occupy Wall Street” supporter? Please! Based on what statements made by either person, compared how to these two incoherent political trends? As for “the ideological divide that continues to this day,” as a pastor/ minister are you not more interested in healing than widening that divide? Respectfully - David Chambers | http://www.whittakerchambers.org/
Louie13 Wrote: May 29, 2012 6:41 PM
David, your post brought back a memory of something I had forgotten, namely that the Hisses were innocent, your Russian spy relative knowingly fingered the wrong people. So it is understandable that they would want to forget the whole thing. J. Robert Oppenheimer was the actual guilty party.

Louie
Rich D. Wrote: May 28, 2012 10:07 PM
It seems to me that he was using those two groups as an illustration of the divide, not of support. Also, I see nothing wrong with teaching about how that divide between collectivism and personal liberty is still important to us. How do we learn from history if we banish it?
Opa2 Wrote: May 28, 2012 4:45 PM
Please tell me what is incoherent about the Tea Party?
PecosPete.38 Wrote: May 28, 2012 5:05 PM
Opa2: Nothing to my mind. But, who knows how other minds perceive anything? These days, it's increasingly hard to tell how half the country computes information. Short attention spans from too much television, etc. No offense to Mr. Chambers' response, as I'm not referring to his remarks. He sounds miffed, & I wouldn't want to intrude on anyone's feelings about their family. That would be wrong, & just plain rude.

It was high political drama more than six decades ago—controversial and polarizing. A Harvard trained and highly ranked member of the Federal Government charged by a self-confessed former Soviet spy of being a partner in those very same nefarious enterprises.

On the one hand there was Whitaker Chambers, the somewhat frumpy-looking accuser, a man who had wandered in from the darkened cold years before, having seen the sinister reality behind the propaganda-driven hope and change promised by Communism. Then there was this other guy with poster-child-for-success looks, brains, friends in very high places, and a killer resume with seemingly endless references....