- The Washington Times - Monday, May 28, 2007

Hearst and the Holocaust

In a May 27 review of a new biography of William Randolph Hearst (“A Vietnam war hero, a publisher,” Books), John and Priscilla Taylor note that Hearst said “kind words about Hitler.” While it is sadly true that Hearst made positive statements about Hitler and some of his policies during the 1930s, it should be noted that at the same time, Hearst did criticize the Nazi leaders persecution of the Jews, especially in the wake of the 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom.

Moreover, Hearst played an important role in the 1943 campaign to bring about American intervention to rescue Jews from the Holocaust. He was a sponsor of that years Emergency Conference to Save the Jewish People of Europe, and he repeatedly directed all 34 of his newspapers to publish front-page editorials calling for rescue. When the organizers of that Emergency Conference, known as the Bergson Group, initiated a congressional resolution urging creation of a U.S. government rescue agency, Hearst directed his newspaper chain to promote the resolution and he personally authored signed editorials endorsing it. (One declared: “Remember, Americans, this is not a Jewish problem. It is a human problem.”)

Both David S. Wyman, in “The Abandonment of the Jews,” and Deborah Lipstadt, in “Beyond Belief,” found that in an era when the New York Times and other newspapers routinely buried Holocaust news in the back pages, the Hearst newspapers gave prominent coverage to the Nazi mass murders and the need for U.S. rescue action.

Contrast Hearst with, for example, Charles Lindbergh, who in an infamous 1941 speech accused American Jews of conspiring to drag the United States into Europes war. Even after personally confronted with evidence of Nazi atrocities against the Jews, Lindbergh found ways to minimize German culpability. Visiting the site of the Dora-Mittelbau slave labor camp in Germany shortly after the war, Lindbergh came face to face with emaciated prisoners, piles of dead bodies, and mounds of bones and ash in recently-used crematoria. Yet he wrote in his journal that the United States was “doing the same thing in our treatment of the Jap … It is not the Germans alone, or the Japs, but the men of all nations to whom this war has brought shame and degradation.”



The David S. Wyman Institute for

Holocaust Studies

Washington, D.C.

The end of the beginning

That the illegal immigration issue has turned into an epic of “Alice In Wonderland” proportions is partially the result of semantics (“Coming clean on amnesty,” Commentary, yesterday). Calling the people who enter our country in violation of the law “immigrants” albeit “illegal” cloaks them in an aura of near-respectability. It conjures up visions, particularly to older Americans, of poor, downtrodden masses yearning to be free arriving at Ellis Island, where most, some with names permanently misspelled, reached the streets of New York to begin the process of becoming American citizens a title they earned and proudly honored.

The people who today cross our border with Mexico in violation of our laws are criminal border trespassers and should be identified as such by governments at all levels and by the media. Instead, past presidents have not, and the current president will not, perform their constitutional responsibility to enforce the law while considering these people a class of immigrants. The Congress will not apply the rule of law, instead devoting considerable time and effort in crafting laws that will permanently alter the very basis of America. They have assumed the right to pick and choose the laws they will enforce while, of course, denying that “right” to us common citizens.

The criminal border trespassers do not enter this country for the purpose of becoming proud American citizens. They do not want to be assimilated; they do not want to transfer their loyalty to an adopted country. They have no interest in our history, culture and traditions. The melting pot is broken. Over time, red and blue America will be speckled with a pox of voluntary ghettos where Mexican flags will fly, Spanish will be the common language and some businesses will see a way to increase profits by proclaiming “English Spoken Here” while telephone machines after answering in Spanish will invite “press 2 for English.”

I know of no society in which competing cultures and languages have not been the source of conflict, much of it violent. To think that America can escape this if it refuses to secure its borders and apply the rule of law to criminal trespassers is part of the “Alice In Wonderland” mentality that allows presidents and politicians to declare that amnesty is not amnesty, that our borders will be secured when they will not, that refusing to enforce our immigration laws is a proper response, that the impact on taxpayers can be ignored because all current lawmakers will be dead before the full impact is felt and that what they are doing solves America’s immigration problems when, as Thomas Sowell correctly stated, it instead solves their own problems.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, this may not be the beginning of the decline of the United States Of America. It may, however, be the end of the beginning of its ultimate decline a fate that has without exception affected every empire or superpower throughout history. A country that loses the will to defend its culture, heritage and traditions cannot long stand. The vast majority of real Americans have not lost that will. Are the politicians listening? More to the point, do they care?



Health care for the young

Devon Herrick is wrong in his assertions about the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (“Put the children back in SCHIP,” Commentary, Thursday).

Uninsured children go without needed care and checkups and their minor illnesses can grow into major medical problems. If Mr. Herrick thinks “expensive mandated benefits” for children is too generous, he has not seen the dire consequences when a child goes without the health care coverage he or she needs to stay healthy.

These benefits, including well-child visits and critical preventative care such as immunization, dental care and mental-health services, are vital to a child’s healthy development. Using children to promote health-insurance competition chooses pocket books over children’s health, lowers the quality of health care delivered and is a detriment to public health and future generations.

Mr. Herrick’s assertion that SCHIP has not reduced the number of uninsured children in the United States is inaccurate. SCHIP, and its larger companion program Medicaid, have driven down the uninsured rate among low-income children by one-third. Currently, SCHIP covers more than 6 million children nationwide. Medicaid provides health insurance coverage to more than 28 million low-income children, including 1 million-plus in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia alone.

There are 6 million children and teens under age 19 who are currently eligible but unenrolled in SCHIP or Medicaid. You don’t need to expand SCHIP to get them enrolled, but you do need money. At least $50 billion over five years in federal funding would get these children covered.

States determine SCHIP eligibility rules, and if they went above and beyond the SCHIP enrollment mandates, such as covering some parents, they had to get permission from the federal government. There shouldn’t be threats to disrupt a successful 10-year program by changing the rules, particularly when it means more children and families could lose coverage.

SCHIP is an investment in our future, and one that cannot be jeopardized by putting our children’s health care on the chopping block.




Committee on Federal

Government Affairs

American Academy of Pediatrics


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide