Joe McCarthy Died a Drunken and Broken Man
Joe McCarthy, who was supported by the John Birch Society (the old Tea Party) thought a communist was under every rock. He hurt many innocent people until he was disgraced in the House and died a broken and drunken idiot.
The disgrace came from the fact LL's Joe claimed to have proof to back up his paranoid claims. A lot of Americans and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle believed McCarthy.
The House put Joe in a put-up or shut-up position, demanding to see the proof. As it turned out, there was no proof.
Some claim that history vindicated Joe because there were communists in America. But what brought Joe down was the lie. He claimed he had proof, and he had nothing.Didn't the character, General Jack D. Ripper in the film, 'Dr. Stranglove' exemplify McCarthy?
"Your Commie has no regard for human life, not even of his own."
"I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."There were Communists under every rock. To your no doubt unmitigated joy, they are now in the White House.
In the July/August issue of The American Spectator, Paul Kengor unveils the unexamined Jarrett, a key aide and mentor to our president, to reveal a red-diaper past and a business career that's been utterly dependent on government connections at their seediest.
Here's just some of what Kengor uncovers in this American Spectator exclusive exposé:
Jarrett's father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, defended Chicago's oppressed proletariat with none other than Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party USA member who mentored a young Barack Obama in Hawaii;
Jarrett's maternal grandfather, Robert Taylor, the first African American head of the infamous Chicago Housing Authority, appears in a 1944 report by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities;
Perhaps with a kick-start from her Chicago-renowned father-in-law, Jarrett's 20-year career in Chicago's political machine included a stint as Mayor Richard Daley's deputy chief of staff, as well as any number of major jobs in the area of urban housing and development;
In Chicago, Jarrett oversaw the management and development of huge housing projects -- most of which were ultimately seized by federal authorities and shut down because of their deplorable, squalid, and unlivable conditions;
In November 2008, Judicial Watch obtained documents linking Jarrett to several housing projects operated by Chicago slumlord Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted on 16 of 24 counts of corruption in 2008;
In August 2009, Jarrett introduced the radical Marxist "Green Jobs Czar" Van Jones as someone "we were so delighted to be able to recruit...into the White House." Jones was forced to resign one month later;
Jarrett's name was widely floated as a top candidate to fill Obama's vacated U.S. Senate seat. Former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich allegedly offered to appoint Jarrett in exchange for a top Obama administration post.
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/08/2 … e-jarrett#Excellent! Lets see how these lefties spin that. They are awfully quiet right now.
For anyone to agree that this is a problem, they have to agree that a communist is by definition an evil criminal bent on overthrowing the government of the US. Merely being a communist is not a crime.
Working to overthrow the US is one. Prove that they're plotting to violently overthrow the US, and I'll grab my torch and pitchfork. All you've shown--assuming your allegations are true--is that there are people who disagree with you in power.
You haven't proven that anyone's a communist, you've only said they are. You further haven't proven that they're working to overthrow our government (though interestingly, lots of people on the right have been making noise about overthrowing the government...maybe we should be concerned about them?).
Stop conjuring chimaeras and start posting actual evidence of wrongdoing, if you have any.
Hi there bgamall. Why did Hoover go with the Eisenhower side over McCarthy and 'King Cohn?' Do you believe Hoover was the deciding factor in the matter?
BAIT... and I won't bite... what a joke. lollllllll
http://conservapedia.com/Joseph_McCarthy
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeche … eitnow.htm
-"The Venona project specifically references at least 349 pseudonyms in the United States—including citizens, immigrants, and permanent residents—who cooperated in various ways with Soviet intelligence agencies, however not all were ever identified. In public hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) conducted by McCarthy, 83 persons plead the fifth amendment right against self incrimination. An additional 9 persons refused to testify on constitutional grounds in private hearings, and their names were not made public. [27] Of the 83 persons pleading the fifth amendment, several have been identified by NSA and FBI as agents of the Soviet Union in the Venona project involved in espionage. Several prominent examples are:
Mary Jane Keeney, a United Nations employee, and her husband Philip
Keeney, who worked in the Office of Strategic Services;[28]
Lauchlin Currie, a special assistant to President Roosevelt;[29]
Virginius Frank Coe [30], Director of Division of Monetary Research, U.S. Treasury; Technical Secretary at the Bretton Woods Conference; International Monetary Fund;
William Ludwig Ullman [31], delegate to the United Nations Charter Conference and Bretton Woods Conference;
Nathan Gregory Silvermaster [32], Chief Planning Technician, Procurement Division, United States Department of the Treasury and head of the Silvermaster network of spies;
Harold Glasser, U.S. Treasury Representative to the Allied High Commission in Italy;
Four staff members of the LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee, a Senate subcommittee on labor rights;
Allan Rosenberg, Chief of the Economic Institution Staff, Foreign Economic Administration; Counsel to the National Labor Relations Board;
Solomon Adler, U.S. Treasury Dept., went to China and joined government of Mao Zedong;
Robert T. Miller, Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs; Near Eastern Division United States Department of State; also identified in the
Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives; McCarthy's Case #16 and Lee list #12;[33]
Franz Leopold Neumann, consultant at Board of Economic Warfare; Deputy Chief of the Central European Section of Office of Strategic Services; First Chief of Research of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal; also identified in the Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives;
Laurence Duggan, head of United States Department of State Division of American Republics; [34]
Leonard Mins, [35] Russian Section of the Research and Analysis Division of the Office of Strategic Services;
Cedric Belfrage [36], British Security Coordination; founder the National Guardian.
Gerald Graze, U.S. State Department; Lee List #29, confirmed in the
Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives, brother of Stanley Graze;
Sergey Nikolaevich Kurnakov, Daily Worker; [37]
David Karr, Office of War Information; chief aide to journalist Drew Pearson.
Most but not all of Senator McCarthy’s numbered cases were drawn from the “Lee List” or “108 list” of unresolved Department of State security cases compiled by Lee for the House Appropriates Committee in 1947. The Tydings subcommittee also obtained this list. In addition to some of the person involved in espionage identified in the Venona project listed above, there are other security and loyalty risks identified correctly by Senator McCarthy included in the following list:
Robert Warren Barnett & Mrs. Robert Warren Barnett, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #48 and #49 respectively and both are on Lee list as #59;[42]
Esther Brunauer, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #47 and Lee list #55;[43]
Stephen Brunauer, U.S. Navy, chemist in the explosive research division;[44]
Gertrude Cameron, Information and Editorial Specialist in the U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #55 and Lee list #65;[45][46]
Nelson Chipchin, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's list #23;[47]
Oliver Edmund Clubb, U.S. State Department;[48]
John Paton Davies, U.S. State Department, Policy Planning Committee;[49]
Gustavo Duran, U.S. State Department, assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Latin American Affairs, and Chief of the Cultural Activities Section of the Department of Social Affairs of the United Nations;[50]
Arpad Erdos, U.S. State Department;[51]
Herbert Fierst, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's case #1 and Lee list #51;[52][53][54]
John Tipton Fishburn, U.S. State Department; Lee list #106;[55]
Theodore Geiger, U.S. State Department;[56]
Stella Gordon, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #40 and Lee list #45[57]
Stanley Graze, U.S. State Department intelligence; McCarthy's Case #8 and Lee list #8, brother of Gerald Graze, confirmed in KGB Archives;[58]
Ruth Marcia Harrison, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #7 and Lee list #4;[59]
Myron Victor Hunt, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #65 and Lee list #79;[60]
Philip Jessup, U.S. State Department, Assistant Director for the Naval School of Military Government and Administration at Columbia University in New York, Delegate to the U.N. in a number of different capacities, Ambassador-at-large, and Chairman of the Institute of Pacific Relations Research Advisory Committee; McCarthy's Case #15;[61]
Dorothy Kenyon, New York City Municipal Court Judge, U.S. State Department appointee as American Delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women;[62]
Leon Hirsch Keyserling, President Harry Truman's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers;[63]
Mary Dublin Keyserling, U.S. Department of Commerce;[64]
Esther Less Kopelewich, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #24;[65]
Owen Lattimore, Board member of the communist-dominated Institute of Pacific Relations (I.P.R) and editor the I.P.R.’s journal Pacific Affairs;[66]
Paul A. Lifantieff-Lee, U.S. Naval Department; McCarthy's Case #56 and Lee list #66;[67]
Val R. Lorwin, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #54 and Lee list #64;[68]
Daniel F. Margolies, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #41 and Lee list #46;[69] [70]
Peveril Meigs, U.S. State Department; Department of the Army; McCarthy's Case #3 and Lee list #2;[71]
Ella M. Montague, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #34 and Lee list #32;[72]
Philleo Nash, Presidential Advisor, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman administrations;[73][74][75]
Olga V. Osnatch, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #81 and Lee list #78;[76]
Edward Posniak, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case Number 77;[77]
Philip Raine, U.S. State Department, Regional Specialist; McCarthy's Case #52 and Lee list #62;[78][79][80][81]
Robert Ross, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #32 and Lee list #30;[82]
Sylvia Schimmel, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #50 and Lee list #60;[83][84][85][86]
Frederick Schumann, contracted by U.S. State Department as lecturer; Professor at Williams College; not on Lee list;[87]
John S. Service, U.S. State Department;[88]
Harlow Shapley, U.S. State Department appointee to UNESCO, Chairman of the National Council of Arts, Sciences, and Professions;[89]
William T. Stone, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #46 and Lee list #54;[90]
Frances M. Tuchser, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #6 and Lee list #6;[91]
John Carter Vincent, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #2 and Lee list #52;[92]
David Zablodowsky, U.S. State Department & Director of the United Nations Publishing Division. McCarthy's Case #103;[93]
In 1953-54, McCarthy had been investigating lax security in the top secret facility at Ft. Monmouth, N.J. He was attacked by liberals and Communists on the grounds that there were no security problems at Ft. Monmouth. Years later, in addressing the reason why the U.S. Army's top-secret operations at Fort Monmouth were quietly moved to Arizona, Senator Barry Goldwater, in his 1979 book With no apologies: The personal and political memoirs of United States Senator Barry M. Goldwater, Goldwater stated:
"Carl Hayden, who in January 1955 became chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee of the United States Senate, told me privately Monmouth had been moved because he and other members of the majority Democratic Party were convinced security at Monmouth had been penetrated. They didn't want to admit that McCarthy was right in his accusations. Their only alternative was to move the installation from New Jersey to a new location in Arizona."-
Even though McCarthy's investigations proved that his suspicions were right, for many years afterwards and continue to this day, liberals have spread the falsehood that McCarthy had found nothing at Fort Monmouth.
Before the 1989 release of Carl Bernstein's book, Loyalties: A Son's Memoir, Albert Bernstein, Carl's father, expressed dismay at the revelations that the book would make regarding Communist infiltration of the U.S. government and other sectors of American society. Albert Bernstein stated:
"You're going to prove [Sen. Joseph] McCarthy was right, because all he was saying is that the system was loaded with Communists. And he was right. ... I'm worried about the kind of book you're going to write and about cleaning up McCarthy. The problem is that everybody said he was a liar; you're saying he was right. ... I agree that the Party was a force in the country."
http://conservapedia.com/Joseph_McCarthy
Yes, he was RIGHT! about everyone he named. Too Bad...
Primary sources
Joe McCarthy. Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951 U. S. Government Printing Office, 1953 online edition
Joe McCarthy. McCarthyism: The Fight for America 1952 online edition
Fried, ed. Albert. McCarthyism: The Great American Red Scare: a Documentary History 1997 online edition
Schrecker, Ellen W. "Archival Sources for the Study of McCarthyism," The Journal of American History, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Jun., 1988), pp. 197-208 at JSTOR
U.S.Senate Records.
U.S.House Records.
F.B.I.
V.E.N.N.O.N.A. -N.S.A- Secret Transcripts of secret KGB intercepts.
State Dept. United States.
C.I.A., D.O.J., G.R.U.- Rissian Military Intelligence Records, Soviet Comintern records, Personal records; Senator Millard Tydings -D-, Representative Martin Dies D., HUAC,.. and many many others.Two wingnut sites.
Why are we not surprised?Thank god you didn't take the bait and post some long and incomprehensible list that would have us half dead of boredom before we'd got through it.
It is perfectly comprehensable, John. Simply read it.
And I haven't.
That took about all of 15 seconds to destroy the topics point. So not at all.
But I will answer you since you have some semblance of manners and intelligence. The others are simply mad that I am here and they cannot run me off, or support their views with any thing near a fact.
The funniest part is now they have all been reduced to insulting a dead man. What a lauigh.. I am holdin my gut trying to catch my breath.That's what I thought! At least he didn't take the bait!
Well, he's a good man and will never use ten words when a hundred will do
List all you want...the world will remember him as a horrible scumbag, no matter how many hubpages copy and paste jobs you do. You have already been defeated.
Another childish post with no facts! Where was he defeated? do you know history? you claimed to be a history teacher? Ofr was it a logistics history teacher? The man schooled you and your girlfriend Brucebeatsit.
By the way did the two of you celebrate the News about NY?
I'm certain you had a village people party.
Congrats!He cliamed he was a History teacher?... Yeah right! Sure he is.
No wonder he acts like that, he is used to bullying lil kids all day to force his opinions and beliefs on them. Now I know why he ralated to so well, and defended so vehamently, that KIA cartoon .
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/2 … 83023.htmlWhen you make personal attacks on people's sexuality that have no foundation you have revealed yourself as an intellectual child. You become a non-factor in any serious conversation.
But yes, I did celebrate New York's decision to uphold the rights of every citizen. How is that relevant to Joe McCarthy dying a broken alcoholic pariah?Sort of like when you, Bruce, attacked Joe McCarthy as a closet homosexual the other night? Yes, exactly. You showed what your true feelings were toward homosexuals, just like many leftists usually do when they think no-one is listening. You all think it is a great insult when you want to use it... but anyone else is a homophobe or bigot.
Another of those do as I say... elitists.
78
thebrucebeatposted 38 hours ago in reply to this
I for one find it terribly sad that he had to live a life in the closet and feel ashamed of who he was. It undoubtedly had an effect on his becoming an unrecovered alcoholic who died from the disease. It was witch hunters like himself who would have turned their pitchforks toward him had they known who he really was behind closed doors.
Do you think Cohn was an honest, good-hearted, tolerant good guy?
As for hiring gays, Joe felt untouchable because the ungovernable J.Edgar Hoover was feeding him information and doing the illegal investigations that made Joe possible. But you know that.
And you can deny you used it as an insult all you want. The context and inference is clear to any who read the thread.I don't get it. When did pointing out that somebody was a closet homosexual become an insult?
It isn't exactly news either.LOL, the fact that you read that post as an attack shows your true feelings towards homosexuals, not Bruce's.
All Bruce did was express sympathy for McCarthy's obvious unhappiness. Being closeted, especially in a society as homophobic as 1950's America, is a miserable existence and in McCarthy's case, the company he kept would only have made it worse.Read it in the entire context of the thread. He used it as a subtle slur. That is obvious with any amount of comprehension skills. It is what Leftists do, sneak in lil seeming innocuous remarks as slurs, so as to leave room for plausable deniabilty.
I have stated plainly my feelings about homosexuality, and about homosexuals. You want to practice immoral choices, fine, but do not jam them into Social institutions and expect all to accept them as moral. And, as is being done today, do not take your immorallity and teach it to small children as morally acceptable behaviour. When that occurrs it becomes a social issue, and as per our Social Contract, Society has the right to determine whether or not to accept it, and which institutions we would allow it to be preached and taught in.
I do not hide how I feel about anything in this world, kerry. You all sould know that by now.I've read the thread and my reading comprehension skills are excellent, thanks. Bruce congratulated YOU on your open-mindedness for choosing a gay hero. You're the one who repeatedly claimed that identifying McCarthy as a closeted gay man is some sort of insult, rather than a statement of fact.
-
Yes bruce has been so nice and complimentary to me and others who do not agree with them. umhum... And your ideas of facts about McCarthy are as mis-guided as your representation of what Bruce inferred.
But you go on with your bad self...
)))))
And I am not going to argue this with you. I was here for all the remarks in all, and across all, the forums.
Having gay friends, doesn't make you gay. He had black friends and women friends, also. And as far as Liberals and Progressives, he was so far ahead of the curve in acceptance of all for who they were, it isn't funny. And that irratates some to no end. That in a day where the Leftists haters hated everyone in secret, and minipulated policies to apply that hate through Govt force, Joe McCarthy was so much better than they.
He had a homosexual, woman and Black man on his staff as his aides. No one else did... and that is a smack in the facce of those who call hm a hater.
LBJ and all the rest of the Democrats and Progressives were to busy crushing civil rights and denying those they didn't accept any rights, to see the greatness of McCarthy's actions. And in contrast, he made their hate blindingly obvious, and that was unacceptable to them, and to the Leftists and Progressives of today.
You should look into who it really was that kept the "others" down in this nation.
----------------------------------
J. William Fulbright: Enemy of Joseph McCarthy and Equal Rights
Fulbright was certainly no “ally” of black Americans. Bitterly racist, he fought to protect the Jim Crow laws that denied black citizens their constitutional rights. In 1956 Fulbright was one of ninety-nine congressional Democrats to sign the Southern Manifesto, which declared that the Southern states had a right to keep their populations segregated by race. (It should be mentioned in passing that only two Republicans signed the document.)
In 1964 Fulbright was one of a group of tenacious Democrats who filibustered for fifty-seven days in an attempt to block the Civil Rights Act that outlawed segregation in public accommodations.
Contrary to the stereotypes that Dr. Foner and other liberals try so hard to promote, Fulbright was also a very liberal Democrat. He was a staunch supporter of labor unions. He always lobbied for appeasement of the Soviet Union; and opposed American aid to Israel, which was, at that time, the only Middle-Eastern nation aligned with the United States against the Soviet Union.
He also did all he could to impair America’s fight against Communism in Vietnam, writing two books on the subject, and using his position as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to undermine the war effort.
Fulbright’s office provided assistance to young men who wanted to avoid the draft, including a young future President of the United States named Bill Clinton, whom Fulbright hired as a clerk just two years after filibustering to block the 1964 Civil Rights Act.5
As for “McCarthyism,” Senator Fulbright hated it just about as much as Professor Foner does.
In 1951, for example, a man named Philip Jessup was nominated to be a United States delegate to the United Nations. Dr. Jessup was, like Dr. Foner, a hard-core left wing professor at Columbia University. When Joseph McCarthy went before the Senate with documentation of Jessup’s many associations with the Communist Party, Senator Fulbright fought hard to get Jessup confirmed, quibbling over every detail in the evidence McCarthy adduced.6((In 1954 the Senate voted to censure McCarthy, effectively bringing to an end his career as an anti-Communist force in the government. (In his textbook, Dr. Foner celebrates the censure vote as a humiliation McCarthy richly deserved.) Senator Fulbright personally entered several of the charges against McCarthy7and “was in essence the floor leader of the censure effort.”8
It seems the height of irony to say that any enemy of McCarthy is a friend of civil rights. Fulbright was clearly an enemy of both.
Justice Hugo Black: KKK Member and New Deal Liberal
Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black is another left winger who doesn’t fit the stereotypes that liberal historians have so carefully constructed. In 1923, at the age of thirty-seven, he joined the Ku Klux Klan. Three years later he was elected to the US Senate.
In the Senate Black was a big supporter of organized labor and other left wing causes. In the 1930’s he won the favor of President Franklin Roosevelt by the stanch support he gave to Roosevelt’s big government “New Deal” policies. In 1937 Roosevelt appointed Black to the Supreme Court.
When news of his earlier membership in the Klan came out during the confirmation process, Black defended the Klan. According to the Encyclopedia of Alabama, Black justified his membership by stating “that he joined the Klan because he considered it an ‘anti-corporation’ force that helped to counter the political and social influence of industrialists and large corporations who had taken full control of the Alabama economy after the destruction of the state’s labor movement.”
The Klan, in other words, had an agenda that a New Deal Democrat could love.
Justice Black was always a man of the left, from his days as a senator through all his years on the Supreme Court. When Congress passed a law that forbade American labor union leaders to belong to the Soviet-Controlled Communist Party USA, and a Supreme Court majority upheld the law, Justice Black wrote a dissent in favor of the Communists.
Dr. Foner teaches his students that the forces of “McCarthyism” were in league with the racists and segregationists, but he would have a hard time depicting Justice Hugo Black as a minion of McCarthyism!
In 1942 President Roosevelt issued an executive order requiring all Americans of Japanese ancestry to leave the western United States or be imprisoned in internment camps for the duration of WWII. When the order came before the Supreme Court, the liberal majority on the court upheld Roosevelt’s order. True to his KKK background, Justice Black wrote the majority decision approving the incarceration of some 110,000 Americans on the basis of race.
The only vocal opposition to the executive order came from conservatives like Senator Robert Taft and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover, of course, differed with Justice Black on more than just the internment question. In the 1960’s his FBI waged war with Black’s beloved Klan, virtually driving it out of existence.
Hoover, of course, is viewed by history professors and other leftists as one of the primary villains of the “McCarthy Era.” His agents infiltrated and monitored the Communist Party and its various front groups, deploying many of the same tactics they used against the Klan. Hoover worked hand in hand with Senator McCarthy in his efforts to expel Soviet agents from the government.
Once again the irony is thick. Communists and the Klan frequently had the same enemies, and the same friends; some of the same leftists who crusaded against “McCarthyism” also crusaded against the principle of equal rights for all Americans.
In the privacy of their offices and homes, leftist professors like Dr. Foner must laugh at the gullibility of the students who believe their propaganda.
http://historyhalf.com/race-and-party-p … ice-black/
http://historyhalf.com/columns/
The Left loves to hide behind twisted histories. LBJ and the Dems were busy destroying the Blacks and other minorities in this country even as McCarthy was fighting to save this nation from outside influences and the traitors within.
So all that BS Lean Left propaganda you all throw about is useless against the truth.
And McCarthy was married, adopted a child, and lived his life with his love.
Yes the Leftists and American traitors destroyed his career, and have since blamed him for all their racist, bigoted, hate filled actions, but the facts prove he was correct, and a man of great honor.
Believe me when I say, if he was alive and doing his thing today, the internet would keep the Leftist media from playing their editing and charactor assassination tricks, and America would see the truth in a matter of days, and treasonous heads would roll.
All you Leftists should go learn some real history, and stop spouting your leant leftists revisionism, defamation and subtle attacks, as if we cannot see it for what it is, and and hear you plainly in your distortions.People are complicated critters, in case you didn't notice. Fulbright and Black were men of their times. Their segregationist beliefs are inexcusable to modern Americans, but they don't erase the good they did in other areas, any more than Thomas Jefferson owning slaves voided his.
Likewise, McCarthy deserves credit for the diversity of his hiring practices, but it doesn't erase the evil of inciting a witchhunt that ruined innocent lives as well as guilty ones.
Bruce acknowledged the complexity of human nature by giving McCarthy the credit he deserved, and expressing sympathy for McCarthy's unhappiness at the same time he condemned certain of McCarthy's actions. His posts on the matter included some sarcasm, but it was directed at you, not McCarthy, because of your total refusal to acknowledge anything that doesn't fit into your narrow worldview.And that logic applies to McCarthy, also. He may have been a drinker and may not have been PC but he did alot of good that you all dis-regard. And Bruce's intent was not mis-understood by me... try to pretty up all you want.
Credit as in he is a drunkard and liar who destryed people's lives? And was miserable drunk who and attacked people because he was a closet homsexual? Yes good credit.
And my world-view is alot larger than many on here.
Some people only hear what they expect to hear.
Right class, pay attention, this week we shall do rimming and next week hopefully move on to bumming.
Do you honestly believe that is what goes on in schools?
Here in the UK we're about 25 years ahead of you when the conservative PM of the day decided that schools should not promote homosexuality. That turned out to mean, no discussion.
Imagine that, kid says to teacher, Sir,I think I might be a homosexual. Teacher says sorry I can't discuss that with you!
There's real guidance for you, and a further excuse for homophobia.It doesn't belong in elementary or middle schools schools, John. And your arrogance of, "we were about 25 years ahead of you", is just so you. And it is not up to educators and the Leftist/Progressives to dictate moralism to anyone's children. Especially when that lesson contradicts thier parents beliefs or religion. You have all stepped too far into the family and think you can strip parents of their rights, just like all the Socialist Communist States that have ever existed. You attempt to push your agenda through polluting the the minds of Children and indoctrinating them into your agenda's. Just like Stalin, Hitler, Chevez, etc...
We all know about the frankfurt School and thier agenda to "inflence" society through the minds of the children.
Anything not in line with the Leftist/Progressive agenda is phobic and backward. Speaks volumes to many on here, so conitnue on.
http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of- … rrectness/
http://gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/e … arxism.pdf
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/
We know all about the BS that has been going on, the Leftists have been seen for what they are, and what they are doing. belive me the push to re-claim our education system from the twisted Leant Leftists and Progressives is on and picking up steam and power.
http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/ … arxism.htm
http://www.rosarychurch.net/marxism/list.html
Amreica is becoming well aware and revolted by what the Leftist/Progressive agenda has done to our nation.
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Educate/H … chools.htm
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/arti … _1106.html
http://www.conservativetruth.org/archiv … 4-02.shtml
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.pr … eId=306493
The BS you all push has gone to far and America is damn sure getting sick of it. We send our sons to you and you send them back confused and thinking they should be a woman. We send our daughters to school and you all send them back thinking they should murder the unborn and be men.
What a joke your agenda is.
Meanwhile they fail the children in real subjects, Reading, Writing, Science, Mathamatics, History, and you all scream it is the Parents fault they cannot read or add, or apply critical thinking skills. You all want to do nothing but push your perverted agenda on them, and ignore what your were put there to teach.
Again, what a joke the Leant Left, Progressives, and your agenda are.Is it up to the right wing to dictate moralism? You seem to think it is.
And what is arrogant about pointing out our screw ups? I would say that the arrogance is yours if you are telling me that there is nothing you can learn from the UK.
There is no indoctrination outside your mind.The fact that all your references are agenda driven missives shows that your ability to parse information is questionable, at best. You find all your information on sources that start with a bias toward your agenda. This is the lack of critical thinking I'm referring to. The same would be said of someone that exclusively learned their ideas from the MSNBC and The Nation.
You are a creation, a product, and don't have the intellectual acuity to know that you are being used for a larger agenda.Oh yeah Bruce, your the only one who has looked at all sides and made an educated decision, lol right.
Give it up. You can sling your elitist idiocy all you want. I do not care what you think about my sources, or my critical reasoning skills, nor my grammer, nor my spelling. You really think MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, or any of the Leftist controlled media is worth a shit? It isn't.
You have already shown all you can do is insult and act like that makes you some sort of intellectual super-hero. It doesn't.
I have news for you Bruce, you'r a sad old man trapped in the era of the Leftist control over this country, and the information which was fed to you all. You'r one of those who caried the liberal lie into the future, and now cannot see past the failure of it and the agenda implimented, and it makes you mad. That people today are waking up and rejecting the ideals you cling to so bitterly really irritates you and it is quite obvious. I have tolerated you and your lap-dog for days now, and I won't tolerate it any more. You have shown you can do nothing but parrot back the Leftist Liberal agenda and act an ass when you'r confronted with facts which dispute and crush your lies and revisionism.
So have a nice day... because I am going to.
And do not forget to attack my grammer and spelling as usual... it is all you have after-all.Try posting some facts and we might even agree with you.
Propaganda doesn't count as facts. Try something a little less biased.Yes I will run right to the huffington post and CNN, how about MSNBC, CNN, CBS, or any of the Leftist media. You are hysterical!. All the sites I have ever seen you all post from are nothing but propaganda and leftists BS sites. Too bad if you do not like my sources, John.
I'm hysterical! My main source is the BBC, that well known leftist and anti establishment source.
That is not a defense of your sources. It's more of an admssion of their bias.
The BBC... hahahaaaa oh John... your so funny man. Hysterical indeed. Ah man my stomach hurts from laughing so hard. I'll be back when I can breathe. hahahaaaaaa too funny....lolllllllllll
And yes UCLA, and Stanford Univ. are so biased to the right.
http://gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/e … arxism.pdf
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/Well, I must admit they have nothing on Murdoch's media! That great arbiter of fairness.
How many of your favourite sites are reviled as biased by both sides?
How about the Guardian as another site free from owners bias?
beautifully stated!
He tries to use that liberal BS and then has no facts to back up his BS and then wants to condemn people for grammar and spelling because he doesn't have a leg to stand on!
He said in one post McCarthy was a joke, a drunk a home-sexual and condemns him and says if that if he is your hero that shows what you are all about, Then in the next post he said he was just being compassionate and felt sorry for him! do you see the BS he spins. It is clear he is a joke and has nothing of value to say. You totally schooled him and he is beat! I guess his name suites him well. Bruceisbeat.
Good job.I have become tired of being nice to the lil elitists Leftists and their progressive brethren, Danny.
McCarthy is my hero for more than just his manly skills of drinking, f..king, fighting and gambling. I also admire his "stik-to-it-evness" and straght talk'n take no prisoners attitude.
I am afraid since PC has become the fad, we have deprived ourselves of one of the greatest tools we have... "tell'n it like it is!" And I intend to re-claim the honor of that great American past-time. I do not care who likes it... run lil libbies run... you might be able to catch up to your hero Forrest, (And I don't mean the Leftist Democrat General Nathan Forrest founder of the KKK either.) I mean your intellectual equal, Gump the shrimp man.
I am tired of being nice to rednecks and wanna-be geniuses who think they can spout lies and degrade me with that liberal Socialist Democrat Progressive revisionist BS they call knowledge. I have yet to see any facts posted by either him or tex-neck which do anything to support their...?... I wouldn't even call them arguments. So... call it what you want, I will stick to BS.
Damn I am having a nice day today. Thunderstorms on the way and I love thunder and lightning, so that will just be icing on the cake. Life is good when you sit back and say what needs to be said. Did you check out my the other half site? It is very eye-opening as to the other side of history not taught in collges around this nation. I think you would like it.
http://historyhalf.com/race-and-party-p … ice-black/
http://historyhalf.com/columns/
Very intersting as to the evil things the Democrats and Progressives have done in thieir time in power. Most people do not know that it was LBJ and his ilk that kept the Civil Rights Acts from passing in 1950, while McCarthy fought tooth and nail to get them passed.
But thats nothing compared to other things they have done to this nation. It was the Dixie-crats...(Southern Democrats and their allies)... who originally crushed those acts into sub-committee for 90 years after the Civil War. And today they act is if they are so noble and compassionate... what a bunch of BULLSHIT!Great read! enjoyed it. No question those fools can not compete with you on McCarthy. Stand your ground, Many are cheering you behind the scenes, they do not like to get into it with these socialist lefties.
It is very funny how they show no facts to back up what they say.
And John is from the UK, he just wants to have America be just like them. You have to see how the UK is changing...very sad. He claims they are 25 years ahead of us but that is just in his warped mind.
Also did you notice with Libya, The UK had enough bombs for 2 day! if they were attacked they wouldn't even have a chance! all the money goes toward entitlements. No money for Military. In a perfect world that would be great. Watch the Muslims are taking over the UK. Mark my words.Ah Danny Danny, why don't you read what is written, not make it up. Go back and actually read my comment about being 25 years ahead of you because I can no longer waste time educating you.
Stick to being TM's lap dog and give up pretending to have thoughts of your own.Another one who doesn't have anything with substance. John, John, Keep spinning your socialist nonsense. only the lazy and stupid will follow you to doom.
Tell me the UK isn't being taken over by Muslims. I will be there next month I could meet you and buy you a capitalist steak dinner and point out all the changes for you as we walk off our dinner and drinks.
I could also invite some of my UK associates to tell you what they think of the UK and where you are headed.
As other posters have pointed out, this is a great example of someone who is challenged by the English language being equally challenged in other areas of thought, in this case reading comprehension. My comments were sympathetic to old Joe and his inability to live honestly in a world full of people ready to villify those they disagreed with. The irony was that Joe was the poster child for this kind of worldview.
I assume by your demonstrative support of Joe that you are a serious advocate of gay rights and support the treatment and rehab of people that suffer from addiction. At least we can be on the same side there, right? Lets join hands and celebrate the great victory in New York this weekend!What happened in New York represents the sad state of moral decay that our country is in. Period! And who didn't expect Liberal/Progressive New York to allow that immorallity? That city has been a Liberal Progressive bastion since the early 1900s, no shock there at all. It is all about destroying any institution or tradition which Americans hold dear.
And I do support their right to make a choice, and trying to help addicts and others who need help. I do NOT support the Homosexual, Leant Leftists, Progressive, agenda. They can have civil unions, and all the rights of a married couple, but they should not be allowed to desecrate the institution of Marraige. Or push that immorallity on our children as moral and acceptable behaviour, nor should they be allowed to indoctrinate anymore children through the Schools and institutions of Higher Learning. What a joke that is, Higher Learning... huh!
I never understood why McCarthy hated socialists so much.
Yeah, sure they're stupid, but why the hell was he wasting money trying to throw them in jail?He wasn't trying to throw them in jail. He wanted them removed from positions within our Govt., as was the whole pupose of the Committee he chaired. And that committee still exists today, evan.
Oh... and all the insults still do not change the fact that McCarthy was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT about it all.Jeez, imagine the fuss if he'd wanted to remove all conservatives from government!
Conservatives are not Socialists and Communists... our ideolgy is in line with the Constitution. So no, I cannot.
I'm not overly familiar with the constitution but I doubt if it says the country should be right wing and capitalist.
The Constitution is anti-thetical to Socialism and Communism. Most certainly is, read it. Thus the push by the Socialist Democrat left, and the Progressive Right, to get rid of it.
It is not a matter of Conservative, or not. If your ideolgy conflicts with the Constitution, then you are not wanted in our Govt. And as I said, a lot of people these days are waking up to the fact that the American Left and Progressive Right as they are now, do not belong in our Govt.Really! Don't you think "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," rather smacks of socialism?
It says nothing about every man for himself or beggar my neighbour.
And that's all I can find that points at any political direction!It's not well hid, unless you don't want to see it
No I don't. I have heard that laughable line before, and it is still as retarded an interpretation as it gets.
The Constitution is liimited Govt, not Centralized Authority.Make your case, not just a statement. Defend your position. Show us how the COTUS defends your point of view.
You stating it is not an argument. It's rhetoric.
For someone who was not going to bite, you sure got a mouthful.What, the preamble to the constitution is a laughable line!
Do you really believe socialism is all about centralised government!
As I've said many times before, you don't understand socialism do you?My interpretation of what is what?
Centralised government? You couldn't be more wrong, we've suffered enough in the UK by the Conservatives centralising government for anybody but the most right wing to curl up their toes.
Conservatives to an extremist look like fascists. Actually, many seem to be fascists with the way they lay down to what the big banks want to do to us.
Yes, remove the conservatives, except for Ron Paul. The rest can go.
Mason, Glenn Beck and the Birchers are thick as bricks. And the ponzi bankers are not communistic either, but rather more fascistic in their profit motive. Yet Beck cannot even get that right.
Your post is full of lies. For example,
John Davies was run out of the state department by McCarthyites. He was my wife's Godmother's brother so I've followed his career personally. His sin was to predict the rout of the corrupt Chiang Kai Chek by Mao Tse Tung.
John Paton Davies, Jr. (April 6, 1908 – December 23, 1999) was an American diplomat and Medal of Freedom recipient. He was one of the China Hands, whose careers in the Foreign Service were destroyed by McCarthyism and the reaction to the fall of China....
Davies was an acknowledged expert on China, one of the China Hands who knew China and the Far East best in the State Department. He predicted that Mao Zedong's Communists would win the Chinese Civil War, and, after they did so in 1949, he advocated US relations with Communist China to forestall a Soviet takeover.
Unfortunately for Davies, these views ran directly counter to prevailing policy, which viewed all Communist countries as one monolithic enemy, and which had supported the Kuomintang. The "China lobby", supporters of Chiang Kai-shek, were looking for those who had helped lose China, and Senator Joseph McCarthy was looking for any Communists he could find. Davies was attacked as both.
Nine investigations of Davies' loyalty between 1948 and 1954 failed to produce any evidence of disloyalty or Communist sympathies. His opposition to Communism was a matter of record; indeed, in 1950 he had advocated a preventive nuclear showdown with the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, in 1954, under political pressure from McCarthy and Senator Patrick McCarran, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles asked Davies to resign. He refused, and on November 5, 1954, Dulles fired him, claiming he had "demonstrated a lack of judgment, discretion and reliability."[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._Davies
"Total cost of the Cold War (1948-1991) in 1996 dollars = $13.1 Trillion"
"Didn't the character, General Jack D. Ripper in the film, 'Dr. Stranglove' exemplify McCarthy?" If not intended should have.
The leant leftists regularly poured appletinis down poor 'ol Joe's throat and then dressed him in a cheerleader outfit. None of it was really his fault...
Next we'll hearing about how great J. Edgar Hoover was.
Technically socialism is conservative and capitalism is progressive.
Here ya go Uninvited: McCarthy knew he could not keep attacking with out any evidence against State Dept. people so he turned to the one individual who did, Hoover. The FBI kept McCarthy in business. In '53 when McCarthy turned from the State Dept. to the Defense Dept.his days were numbered. The long- short of it is Hoover had the dirt on everybody and when it came to a show- down between Eisenhower and the defense establishment and Joe he went with the former. If this doesn't suffice be glad to point you to some detailed sources.
I think it is a constitution most suited for empire, which is what it has been in making, for the whole of its history.
some research from historians about Mcarthy, if you would even consider it that is. It is not as slanted a story as you make it.
JOSEPH MCCARTHY;
Senator Joe McCarthy is one of the strongest pro-American figures in the history of the United States. Despite many attempts by socialists to demonize McCarthy and "McCarthyism" with revisionist history, McCarthy's achievements shine through the propaganda. At a time when America was threatened by a murderous, backward, anti-freedom ideology of Soviet communism, Joseph McCarthy was a champion of capitalism and Democracy. Even when his career was threatened because of his vocal anti-communist speeches, McCarthy did not back down from the cause of freedom. For the courage Senator McCarthy showed in sticking to his American principles, he is today considered to be a hero by many.
Joseph McCarthy was born in 1908 in a small Wisconsin town. In 1935 he earned a law degree from Marquette University and was admitted to the state bar. After an unsuccessful district attorney campaign in 1936, McCarthy was elected to district judge in 1939, becoming the youngest judge in Wisconsin state history.

After America was attacked on December 7th, 1941, Joseph McCarthy enlisted in the Marine Corps. He served his country honorably, flying eleven missions and earning a Distinguished Flying Cross award. While on duty, McCarthy made a hasty attempt at a US Senate campaign in 1944 but was defeated by Alexander Wiley. Determined to reverse his fortune, McCarthy again ran for Senate in 1946. This time McCarthy's campaign was much better planned and he found success, narrowly defeating the Republican incumbent candidate in the primary and going on to easily win the general election.
In the late 1940s, Russian spies infiltrated the deepest levels of the US government, including the Rosenbergs who had stolen the plans to the nuclear bomb. America was threatened by a ruthless enemy in Soviet Communism that would not stop until the world was enslaved. When Senator Joseph McCarthy learned of the Russian infiltration of Washington, DC, he was determined to take the evidence public to the American people.
In his famous speech on February 9th, 1950, McCarthy brought public a list of 57 known communists working for the state department. These revelations took the American public by storm. Out of all the Senators and public figures in Washington, only McCarthy had the courage to stand up against communist infiltration. It was a deed that McCarthy's leftist critics would never forgive him for.

For the next four years, Senator Joseph McCarthy stood undeterred against the strong socialist influence in Washington, exposing literally hundreds of anti-American operatives working incognito for the US Government. The American people generally appreciated McCarthy's brave efforts and he was well-liked all across America.
McCarthy's enemies also followed his activities with a strong interest. Determined to stop McCarthy from spreading the truth about their communist agenda, many anti-American Hollywood insiders found willing accomplices in the budding liberal media. These propaganda-mongers added a new word to the dictionary, defining "McCarthyism" as a senseless political witch hunt. In fact, McCarthy had exposed scores of known communists in the capital without a single known false accusation. Joseph McCarthy's critics were never interested in the truth however.
The leftist counter-offensive against McCarthy was beginning to take its toll in late 1953. Many Senators became fed up with McCarthy's showmanship as the liberal media relentlessly launched baseless attacks against his character. On a dark day in American history in December 1954, American hero and patriot Joseph McCarthy was censured by the US Senate.
Following his censure, McCarthy sunk into alcoholism from which he never recovered. He died of hepatitis on May 2nd, 1957 at the age of 49.
Even after his death, McCarthy's critics continued to crucify him posthumously. Not satisfied with merely ruining a man's career and driving him to alcoholic suicide, the liberal media courageously dragged McCarthy's name through the mud for the next fifty years, continuing to this day. Leftists have never forgiven McCarthy for his crime of exposing them for who they truly are, inventing phrases like "The Red Scare" to demean McCarthy's anti-communist efforts.

The VENONA Project files, declassified in 1995, provided indisputable evidence that nearly all of those McCarthy accused were traitors to America. Not surprisingly, the media ignored these documents completely, instead choosing to run yet another round of anti-McCarthy propaganda. As if that wasn't enough, in 2005 Hollywood released the greatest propaganda film since "Triumph of the Will", an anti-McCarthy slander picture known as "Good Night and Good Luck". Dead for fifty years, McCarthy's body has now been tarred, feathered, crucified, cremated, and his ashes shot into space by a leftist media who cannot handle the truth of their own miserable existence. The anti-McCarthy media claims the Senator wrongly implicated many. Despite their accusations, no critic has ever brought forth a single documented case of someone being wrongly accused by McCarthy.
McCarthy's achievements to America are undeniable to those that view history with an unbiased eye. At a time when America was being infiltrated by agents of the most murderous empire in human history, McCarthy was the lone voice who stood against tyranny. He exposed hundreds of agents determined to destroy America. Had McCarthy not had the courage to speak up, it seems possible that the USSR might still exist today. Hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans who once lived under the Soviet fist today owe their freedom to Senator McCarthy.
McCarthy's patriotism cost him his job and eventually his life. For his determination in protecting American freedom, Joseph McCarthy is undoubtedly an American hero and patriot.Great Post! I believe the leftist hate McCarthy because they do not want someone else to expose the socialist in our current government.
The Man was a Hero and the ultimate American. We need another now.
They say history has a way of repeating itself?
The Media going after him and the media does to the right, They give Obummer a pass on every gaffe he makes. They try to destroy people like Palin but it is OK for the messiah to say we have 57 states, Mix up the name of a dead military hero and a live one.It is 57 Islamic states, Danny... he was flashing back to his roots.
Oh I know! How about being the first US president to bow before a Muslim Leader, The white house was trying to deny it and said he was just extending his hand! If you look at the video he bowed so low I thought he was Going down on him!
He was in Muslim school in Indonesia, We seen pictures of him in Muslim Garb, But the MSM is a joke! I do not watch any MSM news. It is totally laughable and the fools who do watch it are either DUMB or just want the nonsense BS to try and achieve their goal.
TMM, I have opened my eyes and know of many others who also see it. The last election showed the people are waking up, I do not go by any polls because many people today do not want to be accused of being racist or ridiculed because they do not believe all the BS. They gave the lefties an A$$ whipping last November and another will be coming in 2012! You can count on it.Thank God. I keep saying America is waking up, I just hope they do not get sucked in by the Progressive RNC and FOX news. Who seem to think they are going to pick the next Repub.
And I only watch the MSM to see the running line of BS for the day.
Keep up the good fight Danny. There are many more of us out there, and we out number them. The silent majority is about to re-claim our country.This is the deal. If Glenn Beck thinks that banksters are communists, that the NWo is a communistic order, you cannot trust anything he says. They are not communists. They are fascistic, as the profits are PRIVATIZED.
Yet paranoid Beck clings to the John Birch line and the McCarthy glorification.
He died broken and drunk, and America did not fall to Russia.
He was censored because he was a freak. It had nothing to do with conservative or liberal. It had to do with the fact that he was a power hungry madman.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/071203
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/071126
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/071112
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/071105
http://www.michaelkeller.com/news/news588.htm
All the conservatives on here should enjoy this 8 part series of truth.
And a lil somtin somtin on the liberals of the day...
http://historyhalf.com/race-and-party-p … ice-black/He was cesured for conduct contrary to the Senate, because that was all they could get him for, insulting people. Nice charge.
If there were so many communists, then why did America survive after they booted the witch hunter out?
It hasn't. The US has been subverted by the commies. There are commies everywhere. There's probably a commie under your chair RIGHT NOW! Don't look! He'll steal your property, inflate your currency, turn you gay, and corrupt your precious bodily fluids with flouride in the drinking water!
Did you look? Well, he probably snuck away while you were reading the above paragraph. Just 'cos you couldn't see the commie under your chair doesn't mean he wasn't there when you weren't looking, and the dirty little red will be back just as soon as you relax.
Commies, I tell ya! Commies!
Just curious, what was your source for the above misinformation?
McCarthy was an alcoholic, self-promoting, demented, crypto-fascist.The sources used by M. Stanton Evans are the records of the Senators involved on both sides of the issue, both personal files and Senatorial, Tydings, Dies, and many more, the US Senate, US House of Reps, US State Dept. the OSS- CIA-, Office of Wartime Info, FBI, NSA VENNONA decrpys, the KGB, the GRU, Chinese Military, the COMMINTERN, Anerican Communist Party, US D.O.J., the IPR, and 10s of Committees in the U.S. Senate and House. Not to mention dozens of ancillary Agencies and Depts of contractors to the Govt.
So for you to even dismiss them so casually shows how closed your mind is.
study and comment on history in the time frame it happened, not slant it to things today. The hearings were also alowed to happen. They allowed it to continue because even though some of it was spun as a witch hunt, He did actualy expose some groups and important figures that were indeed involved as he exposed.
He went after the leftist establishment, and they eventualy crusified him for it. Much, much more to both sides of this story. Than is indicated.Um, and all at a time when the USSR was about thirty years old, good on posturing but not much else.
Like it or not, they were still much nearer to a peasant economy than a world power.yes, at street level they were kept a pesant economy. But at the Goverment level they were more than posturing. They were powerfull enough to push into world politics at the time, and also to infiltrate into goverment affairs in several countries. They were indeed a threat, and a brutal Goverment system.
No, they were only thirty years removed from a peasant economy, if they had been a serious threat the world today would be a very different place, unless you want to believe that McCarthy fought them off single handed.
no way did he do that, but he set back the sympathisers that tried to infiltrate US parties, and that helped us keep them in a sort of control. He was responsible for setting them back, retarding their growth is what I mean. He Did not defeat them.
He went after some folks who went left beyond normal in the Great Depression. What kind of idiot would think that the Great Depression would not spawn a few off the wall ideas. He was a demagogue and he deserved his disgusting departure from this earth. He was a plague.
No, if anyone wanted to overthrow the American government it was the Prescott Bush faction.
You didn't see the US fall to communists did you?
Instead the fascist banksters rule. And they PRIVATIZE profit. Get a life.Reduced to attacking a dead man... it shows where you all are at in your arguments and the lack of support for them.
Keep going... you and your Leftist friends are a dying breed in this country.
This whole topic post proves that.Privatized gains with socialized losses. That's our problem. Not communism.
J Edgar Hoover investigated every democrat,
every union member, every Hollywood personage of any importance, and testified before congress there was no organized crime. Of course they were all communists.ahhh.....MAFIA...sweethearts or organised chrime?????????
Lol! I think the point of this forum posting is sort of funny!
~snickers~study it some and get involved, its fun.
Leave it to a Socialist to state that Stalin's Russia was not much of an issue... sounds familiar actually?...
Not to the rest of the world it wasn't, and don't come the bleeding heart with me. It won't wash.
Were do you see my heart bleeding?... lol Please!
I nicked a nerve there I think. Is it that I called you a Socialist? You are. So be proud of it.Exactly.
Oh I am proud of being a socialist,
"It is an easy thing to rejoice in the tents of prosperity:
Thus could I sing and thus rejoice: but it is not so with me."Socialism is failing in many places now. Because under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally.
A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity.
By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!
Socialistic Countries have proven they can not satisfy thier population. We see it all over now. There is no incentive for a person to take a Business risk, and then turn his profits over to the State, so the state can hand out a standard of living it thinks that person needs.
why work for a system that will not allow you to have the sucess you have rightfully earned. Those Goverments are failing at steady decline rates. History shows us this.Socialism isn't being tried in many places, not failing in many places!
Socialism does nothing to remove incentives, do you really believe that a man working on a minimum wage, knowing that however hard he works he will remain on a minimum wage is more of an incentive than that felt by a man with a share in the business he works in and a share of the profit?
Where do you get the idea that socialism is a centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, it just isn't so!
I'm sorry, I just don't buy it that a man who owns the means of production has no incentive whereas a man who doesn't own the means of production does.if your business is owned by the state, as Socialism implies, then there is no incentive at all. The profits you work for are thge states, not yours.
Minimum wages and no change of rising up, is a lot of incentive?
Your profits taken by the State is incentive?
no way man, no way.You see, They do not want to rise up! they are lazy and want everything handed to them. Any person who is a hard worker and motivated would hate socialism!
I'm all for helping people who actually need it, especially the elderly but all these fools think it is owed to them!
It is very sad.If your business is owned by the state then you are under state capitalism. If your profits are taken by the state - state capitalism.
If your business is owned by the workers, socialism. If the profits are shared by the workers - socialism.So goes the story you all sling around. But do you think 309 million people can communally own something and make decisions on its functioning, operations, division of profits, distribution, etc...? No. That requires a small group to be in charge... which is where we wander into Communism. It is a failed ideolgy. The 20th Century has pronen that if nothing else.
No, we don't wander into communism. Why should we, capitalism requires a small group of people to wield control and that doesn't lead to communism does it?
A group is always controlled by the one with the most dominate personallity... like Stalin... so yes we do. Centralized Authority is to easilly dominated by an indvidual or small cadre. That is why our Founders seperated the powers of Govt.
What, just as true socialism does!
As I said before, the conservatives really centralised government in the UK.Your conservatives are no where near the same as an American conservative, and you know it. The political spuctrums are very different.
But all socialists the world over are the same!
But agreed, our conservatives are probably a bit to the right of yours.
IT IS ALL STATE OWNED!!!! THE PEOPLE OWN $HIT!
"Socialistic Countries have proven they can not satisfy thier population. We see it all over now."
Oh, and that's why the people of Norway, Denmark, Finland, Holland, and so forth are so miserable? (Except they aren't, and the Legatum Group rates all of those countries are rated as more prosperous than the US--the US is #10 in the world for prosperity this year)
Socialism clearly isn't working in China, where the economy is expanding like gangbusters. And the US owes China the farm. The triumph of free-market capitalism.
The thing is, sensibly regulated capitalism (which is what they really have in all those countries that outscore the US for real prosperity) is far superior to socialism, communism, and deregulated free-market capitalism.
But there's been this great big push in the US over the past few decades to deregulate the heck out of everything, much to the benefit of a privileged few, and much to the detriment of pretty much everyone else.Agree here Jeff, but your post you are correct those Countries, INCLUDING China are practicing controled Capitolism, yes.
China, when you go there looks like a mix, tightly controled by the Central Bank of China. and it appears to be working. They manipulate their dollar a lot also. We keep it peged, and thats killing us.
But the US has proven it works also. We are entering a world market, trimming processes and trying to find open markets for goods. The world is recessive right now, but that does not prove we are failing. Just making really stupid moves.
we need to change what we do, and get the h... out of this war mess we are in."The world is recessive right now, but that does not prove we are failing. Just making really stupid moves."
What's the functional difference?
Seriously, if we'd meaningfully regulate our banks (and consistently enforce those regulations), we'd never have had the housing bubble.The Govt. caused the housing bubble through fanny mae and freddy mac, thank you Barney and Dodd and all their Progressive buddies. Their regulations forced the lenders to give mortgages to those who could not afford them. And now the Leftists have people refusing to pay their mortgages and soon there will be another sweep of homes lost. It has been all about the govt owning the private property under the guise of minority home ownership. They will try to rip up the Constitution and get rid of Provate property rights all together any day. Sounds Socialist to me.
Research Phil Gramm and then come back and we'll talk.
"The Govt. caused the housing bubble through fanny mae and freddy mac, thank you Barney and Dodd and all their Progressive buddies. "
You couldn't be wronger.
"Their regulations forced the lenders to give mortgages to those who could not afford them."
This is only a half-truth. A very small percentage of the bad loans can be blamed on the fair housing act.
The vast majority of them, however can be pinned on the invention of the Mortgage-backed security. When the bankers invented that, they realized that they didn't have to care about whether the borrower could repay, and they wrote loans willy-nilly, bundled them into MBSs, and sold them off to somebody else, and now the bank had no responsibility for the loan they wrote--if the borrower defaulted, somebody else would suffer, not the bank that wrote the loan.
And the banks kept lending recklessly, and people kept borrowing recklessly. Some of those folks were trying to take advantage of the bubble, some were financially naive, some were told that by the time their ARM got adjusted, they'd be able to refi at a fixed rate for a lower amount, and they'd get ahead that way. There's individual responsibility to go around, too.
But the reason the housing market bubble went national and in fact global (and didn't stay confined to pockets of inflated value as in the past) is the Mortgage-Backed Security. The MBSs were rated AAA, safe investments, even when they were made entirely of NINA (No Income, No Asset) loans. The rating agencies are to blame there, as are the banks, for not fully disclosing the risky nature of the loans the securities were made of.
Then everyone: individual investors, pension plan managers, towns, cities, companies, etc. invested in these Mortgage-Backed securities under the (false) impression that they were safe investments. But the folks who had NINA loans couldn't pay the higher adjusted rate, and whoops, turns out the actually couldn't refinance, and then they defaulted.
Whoops, hokey smokes, those "safe" investments turned out to be worthless! Whoops, who invested in these? Pension plans! Whoops, what are we telling workers? Sorry, your pension is underfunded! (Except it wouldn't be if not for the banks' fraudulent practice of bundling risky loans and selling them as "safe" investment securities.
The government had nothing to do with the banks writing NINA loans or fraudulently bundling them into securities. The government had nothing to do with the ratings boards telling people that these securities were AAA-rated investments.
You couldn't be wronger.
You do know the Housing crisis is because of Barney Frank and Dodds. The left put pressure on the banks to give loans to people who could not afford it or be fined!
The banks and wall street saw the opportunity and starting writing bonds backed by these bad loans. Then the government went and bailed them out.agree here, we allowed it, went to sleep on it actualy, wall street robbed it blind. Massive wealth ammased I think..
Jeff, fundimental difference is we do not front our business, by this I mean factories, to buck them up and make them look beter to con Outside countries to invest, and then never deliver on a safe long term product. Look at the short cuts and illegal chemicals found in their goods?
Look at the refusals to self regulate their factories. They float the dollars, trick the investor and stock the Central Bank with foregin investment dollars, which is worth more than their own dollar. The profit looks great! But not for Chineese Dollar, The bank holds itself up on Foregin Dollar worth.
They bouht the US debt, to circulate and sell off, because they wanted foregin dollars in the Central Bank. They in truth cannot sell to other in sugnificant bulk, if so they would not depend on the U.S. to export to.
Wall Mart wants it cheeper, they dump cheep on us. Costco wants it cheep, same outcome. On and on.
In truth to me, I think China and the US are tightly intertwined, using mutual need to stay up I think.
the functional difference to me right now is we do not control business through a Central Bank system, with no competition allowed.
All of it under the surface, Goverment controled. We do not falsely front our Businesses, we go hands off and let them trade and conduct their affairs."We do not falsely front our Businesses, we go hands off"
It's our "hands-off" policy that caused our housing problem.
If we'd regulated the creation and sale of mortgage-backed securities, or held people responsible for lying about their value or risk level, then we wouldn't have had such a bubble, and it wouldn't have spread so far into non-housing segments of our economy.It was Frank and Dodd and Govt. interference and policies which caused that housing collapse.
It was gleeful lending to the non-creditworthy, the surreptitious bundling of those bad loans into mortgage-backed securities, the fraudulent representation of said securities as "safe" investments, and the offloading of accountability for reckless loans onto unsuspecting investors that caused the housing collapse.
I know it's a complicated thing to understand and it's much easier to scapegoat people you dislike, but try to take a look at the way things are, rather than the way you want them to be.Yes it was. Along with, and becuase of the poppurtunities served up, by the creation of fanny mae and freddy mac and thje Govt push to make every minority a home-oner threough regulations and threats of with-holding monies and bringing lawsuits.
It was all the above to blame. And for you to ignore half or more of the problem and blame only lenders and banks, is absurd and predictably Leftist."for you to ignore half or more of the problem and blame only lenders and banks, is absurd and predictably Leftist."
What? I'm not ignoring "half or more" of the problem. Rather I'm focusing on the bulk of the problem. Dodd and Frank can be held responsible for a tiny tiny fraction of the bad loans.
They absolutely cannot be held responsible for the bundling of those and millions more bad loans into risky securities, the fraudulent representation of those securities as safe, and the criminal shifting of risk and responsibility away from banks and onto unsuspecting investors.
But rather than call for accountability across the board (as I do), you're blaming Barney Frank, like it was all his fault. He's to blame for maybe 5% of the problem, at most.I'm in the financial field and it was Frank and Dodds who cavalier the banks to give these loans to people who could not afford them! Then in turn Wall street seen an opportunity since the GOVERNMENT was behind them and made bonds with them. These are pure facts! CMO's and other bonds created a win fall and because of the stupidity of Frank and Dodds this is what happened in return. So 5% my a$$.
They were warned a few years prior and you can look up Frank saying there isn't any problem! Why do you leftists have to spin everything?
http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com/201 … recession/
http://www.breitbart.tv/barney-franks-f … e-problem/
That says it all in HIS OWN WORDS!Do you know who Phil Gramm is? Do you understand what he did to make this housing debacle possible? Do you know that derivatives and those packaged loans would not have been possible without him?
Half truth!
Please Now your in my territory. The housing was caused by the left imposing fines and threatening banks if they did not give loans to people who could not afford it!
Then Wall Street took it to another level. Good try!
Also he was a Democrat of course.
William Philip "Phil" Gramm (born July 8, 1942) is an American economist and politician, who has served as a Democratic Congressman (1978–1983),Good try yourself. He switched parties and served as a Republican from 1985 on.
Without his legislative agenda, none of the loans that you want to blame on Dems could have been made, because they couldn't have been bundled and sold. If this is your area, you know this full well.
It doesn't matter what party he was from, but when he did all his damage and later when he became candidate McCain's economic advisor, he was a Republican. If you don't know this, then I'm not in your territory. You don't have a territory. You're either a hopelessly misinformed internet quack, or someone who thinks he can fool people with deliberate misstatements.
Pick one.
I will admit though, I'm shocked that you admit a democrat was responsible for the deregulation. I'm Impressed Bruce.
I deal in derivatives. You can make a lot quick or go bust!
You really need to be sharp, a lot of sharks out there.Here is a true list of people who caused the collapse.
Angelo Mozilo
Phil Gramm
Alan Greenspan
Chris Cox
Hank Paulson
Ian McCarthy
Frank Raines
Kathleen Corbet
Dick Fuld
Marion and Herb Sandler
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush
Stan O'Neal
Wen Jiabao
John Devaney
Bernie Madoff
Lew Ranieri
Burton Jablin
Fred Goodwin
Sandy Weill
David Oddsson
Jimmy Cayne
Barney Frank
Chris DoddThat's one of your best comments. There's more than enough blame to go around. You left out Goldman Sachs and AIG
They added to it, YES but those people caused it in the first place.
Wall street went with it because they had the OK from congress.
Ralph lets be real here, If you were in the banking business or any business that you had the opportunity to make a boat load of money, You know you would also! If you say you wouldn't your lying to yourself and should go into a corner and think about it again.I like to think I wouldn't. But I've never been in that situation.
believe me Ralph, You would make the money. I use a lot of ethics and morals in my work. I like to put my head on my pillow at night knowing I have done that right thing.
Don't forget if everyone paid on time and didn't default they made money and most of these investors are greedy animals also, It isn't like poor people buy these investments.
I know some people will say they invest in pension funds...Yes but it is heavily diversified. If they lose in one area they make in another, It is done so they do not go broke. Any pension fund who invests in one arena should be banned. I do not know any who do.Waitwait....the victims of the fraud are wealthy, so it's all good? You're starting to sound...socialist! (Well, not really. You're starting to sound like the caricature of socialists painted by the radical right. But it's still pretty funny hearing you say something that sounds very much like, "Oh, yeah, people got screwed, but they were rich people, so it's all good.")
Sure, but how often does one whole area of a pension fund's investments not just lose money for a bit but turns into ash in front of their eyes? I mean, say there's a pension fund looking after, say, $100MM. They put 20% in bonds, 20% in manufacturing stock, 20% in tech stock, 20% in biotech/pharma and 20% in real estate/mortgage-backed securities. That last 20% is meant to be a very safe long term investment that pays back about 6% over 30 years. But it didn't turn out that way. It didn't merely lose money for a bit (as the other investments are prone to do periodically), they became worthless. That's a lot different from taking a loss for a while.
And so instead of earning an average return of 5% on all of the $100MM, the pension fund only earns the average return on $80MM, and $20MM invested dollars, that would have been earning a return over years, is earning nothing and in fact no longer even exists, through no fault of the pension fund managers, or the pensioners.
So now the pension obligation has to be met with the investment income of only $80MM, and there's a shortfall, because the remaining $80MM-worth of investments aren't getting that great a return just now, because of the ripple effect of the disappearance of this pension plan's, and everyone else's, $20MM. To meet its obligations, the pension has to pay not only with returns on investments, but with the sale of (some of) the remaining $80MM worth of securities (which are actually worth a bit less than $80MM just now, because of the aforementioned downturn.)
Yeah, the pension funds got hurt; and the pensioners got hurt. And who is the Right blaming? The greedy people who negotiated the pension plans in the first place, that is, (usually) some union or other. Yes, the pension crisis is the greedy, money-grubbing unions' fault, not that of the bankers who created the mortgage bubble.
Presto-change-o, and pay no attention to the wunch of bankers behind the curtain.
You can also add Walter Wriston. If memory serves CitiBank (First National City) had to be bailed out by the government a couple of times when he was CEO. Once due to risky loans to shaky South American countries in the late 1970s. I believe CitiBank holds the record for government bailouts.
"I'm in the financial field."
Payday lender? bank teller? Insurance salesman? Mortgage broker?So Frank and Dodd say to the banks, go ahead, write reckless loans and bundle them up into securities, lie about how risky the loans are that the securities are made of, market them to investors as AAA-rated bonds, offload all of the risk onto the unsuspecting, and you get off scott free?
No they didn't. The baks did all of that on their own.
The government let them, because of the deregulation trend of the past few decades, pushed by the very people who created the fraudulent investment vehicles that collapsed the housing market.
Before the invention of the mortgage-backed security (which, if not created and sold in a fraudulent manner are actually a great idea!) there were housing bubbles. But they were localized. You'd get a bubble in San Francisco, or Las Vegas, or someplace where there was an economic upswing. But they'd be localized bubbles, and the people in Allentown, Pennsylvania would be unaffected. The mortgage-backed securities, and more specifically the underhanded, fraudulent way they were created and sold, spread the bubble out to the whole world, because the whole world invested in these pieces of carp.
Almost everything, from the housing bubble to the widespread pension fund shortfalls, can be traced to the banks that wrote scads of bad loans (far in excess of anything required by the Gov't), bundled them up, gilded the heck out of that nasty, rank lily, and offloaded the risk onto the unsuspecting world.
And instead of getting rounded up and sent to jail for securities fraud, the government hands them a great big check. Disgusting. Socialized losses, privatized gains.
The Eropean Socialist countries are failing miserably. Look at the news... riots and turmoil everywhere, and spreading because of the gimmie gimmie attitude.
The same attitude the Left has instilled in millions in Americans for decades, and you try to cease it... and what happens.. they riot. They do not care that the tit has run dry and our country is going to collapse if it doesn't stop, as long as they get theirs. It is so bad that they are running in stores and robbing them blind because they have been told all the resources and stuff.. is theirs.
What a joke.it is a joke for real. look at race to the Top. Just pass the test Kid, its ok.
if you are in the room, you are entitled, earn it for yourself or not.
we are conditioning our kids to follow.
Folks are doing that here in nashville. Flash mobs to steal. Overrun a small store with about 50 folks, grab all you can and leave. One or two clerks can not stop the mob. Police are called, camera's confiscated, and the thieves are long gone.
a real mess.It is a sad commentary on society and what we have allowed ourselve to become.
And as much a result of the "must have" capitalist society.
Capitalism state and America teaches that you want it you earn it. it is Socialists who teach it is the peoples regardless of who earned it or built it.
Have you read Adam Smith Wealth Of Nations?... Or Marx? Do you truly understand the Difference in Capitalism -Vs- any of the Marxian ideologies. Cause it damn sure doesn't sound like it John.
Are you one of those who never looked into it and just accepted the people own it all BS and that is great?So, all these advertisements telling us what we must have are a socialist plot are they!
I don't get it, are you implying that only socialists steal?
Or theft only occurs in a socialist state?No that is what you implied as to Capitalism.
I stated the entitlement attitude of people today is a bad attitude and is unacceptable in a society where you should earn your way and make your own place in the world. Not rely on the Govt to supply it to you, and think everything everyone else earns is yours because you think you own the land, trees, companies, product and profits of their earnings and every other damn thing, simply because you were born here.Bullshit, you are conflating two different arguments.
You are implying that socialism leads to theft, it doesn't.I am saying if you raise generations to think they are entitled, then do not be amazed when they take what they want. It is a simple concept, John.
If your going to reply go to the bottom please. I am lost trying to find these in here and taking long moments.And advertising doesn't raise a sense of entitlement!
I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment about going to the bottom.
Oh. Okay. So Norway isn't socialist. Denmark isn't socialist. Sweden isn't socialist.
Australia and new Zealand aren't in Europe, so I guess they could still be socialist.
But they still have stable, prosperous economies, and their people are more prosperous, on average, than ours are.
Must be because they're not socialist after all.You know exactly what I am talking about. ie greece, italy, spain, England, france, etc....
England most definitely isn't socialist and hasn't even vaguely been socialist since the 1970s.
Still, what would I know, I only live here and can't possibly know as much about it as you.You said: "The Eropean Socialist countries are failing miserably. Look at the news... riots and turmoil everywhere,"
But last I heard, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, etc, were socialistic democracies, and they aren't having riots and turmoil. In fact, they're doing better than the US is: their economies are more stable; their people are more prosperous.
Greece is in turmoil, sure, but Greece isn't "everywhere," it's just Greece.Those are BS examples, look at the population sizes of those countries, as compared to the continental European countries, England, and America.
So those examples of small nations with limited populations tell a skewed story of your Socialist dreams and the results."So those examples of small nations with limited populations tell a skewed story of your Socialist dreams and the results."
What are you examples? Greece? A small nation with limited population. Try again.
Dutchman falls for the same error as many others do in mistaking state capitalism for socialism.
Nothing could be further from socialism than state capitalism.No mistake John, those countries mentioned are loose Controled Capitolism,with Goverment Overide Controls you do not see openly. They Keep spending and need in check by social control.
It is "Not" Capitolism in free form. , and Not Socialism. Just that delicate communist calulated mix that feels ok, and keeps you quiet.
In a system, where the state owns everything you do? why would you continue, except to assure some basic income and no jail time? No Insentive?
Look at Stalins Russia and Poland, very beautiful people, good hearts and minds, but look at the quality of any goods produced? nothing worth anything or built to last.
No demand for the Junk, and the economy dies out.
The Socialised Union's riot, demand the Money as their's and the fight between Labor worker class and Goverment is on for new control. So they pay the folks to be happy, stop rioting. A small amout but pay enough, never what they need, but enough to control. Pay folks just enough that they still need you.
Countries are failing doing this, because Social Welfare does not make money, it spends it.There you go again! State capitalism is not socialism and Russia and Poland were state capitalist economy's, not socialist.
Yes they are.
Are you going to argue China is not communist? There are many many different mixes of Marxian ideologies in play around the world. But in the end they are Marxian.No, but I'm arguing that they weren't socialist.
Have you read Marx? He discribes more than plainly that Socialism is a necessary step to Communism, not only necessary but natural ie; it is supposed to evolve from one to the other and end with Communism, pure or perfect Communism.
And that is a truth. Once you consolidate power it is to easy for a group, (the group which is necessary to control and make decisions.), to take coontrol and abuse that power, then one individual asserts himself and siezes the riegns of control... from Socialism to Communism.One man's view and TM makes it the credo of every socialist ever!
Ignore the fact that Marx wasn't looking at Stalins vision of communism and ignore the fact that socialism means smaller, not larger government. More control by the workers.
What you describe as the inevitable control and abuse of power is exactly what I see happening under the capitalist system. If Mega Corp PLC wants to build a factory in your back yard, they will and not a thing you, or the government can do to stop them.
And are you really so naive as to believe that under capitalism there isn't one or two people calling all the tunes!not smaller Goverment, but Fewer at the top in Power and Control. No check and balance, no one can question, just a small group at the top. the rest of the Party filling out through Goverment ranks as payments for Keeping the ONE in power. Commanding the loyalty and keeping Indian's close so you can be Chief.
thats not smaller goverment.Smaller government means more control at the local level, away from the centre.
Decisions made by people with local knowledge, not faceless beurocrats with no idea about the areas they are governing.
No naivete' here John. I know no system is perfect, but ours has been and is the greatest in the world thanks to free market Capitalism and the Constitution.
And no Marx doesn't speak for all you Socialists I am well aware of that. You all love him till you cannot use him anymore then discard him as if your new ideologies are so much different and beyond what he spoke of. And they are not, he spoke of the evolution of the Socialist systems, their combining and moving forward to the ideal communist system. He envisioned quite well that most of the systems do combine and hybrid throughout the evolutionary process.
But, centralized authority and the "people" owning the resources, means of production, product and distribution of, is core Marxian philosophy. It is undeniable.
You ever hear the, "lipstick on a pig", joke Obama made?
And Marxism, Socialism, Communism, all those are not new ideas, Cicero himself talked about such systems of governance. They are old failed ideas that our founders even new of and discarded, because they could see the inherant problems within such systems.Well it's good to hear that capitalism is alive and thriving. Nobody starving or losing their homes. Wonderful.
See... always run to the extremes. That doesn't speak anything to the issue, simply makes you look as if you cannot debate it and fly off to the extremism.
You know... just cause a side is taken doesn't mean we go all the way to the extreme of it. Capitalism need some regulation, but you cannot choke the life out of it with regulations, nationalize industries and subsidize all the ones which should fail, and then cry it doesn't work.You tell me not to go to extremes!
It's not me saying that all socialists are communists intent on the downfall of the western world.
It's not me calling all lefties liars.
Get a grip.I have a grip. It is you that play games because your argument fails as bad as your ideology.
Whereas your argument is sound!
Erm, you can't even keep to the point.
My argument only fails because you can't see it, or you can, but quickly change it to something else.
agree John not trying to infer they were socialist, they are Communist.
but they are masters at smoke and mirror. The Business street looks like a deciptive mix. Very different on its inside walkways. They hold up their economy through the Central bank and always make moves to pass their biils off for foregin Currency, because they know the Chineese dollar is worthless.
Trump was correct on China in this respect, they manipulate to make a millon and pay for it in worthless currency. And we in the US allow this. They are laughing at us. He was correct.
all Marxist Communists control, painted to look much beter.
Oh whatever you say, wallow in your ignorance.
John! stop that. I am more Open than you think, but can not deny what I did get to see when traveling. those systems are not good for human exhistance, in a long term span. I am no authority, its what you say also, it all counts. discussion is good, very
Then why do you continue to confuse socialism with state capitalism?
It isn't worth it Dutch. He is simply playing games.
Wow,how astute,how perceptive.
Oh well, I suppose it's better than being accused of plotting the downfall of the western world.
I think it's a real mischaracterization of Joe McCarthy to say he was looking for a communist "under every bed." There certainly were communist in America, and in very influential places, and particularly in hollywood. All one has to do is watch the movie Grapes of Wrath (1941). It's a movie that clearly espouses the principles of the communist ideology.
Maybe McCarthy was a bit overzealous. However, rather than harping on McCarthy, doesn't it make more sense to spend the present time thinking about solutions to the economic crisis in America TODAY?Not really Taylor, forget history, and loose where you are now. Both are valid concerns, and imediate to consider.
we have to stop shooting the world, and get back to constitutional goverment. Free up Business and let the Markets run. and Judge the Federal Law, not legislate it eclecticly. We are out of choices.
we need real sensable new blood in Congress and Senate, thats where we, in this system, overide the Exec. The vote power is there, not in the White House Choice. Check and Balance does work.In case anybody is interested, here are some generally accepted facts about McCarthy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_McCarthy
Here is a YouTube video of the Army-McCarthy hearing that resulted in McCarthy's downfall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAur_I077NA
Have you no decency, Mr. Mason???Ys we all know the leftist lies we have heard them for 70 years.
but you know what ralphy, I will believe the records of the Senators involved on both sides of the issue, both personal files and Senatorial, Tydings, Dies, and many more, the US Senate, US House of Reps, US State Dept. the OSS- CIA-, Office of Wartime Info, FBI, NSA VENNONA decrpys, the KGB, the GRU, Chinese Military, the COMMINTERN, American Communist Party, US D.O.J., the IPR, and 10s of Committees in the U.S. Senate and House. Not to mention dozens of ancillary Agencies and Depts of contractors to the Govt., but ralphy and the left know the truth. huh! Because he was related to someone McCarthy accussed.
If I had a dime for as many times as I have heard that line. I imagine you were on Nixon's hit list also. lol
And your buddy got caught along with Sevice, Owen Lattimore, Jaffe, and those other china experts betraying our allie at the time to support Mao. So good riddance. It was the treason of the China experts and the release of the China White Paper by state, which brought our allie down. Those experts wanted a communist China and betrayed Shek at every turn, from holding up arms and gold to straight out dis-information and telling Mao of plans shek had. And the personel files and records of the state from those individuals prove it in their own words, Ralph. It cannot be denied, no matter how much any on the Left try. Those records were produced at the time and sealed for fifty years by Truman... they thought they were safe and could complete their plans by then... but hell capitalism and America is, and always has been, more resiliant then all our enemies have ever thought or imagined.
More buried history the Left and Progressives do not want America to know.Have you read the entire transcript to that hearing Ralphy... I have. I have major portions of it in my hub... so yes I have decency... you have a trick of editing.
And this is the most telling part of it...
Here is the moment the Left points to...
"Until this moment. Senator, I think I never fully grasped your cruelty or your recklessness. Fred Fisher is a young man who went to Harvard Law School and came with my firm and is starting what looks like a brilliant career with us... Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad . .. I fear that he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty I would do so. I like to think I am a gentleman, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me."
But this is a fact not well known about what welch did 6 weeks before...
"well before this dramatic moment, Fred Fisher had already been outed, in conclusive fashion, as a former member of the National Lawyers Guild—by none other than Joe Welch (the accusser of McCarthy having no decency.). This had occurred in April, some six weeks before the McCarthy-Welch exchange, when Welch took it upon himself to confirm before the world that Fisher had indeed been a member of the Guild, and for this reason had been sent back to Boston. As the New York Times reported, in a story about the formal filing of Army allegations against Cohn-McCarthy:
The date of the article is April 16, 1954, the title of the article is; "McCarthy Will Boycott Inquiry Pending Action On News Leaks" Go check the record Ralph, your trapped in the Leftists own lies. Fischer was outed by Welch in that article... and it is a matter of fact supported by the record of the NY Times and the US Senate
Thats right the accuser Welch had already outed Fischer as a Communist. And that is sourced directly from the New york times and Senate records. So sling that decency BS at someone else, Ralph.
So has Edward R. Murrow no decency? No he dosn't. he is a liar and scum.
You do not get it Ralphy and you Leftists, do you... the records show clearly the games being played by those who would betray the American People and cover for the communist spies in this country as they subverted our Govt and policies. read below for a full understanding of that hearing... not just an edited trick of a treasonous journalist.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Army-McCarth-he … -the-TruthMy understanding is that Fred Fisher remained a respected member of Welch's law firm. Moreover, membership in the Lawyer's Guild or National Lawyer's Guild does not equate to membership in the Communist Party, nor even sympathy for the Communist Party although the views of the Guild and the CP coincided on some issues. Many of the current crop of Neocons were communists or "fellow travelers" during the 1930s and the 1940s, including the group's founding father Irving Kristol who was a member of a Trotskiist group in New York in 1940 ( and father of Bill Kristol who is editor of the National Review).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lawyers_Guild
A bit more research revealed that Fred Fisher went on to become a partner in Welch's law firm and president of the Massachusetts Bar Association.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fisher_%28lawyer%29
Here's a link to the transcript of the Welch-McCarthy discussion:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeche … arthy.htmlThe Laywer Giuld he was a part of was a known Communist org. That is a fact and is why Welch sent him back to Boston from Wash.
I have the transcrpits to prove it... read them below... so I do not care what you think occurred, the record speaks for itself, Ralph.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Army-McCarth-he … -the-Truth
And as I stated the NY Times ran a story 6 weeks before McCarthy mentioned it in that hearing, were Welch outed Fischer himself... and that is a part of the NY Times records and the Senate records.
So it seems a lil hard headed that you would still deny it. And alot of the people who ran afoul of McCarthy were embraced by the Left in this country and went on to great careers. That speaks volumes as to the influence the Communist and Socialist groups have had in this country Ralph.
Again see the testimony below... it is unedited and true and accurate to the hearing record... it is the hearing records! Then go look at and read the Senate records of the hearing, and the New york Times records. They are not lying... they are the real records. So...
I do not care what leftist revisionist history you throw up says... it doesn't out do the Senate records and the records of the day at that time. You are repeating the BS lies that Murrow and the Media put out to crush McCarthy. And they did a good job of spreading and sustaining that lie.You are the one who's spreading crypto-fascist lies, Mr. Mason.
Yes the records of the U S Senate and the NY Times is lies, ralph.
The date of the article is April 16, 1954, the title of the article is; "McCarthy Will Boycott Inquiry Pending Action On News Leaks" Go check the record Ralph, your trapped in the Leftists own lies. Fischer was outed by Welch in that article... and it is a matter of fact supported by the record of the NY Times and the US Senate. So stay in denial if you want, the rest of the world will be reading the truth.
You have proven you have a closed mind.
And if the lawyers Guild was not a bad place... then why would it ruin his career to be a part of it? Amazing, I post the Senate records and you call them lies... wow... how closed of a mind can you have... and how locked into a lie can you be when the records of the hearing that the incident occurred in speak to the contrary of the story you keep spouting... wow.
Think about it...
http://hubpages.com/hub/Army-McCarth-he … -the-TruthMr. Mason,
I think we should have you write the true story and have it made into a movie!
McCARTHY AMERICA'S TRUE HEROYou should read, -M. Stanton Evans' Blacklisted By History"-, it is the true story of Senator McCarthy and his fight against America's enemies and straight form the Senate records and many others, Danny. I advise all Americans to puchase and read that book. It is full of Leftist treason that has been long hidden from the public. It is where I polished what I have learned about the truth of McCarthy's story, and where I sourced all the info I have. Mr Evans has redeemed McCarthy and the Left can longer spout their BS. I highly reccomend it.
Mr. Evans is a lifelong right wing political spin meister and to take all that you know from one source is typical of someone who is being indoctrinated into a specific worldview. The Evan's family has ties to the old Birch Society.
No one can be educated from a single source. Whether it's a Christian who only reads the Bible or a liberal who only watches MSNBC, single source research is a recipe for extremism. We all have read books that have turned our heads, but the educated do not stop there. By investigating the other side, a more balanced view is inevitable.
Can you imagine if all you read was Ann Coulter's stuff, or Michael Moore's?
The man shows you actual proof from senate records and past newspaper releases from over 50 years ago and we are sick? Ralphy I believe you have officially lost your mind! Can you for once show facts to show your case? the man gave you everything a normal person could ask for and you still deny the true facts and then say we are sick. Your a joke and need to hang it up there Ralphy boy! your brain is so shot it isn't even funny anymore.
Don't worry your check will be in the mail, At least for a while yet.
The man has given you full factual evidence that supports the whole truth and that is what you say? Ralph your a complete joke. He even told you to look at the records ralph! THE RECORDS! not some BS spin media $HIT. Be a man for once and admit your wrong. Your just another Koolaid drinker. Keep Drinking Ralphy Boy!
Here is the truth from the Senate records of the hearing. Not some edited 30 second sound bite Ralph... Murrow's lies are torn down and the truth stands tall. McCarthy had all the decency and more one could ever expect in a man.
Testimony, From The Senate Record Itself
WELCH: Senator McCarthy, when you took the stand of course you understood that you were going to be asked about this letter, did you not?
Mccarthy: I assumed that would be the subject.
WELCH: Did you understand you would be asked the source?
Mccarthy: ... I never try to read the minds of the senators to know what they will ask you.
WELCH: Could I have the oath that you took read back slowly by the reporter?
MUNDT: Mr. Welch, that does not seem to be an appropriate question. You were present. You took the oath yourself. He took the same oath you took.
Welch: The oath included a promise, a solemn promise by you to tell the truth, comma, the whole truth, comma, and nothing but the truth. Is that correct, sir?
Mccarthy: Mr. Welch, you are not the first individual that tried to get me to betray the confidence and give out the names of my informants. You will be no more successful than those who have tried in the past, period.
WELCH: I'm only asking you, sir, did you realize when you took that oath that you were making a solemn promise to tell the whole truth to this committee?
Mccarthy: I understand the oath, Mr. Welch.
Welch: . . . Then tell who delivered the document to you.
Mccarthy: The answer is no. You will not get that information.
And so on and so forth, until the whole line of questioning was ruled out of order by both Counsel Jenkins and Chairman Mundt. This ruling, as Mundt put it, was "sustained by an unbroken precedent so far as he knew [that] Senate investigating committees who come in contact with confidential information are not required to disclose the source of their information."
This style of interrogation might be called, for want of a better term, "John Stewart Service syndrome." As has been seen, the fact that Service had absconded with confidential papers and handed these over to the Communist Philip Jaffe was of small concern to high officials, who dismissed the matter as an "indiscretion," kept Service on the payroll, and rigged the grand jury process to protect him. However, when somebody in the government leaked information about John Service to McCarthy, that called for instant firing. Communists running barefoot through official papers were no big deal, but informing McCarthy about such matters was a scandal. In the case of Monmouth, with obvious differences in detail, the identical drill would be repeated.
Linked to McCarthy's possession of the letter were two other Welchian sidebars. One was a suggestion that the two-and-a-quarter-page memo was— like the "doctored" photo—a "perfect phony" foisted on the committee by the devious
McCarthy. Welch sought to develop this idea in interrogation of Robert Collier, a Jenkins aide who had discussed the memo with FBI Director Hoover. In this confab with Hoover, Collier had learned that the memo was in fact a condensation of a longer FBI report, not an identical copy. On this point the questioning went as follows:
WELCH: Mr. Collier, as I understand your testimony this document that I hold in my hand is a carbon copy of precisely nothing, is that right?
COLLIER: I will say that Mr. Hoover informed me that it is not a carbon copy of a memorandum prepared or sent by the FBI.
WELCH: Let us have it straight from the shoulder. So far as you know, it is a carbon copy of precisely nothing.
COLLIER: So far as I know, it is, yes, but that is only a conclusion. welch: You just told us it is a carbon copy of precisely nothing, haven't you?
collier: I have said it is not a copy of a document in the FBI file. I will not say it is a copy of nothing because if it was typed as a carbon there must have been an original.
Having thus said thrice over the document was "a carbon copy of precisely nothing," Welch then reversed directions, describing the memo as too "hot" to be entered in the record and refusing even to read it. To do so, he said, would be a terrible breach of security regulations, and he would never, ever do that. His tribute to his own rectitude in such matters was emphatic.
"I have," said Welch, "higher standards in respect to my own conduct in respect to these documents than the senator and his staff does [sic]. I do not think it is proper for Mr. Collier to read it and he has declined to read it. I do not think it is proper for Mr. Welch to read it and he has declined to read it. I await with much interest the Senator's [McCarthy's] explanation of how it reached his hands and whether he read it."
All of this, however, was fustian, as McCarthy—who had read the memo— quite lucidly explained it. In the condensed format, he noted, all information that might reveal FBI sources and methods, and specific data on the suspects, had been deleted. Thus, no security breach could occur from simply reading the bobtailed Version. The sole but significant point established by the memo was that the FBI had duly warned the Army about the problem of Aaron Cole-man and others in the Monmouth setup. This was of course a point Welch and Co. wanted to obscure—the sideshow about how McCarthy got the memo, and its allegedly phony nature, helping to achieve this.
In fact, the Collier testimony and other evidence in the record made it plain the two-and-a-quarter-page document was definitely not a "phony." Collier said the shorter memo covered the identical subject matter as did the original FBI report and, equally to the point, was verbatim as to phrasing—with the exception that the security information on the suspects was deleted.
As with the "doctored" photo, there were other Welchian solecisms that cried out for challenge. The most obvious of these is how he reconciled the very different positions he took within the span of a few minutes—that the memo was a "perfect phony" and "a carbon copy of precisely nothing," but that the mere act of possessing and reading it was a grave security dereliction. How reading a document that was a "perfect phony" and a "copy of precisely nothing" could violate security regulations Welch did not explain, nor was he asked to.
Far from being a "perfect phony," as alleged by Welch, the document per Collier's testimony was obviously the real McCoy*
A main substantive distinction between the documents, as earlier noted, was that the shorter version contained the designations "derogatory" and "no derogatory" [data], these evidently interpolated by someone in the Army. In terms of format, the main difference was that the shorter version had a typed signature, "J. Edgar Hoover," which the original did not.
As for the shortened format, such condensation of FBI reports—omitting certain sensitive data—was a common official practice. As earlier noted, there were hundreds of such condensed or paraphrased reports, based on Bureau information, in the security files at State, Commerce, the Civil Service Commission, and elsewhere.
Finally, McCarthy and Collier between them produced some other compelling facts about the bobtailed memo. An especially significant point was that the report bore the heading "Aaron Coleman—Espionage—R." As seen in the Owen Lattimore case, the "R" in such memoranda stood for "Russian." Beyond this, McCarthy reeled off a considerable list of other FBI reports on Monmouth, giving the dates on which they were provided, thus making it clear the Bureau's efforts to spotlight the problem had been persistent over a span of years since the latter 1940s.
According to McCarthy, such reports had been provided at some time in 1949; on September 15, 1950; October 27, 1950; twice in December 1950; January 26, 1951; February 13, 1951; June 5, 1951; February 19, 1952; June 1952; September 1952; January 1953; April 1, 1953; and April 21, 1953. + Brownell's designation to this effect was in a public speech, rather than via the Attorney General's list.
Fred Fisher. Having thus exhibited his instinct for the capillary, Welch would outdo himself in a third notable episode of this nature—the matter of Frederick Fisher. Fisher was a young attorney from Welch's Boston law firm of Hale and Dorr, brought down to Washington to help prepare the case for Stevens-Adams. In getting ready for the hearings, Welch had asked Fisher if there were anything in his background that could prove embarrassing to the Army.
Well, yes, said Fisher, there was. He had been a member of the National Lawyers Guild, which was indeed a problem. As the Guild had the year before been branded by Attorney General Herbert Brownell as the "legal mouthpiece" of the Communist Party, and before that by the House Committee on Un-American Activities as the party's "legal bulwark," it was decided such past membership would be an incapacitating factor in hearings so heavily devoted to issues of subversion. + Fisher was sent home to Boston.
Nonetheless, his name would show up in the hearings, as Welch was cross-examining Roy Cohn in what would be a famous confrontation. This began with the standard Welch technique of exaggerated buildup, to the effect that Cohn had been remiss in not communicating whatever he knew about Communists in the Army directly to Robert Stevens. This colloquy is worth quoting in extenso as an example of Welch in action and the degree to which the lovable codger could change his mien as needed.
WELCH: If you had gone over to the Pentagon and got inside the door and yelled to the first receptionist you saw, "We got some hot dope on some Communists in the Army," don't you think you could have landed at the top?
COHN: Sir, that is not the way I do things.
WELCH: And although you had this dope and a fresh and ambitious new Secretary of the Army, reachable by the expenditure of one taxicab fare, you never went during March, if you had it in March, did you, is that right?
COHN: Mr. Welch—
WELCH: Just answer. You never went near him in March?
COHN: No, I—
WELCH: Or April? Did you?
COHN: Mr. Welch—
Welch: Tell me, please.
COHN: I am trying, sir.
WELCH: Or April?
COHN: No, sir
COHN: I never went near him, sir.
Welch: Or June?
WELCH: Or July?
COHN: No, sir—
senator MUNDT: I think we have covered July.
WELCH: I think it is really dramatic to see how these Communist hunters will sit on this document when they could have brought it to the attention of Bob Stevens in 20 minutes, and they let month after month go by without going to the head and saying, "Sic 'em Stevens."
COHN: The answer is never.
welch: Right. Or July?
COHN: I communicated—
COHN: May I answer the last statement?
WELCH: I only said you didn't say, "Sic 'em Stevens," and you didn't, did you?... You did not say "Sic 'em Stevens." Is that right?
Cohn: Sir-
welch: Is that right?
COHN: Mr. Welch, if you want to know the way things work, I will tell you.
WELCH: I don't care how it works. I just want to know if it is right that you
did not say, "Sic 'em Stevens."
COHN: No, sir, you are right.
WELCH: I am at long last right once, is that correct?
COHN: Mr. Welch, you can always get a laugh . . .
Welch: Mr. Cohn, we are not talking about laughing matters. If there is a laugh, I suggest to you, sir, it is because it is so hard to get you to say that you didn't actually yell, "Sic 'em Stevens."
When McCarthy finally objected to this burlesque, the discussion wandered off to other topics. However, Welch was soon back in "Sic 'em Stevens" mode, arguing that Cohn was at fault for not having personally rushed to inform Stevens the instant that data on security problems at Monmouth surfaced. This recapped what had gone before, but with additional Welchian furbelows:
WELCH: . . . you didn't tug at his lapel and say, "Mr. Secretary, I know something about Monmouth that won't let me sleep nights?" You didn't do it, did you?
COHN: I don't, as I testified, Mr. Welch, I don't know whether I talked to Mr. Stevens about it then [in September 1953] or not...
Welch: Don't you know that if you had really told him what your fears were, and substantiated them to any extent, he could have jumped in the next day with suspensions? ,
COHN: No, sir.
WELCH: Mr. Cohn, tell me once more: Every time you learn of a Communist or a spy anywhere, is it your policy to get them out as fast as possible?
COHN: Surely, we want them out as fast as possible, sir.
WELCH: And whenever you learn of one from now on, Mr. Cohn, I beg of you, will you tell somebody about them quick?
COHN: Mr. Welch, with great respect, I work for the committee here. They know how we go about handling situations of Communist infiltration and failure to act on FBI information about Communist infiltration ...
WELCH: May I add my small voice, sir, and say whenever you know about a subversive or a Communist or a spy, please hurry. Will you remember these words?
This hectoring of Cohn, be it noted, came from the small voice whose clients had been pressuring General Lawton to restore asserted security risks at Monmouth. Even more ironic, if possible, it was premised on th^ selfsame "purloined letter" Welch had dismissively treated as a "carbon copy of precisely nothing." Now he was contending that Cohn was grievously to blame for not hand-delivering this copy of "precisely nothing" to Robert Stevens by the fastest possible method.
And It Goes On
After sitting through these Welch sermonettes about exposing every subversive or Communist suspect Cohn had ever heard of, and being extra quick about it, McCarthy at last broke in by raising the issue of Fred Fisher. Having brought Fisher to D.C. to help out with the hearings, McCarthy opined, Welch had little standing to lecture others about proper methods of Red-hunting. In a tone heavy with disdain, McCarthy stated:
"... in view of Mr. Welch's request that information be given once we know of anyone who might be performing work for the Communist Party, I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher, whom he recommended incidentally to do work on this committee, he has been for a number of years a member of an organization which was named, oh years and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party ... We are now letting you know that this young man did belong to this organization for either 3 or 4 years, belonged to it long after he was out of law school.. ."
And subsequently:
"Jim [Juliana], will you get the news story to the effect that this man belonged to this Communist front organization?"
This drew from Welch a much-celebrated answer, featured in all the usual write-ups and replayed innumerable times in video treatments of the hearings. It was the distilled essence of Joe Welch, worth studying in detail to get context and flavor. Along with certain other statements on Fred Fisher, Welch assailed McCarthy as follows:
"Until this moment. Senator, I think I never fully grasped your cruelty or your recklessness. Fred Fisher is a young man who went to Harvard Law School and came with my firm and is starting what looks like a brilliant career with us... Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad . .. I fear that he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty I would do so. I like to think I am a gentleman, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me."
When McCarthy then attempted to give some background on the National Lawyers Guild, plus a strong tu quoque about the harm done to the reputations of Frank Carr and other young McCarthy staffers by the charges Welch had signed his name to, the Army counsel again lamented the injury to Fisher:
Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you left no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
And, finally:
Welch: Mr. McCarthy, I will not discuss this with you further. You have been within six feet of me You have brought it out. If there is a God in Heaven, it will do neither you nor your cause any good. I will not discuss it with you further.
(Oh the indecency of pointing out the Commie lovers in our Govt., Also it should be pointed out that Welch himself outed Fred Fischer and his connection to the Commie lovin front group, the Lawyers guild, just weeks before this in an article in the New York Times, on April 16, 1954. A point that has convienently forgotten by the Leftists in this country and the Mass Media.)
Subsequently, we are told, Welch broke into tears and the audience in the Senate chamber responded with sustained applause. Thus the incident most remembered from the hearings, and generally viewed as the moral Waterloo of Joe McCarthy. The reckless evildoer had exposed young Fred Fisher and his former membership in the National Lawyers Guild, thus scarring the innocent lad forever, and the good, decent Welch had protested this shameful outing of a youthful indiscretion.
All of which seems very moving, and is invariably so treated. It looks a little different, however, when we note that, well before this dramatic moment, Fred Fisher had already been outed, in conclusive fashion, as a former member of the National Lawyers Guild—by none other than Joe Welch. This had occurred in April, some six weeks before the McCarthy-Welch exchange, when Welch took it upon himself to confirm before the world that Fisher had indeed been a member of the Guild, and for this reason had been sent back to Boston. As the New York Times reported, in a story about the formal filing of Army allegations against Cohn-McCarthy:
The date of the article is April 16, 1954, the title of the article is; "McCarthy Will Boycott Inquiry Pending Action On News Leaks" Go check the record Ralph, your trapped in the Leftists own lies. Fischer was outed by Welch in that article... and it is a matter of fact supported by the record of the NY Times and the US Senate
The Army charges were signed by its new special counsel, Joseph N. Welch. Mr. Welch today [April 15] confirmed news reports that he had relieved from duty his original second assistant, Frederick G. Fisher, Jr., of his own Boston law office because of admitted previous membership in the National Lawyers Guild, which has been listed by Herbert Brownell, Jr. the Attorney General, as a Communist front organization. Mr. Welch said he had brought in another lawyer, John Kimball, Jr., from his Boston office to take Mr. Fisher's place.
Giving this news item further impact, the Times ran a sizable photograph of Fred Fisher, plus a caption noting he had been relieved of duty with the Army's legal forces. Having caused this story to appear in the nation's most prestigious daily and reputed paper of record, Joe Welch would seem to have done a pretty good job of outing the innocent lad from Boston. (It was undoubtedly this news story, or an equivalent, that McCarthy was asking Jim Juliana to bring him.) It thus develops that Welch himself had already done the very thing for which he so fervently denounced McCarthy. So the suspicion once more dawns, as with the "doctored" photo, that something was unspeakably evil when, and only when, done by McCarthy, but perfectly proper when done by Welch and/or his clients.
What these several episodes tell us about the moral posturing of the Army's lawyer hardly needs much comment. There is, however, one further topic to be noted in taking the measure of Joe Welch. This was the effort of the Mundt committee to get from Welch's clients an Inspector General's report about the Peress case, including a list of Army officials involved in the mishandling of that matter. On this subject, as on others, the Army dragged its feet, so that
four months elapsed between the date of the request and the time the report was finally delivered. Moreover, when the list was examined, it turned out to have some glaring omissions.
All this would be brought out the following year by the McClellan panel in its survey of the Peress debacle. In a scathing critique of the Army performance, the McClellan committee noted the obvious lack of candor in keeping back the IG report about the case. Even worse than the foot-dragging, however, was the deliberate withholding of the names of several officials involved in managing the Peress affair—including both John Adams and General Zwicker, among the most important players in the drama. As a result of such deletions, said the McClellan panel, "the list of 28 officials was deceptive and a gross imposition on the special Mundt subcommittee and this subcommittee." And why had the names of John Adams et al. been omitted? The information, said the McClellan report, "was not furnished to the special Mundt subcommittee upon the advice received from the Army's special counsel, Joseph P. Welch [sic] . . . on or about May 11 (1954) ..." as "not pertinent to the hearings."
Thus, what the McClellan committee described as "deceptive and a gross imposition" on two committees of the Senate was the doing of the virtuous Welch, this occurring "on or about May 11," 1954. That would have been roughly a week after the Army lawyer lectured McCarthy on the need for full disclosure of all relevant data, and the grave obligations in the solemn oath administered when the hearings started. It would appear that, in this brief span, Welch had forgotten this impressive moral sermon. Perhaps it would have helped if, as he requested, someone had read to him—slowly—the language of that oath, swearing "to tell the truth, comma, the whole truth, comma, and nothing but the truth." But then again, perhaps it wouldn't.
So I ask you all. Do I have any decency left? I say Yes, I do.
All this information can be gleaned from reading the Senate records of the Hearing in the, "McCarthy Era". the American Left knows that if this were to become public knowledge that they would all be ran out of office for treason. the democrat Party itself would implode from their own treasonous and devious actions.Fantastic work TM, I liked, not sure for others. This needs to be in a book man
where do we see the papers TM, this is facinating real history.
It is. It is regurgitated directly from Evan's book. This isn't Mason's research. He read a book that blew his hair back, and now he's positioning himself as some kind of expert on the topic. He didn't read the transcripts and come to his own conclusions. He read Evan's conclusions and is pretending he has done "research".
Rev. Baker had many followers like you.I havent't positioned myself as anything. I am simply posting facts that you all do not like.
The Senate Records read as they read, it is as simple as that.
And yes the quotes from the Ny Times, dates of the articles, Senate records #s and page #s, are all sourced from Evans' sources, along with a lot of the research links he provides, and they read as they read, that's a simple fact... see guys when you read a book they the author should be able to source the material, it speaks to the integrity of the Author that he can show you where his source is and where he derives his information.
M. Stanton Evans' supplies the details to all the sources and all the info he put forth from the records he gathered it from. I have feely admitted that, unlike others on here who simply spout myths and cannot source anything to prove it, have gothered alot of the same sources as Evans', and I source Evans' himself. That is the way it is done. Not just beolieve something becasue someone says it is so, like Ralph and the rest of you Leftists.
I have stated over and over Americans should read, -M.Stanton Evans' Blacklisted by History-, I have also read Aurthor Herman's work on McCarthy, and Griffith's, Strout, Rogin, Fried, Stienberg, and many many others.
But the fact is Evans does one thing the others do not... he actually produces the sources to show the facts of what is being said, where the others simple spout back the same old bla blah blah about McCarrthy, no sources just assumtions.
So yes M.Stanton Evans' has redeemed McCarthy and he has done it through the records of the US Govt. and many of their agencies and those involved own records. And I have sourced from Evans' and his sources... see how that works? Probrably not. Too bad if you do not like it bruce... go get your lil lap-dog and take a walk in the park and grump to him... because I am done with you two.
And all the transcripts can be found here... go read them for yourself bruce... I have. I didn't just take Evans' word for it.
Senate Records...
Army McCarthy Hearings,.. the above referenced is at... pg - 2428
http://www.senate.gov/general/search/se … =0&y=0
It takes a lil work to find the info in there, but it is in there. Alot of BS piled around it... so dig. And guess which source provided the exact page number?... Shall I say it... M Stan... naa.. I am sure you all can guess.
I told you, Dutch... anything you could ever need for a reference source is in that work by Evans'. A masterful piece on McCarthy which has got the Left in a tail-spin because it cannot be twisted into their lil myth of BS anymore. He, Evans', supplies page #s, Depts, sources for, and photo-stats of all documents.. etc.
Truly a wonderful work... and I don't care what the Left has to say about it.
Yes it did blow me away... I have read dozens of books on McCarthy and always been left wanting, because of the lack of sources... not Evans' -Blacklisted By History-, he supports all he says with their own words and records and it pisses the Leftists off to no end. And you can acess it all online these day, Senate, House, Depts,... most all.
Evans is a conservative/libertarian ideologue, not a historian.
Whaaa...! Stop crying ralph Evans' didn't write the records he sourced... they are originals from the vaults of this country and it's agencies and Depts. and those inviolved in all sides of the issue. The records speak for themselve, Ralph. Too bad. And they show that McCarthy was correct in all his assertions. And new records come to light everyday which prove and confirm that knowledge. so Whaaaaa..
"The records speak for themselve, Ralph."
No, they really don't. They get interpreted by those who read them. Sometimes incorrectly.
"And they show that McCarthy was correct in all his assertions."
I'm not sure they do. I haven't given it the close scrutiny that I'd need to give them before definitively saying one thing or the other, but what it looks like to me is this:
*McCarthy was right about one or two of his assertions.
*He may or may not have been right about the rest.
*Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the assertions (which seems never to have been conclusively determined), almost all of the accuseds' careers were still destroyed.
Again, this is based on a rather quick reading of the stuff you posted, under the assumption that everything in the quote is 100% accurate.
So, sure, McCarthy caught a couple communists* in the state department. He also pointed the finger at a whole bunch of other people, who may have been commies, and who may have been non-commies--this seems never to have been determined one way or the other--and destroyed their lives.
*And come to think of it, merely "being a communist" isn't a crime, any more than merely being an anarchist or a pacifist or a Nazi is a crime. It is, however, a crime to try to overthrow the US government, or to plan to do so. I don't see (again, quick reading) where any of the people McCarthy went after were accused of plotting to overthrow the US government, or taking part in a plot to do so.
So what the facts tell me, so far, is this: McCarthy accused a lot of people of being communists. He managed to prove that a couple of those people were in fact communists. He couldn't prove that anyone was a communist, other than the aforementioned couple of guys. But since being a communist isn't a crime, event eh guys he proved were commies weren't guilty of anything other than being a commie, which, as I said, isn't a crime by itself. Nobody seems to have been proven guilty of acting to or planning to violently overthrow the government.
So McCarthy, good-intentioned as he may have been, was no hero at all, but a destroyer of lives and an ignorer of the Constitution. Sure, he had the help of the general anti-commie sentiment of the day (just as the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq were helped by the general Islamophobic sentiment of the day), but the existence of legions of commies in the US government is about as proven as the existence of scads of WMDs in Iraq. (And there are wingnut websites that claim to have 'proof' that there really were WMDs in Iraq, too.)Wrong, Jeff.
The records speak for themselves unless you want to twist them, which is a favorite past time of the Leant Letists. We know you all run with the, "Americans are not smart enough to know what they are reading" BS, so you all have to interpret what all records and materials actually say for us. And Americans are now figuring out you all cannot be trusted to tell the truth about what is in those records and the conclusions one should reach.
So we will look for ourselves, thank you. We do not need you elitists, and twisted leftists with your agendas, to translate anything anymore for us lil people. We will be just fine on our own.
And again, no one McCarthy accused had any of their lives desroyed... simple fact. Go ahead and throw up HUAC like all you leftists do.. it won't fly anymore.
And thats all I have to say on the subject. Because anyone can go and see it for themselves in the records, and draw their own conclusions and reach their own determinations.
And a couple?... wow you canot count... yes just a coule.. and this is only a partial list of those McCarthy correctly identified.
Robert Warren Barnett & Mrs. Robert Warren Barnett, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #48 and #49 respectively and both are on Lee list as #59;[42]
Esther Brunauer, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #47 and Lee list #55;[43]
Stephen Brunauer, U.S. Navy, chemist in the explosive research division;[44]
Gertrude Cameron, Information and Editorial Specialist in the U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #55 and Lee list #65;[45][46]
Nelson Chipchin, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's list #23;[47]
Oliver Edmund Clubb, U.S. State Department;[48]
John Paton Davies, U.S. State Department, Policy Planning Committee;[49]
Gustavo Duran, U.S. State Department, assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Latin American Affairs, and Chief of the Cultural Activities Section of the Department of Social Affairs of the United Nations;[50]
Arpad Erdos, U.S. State Department;[51]
Herbert Fierst, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's case #1 and Lee list #51;[52][53][54]
John Tipton Fishburn, U.S. State Department; Lee list #106;[55]
Theodore Geiger, U.S. State Department;[56]
Stella Gordon, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #40 and Lee list #45[57]
Stanley Graze, U.S. State Department intelligence; McCarthy's Case #8 and Lee list #8, brother of Gerald Graze, confirmed in KGB Archives;[58]
Ruth Marcia Harrison, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #7 and Lee list #4;[59]
Myron Victor Hunt, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #65 and Lee list #79;[60]
Philip Jessup, U.S. State Department, Assistant Director for the Naval School of Military Government and Administration at Columbia University in New York, Delegate to the U.N. in a number of different capacities, Ambassador-at-large, and Chairman of the Institute of Pacific Relations Research Advisory Committee; McCarthy's Case #15;[61]
Dorothy Kenyon, New York City Municipal Court Judge, U.S. State Department appointee as American Delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women;[62]
Leon Hirsch Keyserling, President Harry Truman's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers;[63]
Mary Dublin Keyserling, U.S. Department of Commerce;[64]
Esther Less Kopelewich, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #24;[65]
Owen Lattimore, Board member of the communist-dominated Institute of Pacific Relations (I.P.R) and editor the I.P.R.’s journal Pacific Affairs;[66]
Paul A. Lifantieff-Lee, U.S. Naval Department; McCarthy's Case #56 and Lee list #66;[67]
Val R. Lorwin, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #54 and Lee list #64;[68]
Daniel F. Margolies, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #41 and Lee list #46;[69] [70]
Peveril Meigs, U.S. State Department; Department of the Army; McCarthy's Case #3 and Lee list #2;[71]
Ella M. Montague, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #34 and Lee list #32;[72]
Philleo Nash, Presidential Advisor, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman administrations;[73][74][75]
Olga V. Osnatch, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #81 and Lee list #78;[76]
Edward Posniak, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case Number 77;[77]
Philip Raine, U.S. State Department, Regional Specialist; McCarthy's Case #52 and Lee list #62;[78][79][80][81]
Robert Ross, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #32 and Lee list #30;[82]
Sylvia Schimmel, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #50 and Lee list #60;[83][84][85][86]
Frederick Schumann, contracted by U.S. State Department as lecturer; Professor at Williams College; not on Lee list;[87]
John S. Service, U.S. State Department;[88]
Harlow Shapley, U.S. State Department appointee to UNESCO, Chairman of the National Council of Arts, Sciences, and Professions;[89]
William T. Stone, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #46 and Lee list #54;[90]
Frances M. Tuchser, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #6 and Lee list #6;[91]
John Carter Vincent, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #2 and Lee list #52;[92]
David Zablodowsky, U.S. State Department & Director of the United Nations Publishing Division. McCarthy's Case #103;[93]And you'd best make sure that your conclusions meet with TMs approval.
"The records speak for themselves unless you want to twist them, which is a favorite past time of the Leant Letists."
Ah, there it is: "if you disagree with what I say, it's not because you read the material and used your brain, but because you're a communist sympathizer!"
"We know you all run with the, "Americans are not smart enough to know what they are reading", BS so you all have to interpret what all records and materials actually say fopr us."
Actually, I think that most Americans are smart enough to read for themselves, but I also realize that most Americans have stuff to do (like their jobs, or the yard work, or whatever) and find it easy to buy the interpretations of people with an agenda, especially if the agenda agrees with what they already believe. Witness the popularity of (for example) Glenn Beck. Low intelligence is not our problem. Lack of time to do one's own research is, or in many cases, laziness is. But if people hear only the Glen Beck version of the story, and haven't the time or the inclination to do their own fact-checking, they'll probably believe Glen. My purpose is to ensure that the Glens of the world don't have the stage all to themselves.
"So we will look for ourselves, thank you."
Go ahead--in spite of what you'd have everyone believe, I encourage people to read stuff and draw their own conclusions. It's exactly what I. Just. Did. And I came to a different conclusion than you came to. Funny, that.
I can allow that people of good will can disagree about stuff. You seem to be working under the supposition that you're capital-R Right, you have the capital-T Truth, and the only possible reason anyone would disagree with you is that he has an anti-American leftist agenda.
Sorry, but I disagree with you in this case because I think you're in error, not because I hate America. Post something that's real, and you bet I'll agree with you that it's real (though I may not agree about the right way to deal with it). Ask Evan Rogers. We rarely agree about what to do, but we almost always agree about what is going on.
I suspect that it's because we both can see what's in front of us, and don't let phobias cloud our reason.No Jeff. I am simply pointing out materials you all do not like... and that pisses some of you off. It is obvious from the vitriolic attacks anytime a certain some come on here. It is McCarthy who really pisses some off and the fact that he is being redeemed... it just burns the left and Progressive to no end.
So we'll leave it to people to see the records and draw their own conclusions. Simple."It is McCarthy who really pisses ome off and the fat that he is being redeemed."
But he isn't being "redeemed." That's the whole point.
All the data you posted showed that he was right about a couple of guys. That's all. If he'd only gone after those two guys, he'd be fine. (Well, sort of--being a communist isn't the same as plotting the overthrow of the government, but that's a separate argument.) But he went after a bunch of people and never proved that they were communists (again, not a crime by itself, but...)
If anyone is PO'ed, it seems to be you, and you're mad at me for not swallowing your story without reading-and thinking-for myself.
BTW, I kind of think the OP is a bit unseemly. The guy suffered enough in his lifetime. There's no need to dance on his grave.
I'm confused? First you said you have not read thoroughly through the records and just glanced at them, But in this post you have come to a conclusion? Did you read all the info in just 30 minutes?
If you are being fair as you claim you are, How can you say something so positively if you have not gone through everything?I skimmed through the posts, and saw a couple of hits, and a lot of people who were accused but pleaded the 5th (not the same as admitting guilt) and who were never proven to be Communists.
Not enough to "redeem" McCarthy. Well, for the one or two guys who actually turned out to be a security risk, he's redeemed on those two counts. Well done.
The rest of the stuff just seems to show that people were accused, and it sure did look bad for them, but they weren't convicted of anything.
History has already judged McCarthy. He doesn't need me to go and remind everyone that he was bad.So you admit to just skimming. Then you have a biased look on him from your last statement? These are just more proof that Mr. Mason is right again. He posted Many names and to say that only a couple was actually caught is ridiculous.
This was a very important matter in the security of the country and to state what you just did his outright stupid.
You know the media and certain parties can do a lot of damage to someone if they wanted and McCarthy was one of them all by the leftist elite.
The man clearly stated to look at the senate records and news papers and it truly shows the truth! you claim to be unbiased but really that is just a front.
Also how come since you advocate so much for the gays that you do not show respect to a man who was the first to have an openly gay and woman working with him???McCarthy's damage was self-inflicted by dishonesty, alcohol and blind right-wing overblown fear of communism.
"Then you have a biased look on him from your last statement? These are just more proof that Mr. Mason is right again."
Dude, take a logic class. Me skimming the post doesn't make Mason right. It means, Take my conclusions with a grain of salt, and do your own reading. My arguments and my reading habits have no bearing whatsoever on the rightness of TMMason's statements. (They have a bearing on mine, though.)
"Also how come since you advocate so much for the gays that you do not show respect to a man who was the first to have an openly gay and woman working with him?"
Um, what does that have to do with anything in this discussion?
"And they show that McCarthy was correct in all his assertions."
Nothing could be further from the truth. McCarthy was correct in very few of his assertions. Here's a link to a review of Evans' book by an actual historian from the University of Texas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/books … amp;st=cse
Part of Evans’s appeal is his boast to have unmasked the biases and distortions of previous McCarthy critics, this author included. He begins by describing a massive Russian spy operation in the United States, drawing his evidence from K.G.B. files as well as portions of the Venona project, a top-secret operation that traced Soviet intelligence traffic during World War II. Evans leaves the impression that he has uncovered fresh material, suspiciously overlooked until now. In fact, numerous scholars have used these documents to craft a thorough portrait of Communist espionage in Washington, though most believe that the worst of it was over by the late 1940s, when the F.B.I. began a crackdown on spying and a federal security program was put in place. If anything, they say, this evidence serves to reinforce the standard portrait of McCarthy as a bit player in the battle against Communist subversion, a latecomer who turned a vital crusade into a political mud bath.
Evans disagrees, claiming that the Communist problem was very much alive in 1950, when the senator first made his charges of treason in high places. He judges McCarthy to be a skilled appraiser of loyalty and disloyalty and blames his errors, as well as those of his top aide, Roy Cohn, on “their proclivities for multitasking, and the fact that they carried so much information in their heads.” (Those old enough to remember this duo will find the imagery amusing.) Most important, Evans buys into the heart of the McCarthy conspiracy — the belief that leftist elements in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations created a foreign policy to advance the spread of world Communism.
How else could one explain the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe or the fall of Chiang Kai-shek to the army of Mao Zedong? “Who lost China?” propelled McCarthy to the national stage. Along the way, he described General George C. Marshall, the nation’s most respected military commander, as a Communist dupe; urged Secretary of State Dean Acheson to seek asylum in the Soviet Union; purposely confused the names of the convicted perjurer and likely Soviet spy Alger Hiss and the 1952 Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson (“Alger — I mean Adlai”); and called Harry Truman a “son of a bitch” who made his key decisions in the midnight darkness while drunk on bourbon.
McCarthy blamed the fall of China on “a conspiracy so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man.” Evans not only endorses this conspiracy but actually expands it to include “the Eastern, internationalist faction” of the Republican Party, “with ties to Wall Street, large corporations, big Eastern media outlets and Ivy League establishment.” To Evans, the conspiracy passed from president to president — from Roosevelt and Truman to Eisenhower and even Nixon, a former McCarthyite, who “would fall off the teeter-totter, landing with Henry Kissinger in Red China, thereafter pushing on into the mists of détente with Moscow.”
This remarkable fantasy, playing upon the deepest fears of right-wing Republicans, ignores the actual United States foreign policy that gave billions of dollars in aid to Chiang, fought a brutal war in Korea against two Communist nations, propped up an anti-Communist regime in Vietnam at the cost of 58,000 American lives and refused for three decades to recognize the government of Mao. Most historians today view the “loss” of China for what it was: a futile American attempt to aid a corrupt and unpopular regime. And most see Truman — the key bogeyman of the McCarthyites — as a tough anti-Communist who protected constitutional liberties at home and American interests abroad.
As McCarthy raged on, the perils of supporting him became apparent to all but his most rabid admirers. In 1954, Whittaker Chambers, a revered figure in conservative circles, expressed his concerns in a prophetic letter to William F. Buckley Jr. “None of us are his enemies,” Chambers wrote, “but all of us ... have slowly come to question his judgment and to fear acutely that his flair for the sensational, his inaccuracies and distortions ... will lead him and us into trouble. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that we live in terror that Senator McCarthy will one day make some irreparable blunder which will ... discredit the whole anti-Communist effort for a long while to come.”
Fifty years have passed since the senator died of liver failure, at age 48. The fiercely negative judgments of those who lived through the McCarthy era are widely accepted today for good reason: they ring true. These judgments tell a cautionary tale, showing how a nation’s legitimate concern for security in uncertain times can be turned into something partisan, repressive and cruel. McCarthy will continue to resonate on the fringes of the body politic because the conspiracy he championed — the disloyalty of powerful elites — goes back to the founding of our country and beyond. Redeem him? I can best respond by quoting the man himself, on another issue, near the end of his career. “This,” muttered the flummoxed McCarthy as the Senate moved to condemn his behavior, “is the most unheard-of thing I ever heard of.”
David Oshinsky, who holds the Jack S. Blanton chair in history at the University of Texas, is the author of “A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy.”Another Leftist Author that has been disgraced by the release of the actual records. You don't think we know the Leant Left control the Universities and colleges in this country?... C'mon Ralph, get real. That is common knowledge today... only a blind man couldn't see who controls the Higher Education system in this control.
And the 40 or 50 above is a partial list of the "few" and the "couple" the he got correct. LOl you all are too funny.He disagrees with me, so he's a leftist!
Many people disagree with me, so it's a leftist conspiracy!
I'm starting to feel like a gawker at a car accident....You are continuing to unfairly smear dead men as you accused someone else on this forum of doing. I know a lot about one of the men you are smearing, John Paton Davies, who was a family friend, an honorable man and a loyal American. He was born of missionary parents in China and a leading China expert in the State Department. His career was ended thanks to wild, false accusations by McCarthy. You can remove him from your list. No doubt that most of the others should be removed also. Your choice of McCarthy as your avatar says it all.
Nothing false about them. Too bad.
Commnuists and Fellow-Travelers do not belong in our Govt... Period!
"John Paton Davies wrote on June 24, 1943: "The Kuomintang and Chiang Kai-shek recognize that the Communists, with the popular support which they enjoy and their reputation for administrative reform and honesty, represent a challenge to the Central Government and its spoils system." and that the Chinese revolutionists were moving away from the concept of world revolution.
Senator Joseph McCarthy stated that, "Both (John Stewart) Service and Davies spent considerable time in China as State Department officials. In their recommendations to Washington both followed the Communist Party line. For example, on November 7, 1944, Davies submitted a memorandum to the State Department outing that the Communist Party in China was 'a modern dynamic popular government.' At the same time he referred to the anti-Communists as 'feudal.' 'The Communists are in China to stay. And China's destiny is not Chiang's but theirs,' said Davies. On December 12, 1944 he urged that we supply the Chinese Communists with arms -- a proposal which Dean Acheson two years later requested Congress to approve." In 1944, Ambassador to China, Patrick J. Hurley, accused Davies of working behind his back to support the Communists. According to Hurley, "Davies had one day flown off to Yenan to tell Mao TseTung, the Communist leader, that Hurley, our Ambassador (an anti-Communist), did not represent the American viewpoint." According to The China Story by Freda Utley, Davies was a great fan of Communist operative Agnes Smedley who operated in China. Utley states, "Davies was also a great admirer of Agnes Smedley, whom he called one of 'the pure in heart.' He used to invite us all to excellent dinners at the American consulate, at which he expressed both his admiration and affection for Agnes. Together with Edgar Snow and other journalists I knew in Hankow, he [Davies] became one of the most potent influences in the Department [of State] furthering the cause of the Chinese Communists."
The McCarran Committee had found that Davies had "testified falsely before the subcommittee in denying that he recommended the Central Intelligence Agency employ, utilize and rely upon certain individuals having Communist associations and connections. This matter was...substantial in import." Despite the enormous evidence of Davies' support of the Communists, the State Department cleared him of being a security/loyalty risk. Eventually, in 1954, under political pressure from McCarthy and Senator Patrick McCarran, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles asked Davies to resign. When he refused, on 5 November, 1954, Dulles terminated his employment, stating that Davies had "demonstrated a lack of judgment, discretion and reliability."
http://www.conservapedia.com/John_Paton_Davies
He screwed himself ralph. A liar and a traitor. One of the ones who betrayed our ally to support Mao. Good riddanceSo he said, "The Kuomintang and Chiang Kai-shek recognize that the Communists, with the popular support which they enjoy and their reputation for administrative reform and honesty, represent a challenge to the Central Government and its spoils system." and, 'The Communists are in China to stay. And China's destiny is not Chiang's but theirs,'
So the only evidence "against" the guy is that he said, basically, "Our allies in China think the Commies are a real threat to them." and predicted the communist takeover.
All of this was true: Mao's red army was a threat to Chiang's nationalist government. They did (at the time) have rather a lot of popular support and a reputation for honesty. And the communists did end up in charge of China.
He was also right about Chiang's nationalists--they were repressive, much like many of the cold-war-era US-backed dictatorships, like Iran's Shah, for example, or Egypt's Mubarak.
Basically, Mr. Davies was branded a commie for saying that the Chinese Communists were probably going to take over, and trying to make sure that we'd have good relations with China--a major power--if they did.
But lots of ideologues don't like being told stuff they don't want to hear. No wonder this guy was persecuted.
Was Dick Nixon also a communist, since he opened diplomatic relations with Red China?
We do not have capitalism. We have a crony capitalism that favors the few at the top. The crony banksterism that we have privatizes profits and therefore cannot be shown to be communism. It is more a corporatism as Ron Paul says, or a fascism of sorts.
Yet conservatives, Ron Paul excluded, support these bankers, want the Volcker Rule, which keeps toxic loans away from the masses, overturned.
The Republicans and Democrats were equally responsible for the housing bubble. But mostly Republicans want the Volcker Rule overturned.
These guys are bought by the fascists. Did you know that the central private bank, led by Bernanke, orders the broker dealers who get the money from QE to buy into the stock market, or alternatively buy bonds. They can make the markets crash, or be not free. The fascistic central bankers are ruining the free market Mason.
And you are falling for it.The Real McCarthy Record
Q. Who were the 22 Republican senators who voted against the condemnation of Joe McCarthy?
A. More than a dozen senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote against him but had to because of the tremendous pressure being put on them by the White House and by leaders of both political parties. The 22 men who did put principle above politics were Senators Frank Barrett (Wyoming), Styles Bridges (New Hampshire), Ernest Brown (Nevada), John Marshall Butler (Maryland), Guy Cordon (Oregon), Everett Dirksen (Illinois), Henry Dworshak (Idaho), Barry Goldwater (Arizona), Bourke Hickenlooper (Iowa), Roman Hruska (Nebraska), William Jenner (Indiana), William Knowland (California), Thomas Kuchel (California), William Langer (North Dakota), George Malone (Nevada), Edward Martin (Pennsylvania), Eugene Millikin (Colorado), Karl Mundt (South Dakota), William Purtell (Connecticut), Andrew Schoeppel (Kansas), Herman Welker (Idaho), and Milton Young (North Dakota).
VI. The Years 1955-1957
Q. Did Joseph McCarthy become a recluse in the 29 months between his condemnation and his death?
A. No, he did not. He worked hard at his senatorial duties. "To insist, as some have, that McCarthy was a shattered man after the censure is sheer nonsense," said Brent Bozell, one of his aides at the time. "His intellect was as sharp as ever. When he addressed himself to a problem, he was perfectly capable of dealing with it."
A member of the minority party in the Senate again, McCarthy had to rely on public speeches to alert the American people to the menace of communism. This he did in a number of important addresses during those two and a half years. He warned against attendance at summit conferences with the Reds, saying that "you cannot offer friendship to tyrants and murderers … without advancing the cause of tyranny and murder." He declared that "coexistence with communists is neither possible nor honorable nor desirable. Our longterm objective must be the eradication of communism from the face of the earth."
Senator McCarthy was virtually alone in warning that the Soviet Union was winning the missile race "because well-concealed communists in the United States government are putting the brakes on our own guided-missile program." He was prophetic in urging the Eisenhower Administration to let "the free Asiatic peoples" fight to free their countrymen from communist slavery in Red China, North Korea, and North Vietnam. "In justice to them, and in justice to the millions of American boys who will otherwise be called upon to sacrifice their lives in a total war against communism," said McCarthy, "we must permit our fighting allies, with our material and technical assistance, to carry the fight to the enemy." This was not permitted and, a decade later, more than half a million American servicemen were fighting in South Vietnam.
Q. Did Joe McCarthy drink himself to death?
A. His enemies would like to have you think that. If McCarthy drank as much as his foes allege, for as many years as they allege, he would have had to be carried from speech to speech and from hearing to hearing, and he would have been unable to string two coherent sentences together. Did McCarthy look or act like a drunk during the 36 days of televised Army-McCarthy Hearings? No alcoholic could have accomplished all that McCarthy did, especially in so few years. Yes, Joseph McCarthy drank, and he probably drank too much sometimes, but he did not drink during working hours, and any drinking he did do did not detract one iota from his fight against communism or from the accuracy of his charges.
In the last two years of his life, McCarthy was greatly disappointed over the terrible injustice his Senate colleagues had done to him, and he certainly had his times of depression. Who wouldn't after what he had been through? But he also had his times of elation, as when he and his wife adopted a baby girl in January 1957. The picture in Roy Cohn's book of a smiling Joe McCarthy holding his new daughter is not the picture of a man drowning in alcohol. William Rusher was counsel to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee during 1956 and 1957 and met McCarthy repeatedly on social occasions. "He had at one time been a heavy drinker," said Rusher of the senator, "but in his last years was cautiously moderate; he died of a severe attack of hepatitis. He kept right on with a senator's usual chores up almost until the end."
The end came on May 2, 1957 in Bethesda Naval Hospital. Thousands of people viewed the body in Washington, and McCarthy was the first senator in 17 years to have funeral services in the Senate chamber. More than 30,000 Wisconsinites filed through St. Mary's Church in the senator's hometown of Appleton to pay their last respects to him. Three senators - George Malone, William Jenner, and Herman Welker - had flown from Washington to Appleton on the plane carrying McCarthy's casket. "They had gone this far with Joe McCarthy," said William Rusher. "They would go the rest of the way."
VII. Some Final Questions
Q. Did McCarthy conduct a "reign of terror" in the 1950s?
A. This is one of the big lies the left continues to spread about McCarthy. The average American did not fear McCarthy; in fact, the Gallup Poll reported in 1954 that the senator was fourth on its list of most admired men. The only people terrorized by McCarthy were those who had something subversive to hide in their past and were afraid that they might eventually be exposed.
Oh, there was a "reign of terror" in the early '50s, but it was conducted against Joe McCarthy, not by him. Those who denounced McCarthy week in and week out included the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Life, Walter Lippmann, the Alsop brothers, Drew Pearson, Jack Anderson, the cartoonist Herblock, Edward R. Murrow, Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, and liberals from all walks of life. Reign of terror? During one 18-month period, the University of Wisconsin invited Eleanor Roosevelt, Norman Cousins, Owen Lattimore, and James Carey - all bitter anti-McCarthyites -to warn the students of McCarthy's reign of terror.
Q. Most of the books written about McCarthy say that he smeared thousands of innocent people. Is that true?
A. This is impossible since McCarthy never even mentioned thousands of people. At the most, he publicly exposed about 160 persons, all of whom had significant records of collaboration with or support for communists and/or communist causes. Detractors of McCarthy, said Roy Cohn, "have to fall back on picayune things about whether he drank and had a liver condition, usually with a total distortion of the facts. They talk about the innocent people he destroyed. I have yet to have them give me one name. I have a standard answer - 'name one.' They usually come up with someone who came before some other committee, or Hollywood, or something which was never a focus of a McCarthy investigation."
Here is one of literally dozens of examples of misinformation about McCarthy that could be cited: An article about Lillian Hellman in Newsweek for July 9, 1984 said that perhaps her most famous lines "were those she wrote in a statement to the House Committee on Un- American Activities in 1952. 'I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions,' she wrote, refusing to testify against her friends at the McCarthy hearings." Miss Hellman could hardly have testified "at the McCarthy hearings" because there were no McCarthy hearings in 1952 and because Joe McCarthy was a senator and was never involved in any House Committee hearings dealing with communist infiltration of the Hollywood film industry.
Q. These same books insist that Senator McCarthy never uncovered "a single communist" in his five-year fight. Is that true?
A. Joe McCarthy was hated and denounced not because he smeared innocent people, but because he identified guilty people. Any list of identified communists uncovered by McCarthy would have to include Lauchlin Currie, Gustavo Duran, Theodore Geiger, Mary Jane Keeney, Edward Posniak, Haldore Hanson, John Carter Vincent, Owen Lattimore, Edward Rothschild, Irving Peress, and Annie Lee Moss. But that is not the whole story. McCarthy also exposed scores of others who may not have been identified as communists, but who certainly were causing harm to national security from their posts in the State Department, the Pentagon, the Army, key defense plants, and the Government Printing Office. At the latter facility, which handled 250,000 pieces of secret and classified printed matter annually, the McCarthy probe resulted in the removal or further investigation by the FBI of 77 employees and a complete revamping of the security system at the GPO.
Was it unreasonable of McCarthy to want government positions filled with persons who were loyal to America, instead of those with communist-tainted backgrounds? "A government job is a privilege, not a right," McCarthy said on more than one occasion. "There is no reason why men who chum with communists, who refuse to turn their backs on traitors, and who are consistently found at the time and place where disaster strikes America and success comes to international communism, should be given positions of power in government." The motivation of these people really doesn't matter. If the policies they advocate continually result in gains for communism and losses for the Free World, then they should be replaced by persons with a more realistic understanding of the evil conspiracy that has subjugated more than one-third of the world. That's not McCarthyism, that's common sense.
Q. Most of the books in the libraries seem to be anti-McCarthy. Are there any pro-McCarthy books?
A. There are indeed, but most of them are out of print or not usually available in libraries. Here is a list: McCarthy and His Enemies, by William Buckley and Brent Bozell; McCarthy, by Roy Cohn; The Assassination of Joe McCarthy, by Medford Evans; The Lattimore Story, by John Flynn; Who Promoted Peress?, by Lionel Lokos; three books by McCarthy himself - Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy 1950-1951, McCarthyism: The Fight for America, and America's Retreat From Victory; and a collection of tributes to McCarthy entitled Memorial Addresses Delivered in Congress.
Q. How then would you define McCarthyism?
A. McCarthyism was a serious attempt to remove from positions of influence the advocates of communism, the willing and unwilling supporters of communism and communists, and persons who would prevent the removal of those who give aid and comfort to the enemies of America. Communist conspirators and their friends do not fear those who denounce communism in general terms. They do, however, greatly fear those who would expose their conspiratorial activities. That is why they hated and fought Joe McCarthy more than any other public figure in this century. That is why they have preserved his name as a club to hold over the head of anyone who dares to expose communism.
Joe McCarthy was a brave and honest man. There was nothing cynical or devious about him. He said and did things for only one reason - he thought they were the right things to say and do. He was not perfect; he sometimes made errors of fact or judgment. But his record of accuracy and truthfulness far outshines that of his detractors. His vindication in the eyes of all Americans cannot come soon enough. Medford Evans put it well when he said: "The restoration of McCarthy … is a necessary part of the restoration of America, for if we have not the national character to repent of the injustice we did him, nor in high places the intelligence to see that he was right, then it seems unlikely that we can or ought to survive."
* Evidence presented in the other six cases showed that two (Haldore Hanson and Gustavo Duran) had been identified as members of the Communist Party, that three (Dorothy Kenyon, Frederick Schuman, and Harlow Shapley) had extensive records of joining communist fronts and supporting communist causes, and that one (Esther Brunauer) had sufficient questionable associations to be dismissed from the State Department as a security risk in June 1952. For further details, see chapter seven of McCarthy and His Enemies, by William Buckley and Brent Bozell.I find it really hard to believe how many Pro-McCarthyites still exists. The man was a witch hunter, he made life miserable for a lot of innocent people, including great entertainers.
Yes. And, contrary to DannyBoy, above he died of cirrhosis of the liver due to excessive drinking of something other than lemonade.
The senators he lists above are some of the worst in the history of the Senate.Your another puppet who can not comprehend true facts and just listen to the lies spread. There is a complete list of people known to be communist or sympathizers.
Before spouting nonsense, you should look at the senate records and newspapers back in the 50's then you will see the truth.
Only people who follow others without checking facts themselves are nothing more than puppets and people play you with strings.You know, If I were you, I'd alter my tone a little. Calling people "puppets" isn't very polite and doesn't lend you very much credibility, see?
The historical context of the situation is missing, here. Many people in America joined the Communist party in the late '30's, early '40's, because the worker bee was so exploited by the manufacturing mogul. The Communist Party, at that time, was sort of like the Labor Party, in England.
Many people, later on, in the '50's and '60's, repudiated Communism, that totalitarian lifestyle, that political agenda. Many of the former Communists were the idealists of their generation. They loved the idea of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Rampant capitalism with a laissez-faire policy on the part of the government had led to some serious abuses of the common man.
Later on , when there were labor unions well established and there was some legislated protection for the workers of America, many peple abandoned the Communist agenda completely.
McCarthy went around raking up these affiliations from a person's youth, had them labelled as a Communist sympathizer, then blacklisted. The entertainment industry was particularly vulnerable: so were prominent politicians. Most of these people were NOT spies, they WERE NOT giving away or selling government secrets to Russia. That was all a bunch of nonsense--scare tactics.
A communist candidate for mayor of Detroit!!
http://apps.detnews.com/apps/history/index.php?id=49It is the fault of many on all sides and to place all the blame on one or the other is what they want. They all did it! This is a managed decline of our economy... and everyone is too busy blaming the other side for what both did.
If we could actually say there are two sides today. Socialist Democrats, Progressives Republicans... all the same.
They are all LEANT LEFTISTS to me!That is an accurate account of what went down. I wrote a hub about it at the time.
The trouble seems to be that as usual the whole world did a nosedive as a result, and most countries would like to see a lot of financial wide boys in jail where they belong.
I don't think it's over yet though, there are a lot of people still hopping mad about the fraud.The Govt. Socialist Democrats and Progressive, and the banks, are all at fault, and you all know it.
My, that was compelling and informative. Clears things right up, Mason.
LOL.It sums it up. I don't know about clearing it up. They have made it a bungle f... intentionally so not one can clearly see who did what. But it doesn't change the fact that they are all responsible.
Oh, now it's a conspiracy, and nobody can see the true culprits? But you, you have special insight, if only everyone would listen?
Dude, are you listening to yourself?
Related Discussions
- 182
We forgot who we are
by Leslie McCowen 13 years ago
John F. Kennedy:"If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil...
- 5
Did sen. McCarthy's "Red Scare" Communist hunt find any real spies?
by ga anderson 12 years ago
Did sen. McCarthy's "Red Scare" Communist hunt find any real spies?
- 107
Do we have an open border?
by Kathryn L Hill 2 hours ago
Wondering. Biden's policies are likely sending signals that are encouraging the surge." Axios https://www.axios.com/2021/03/07/migran … gs-reasons https://www.axios.com/2023/10/17/us-mex … rders-myth ...
- 93
Hillary Clinton Found in Violation with Email by Office of Secretary
by Susie Lehto 7 years ago
Office of Inspector General: 78 pages PDF https://cryptome.org/2016/05/state-oig- … emails.pdf Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements This is huge! I'm going through the report right now. The report says: "Secretary Clinton...
- 42
Media keeps losing to Pres Trump but won't retreat from Fake News?
by ahorseback 7 years ago
Fake is fake and everybody knows the difference except the mainstream media .Any takers ? Even liberals must recognize the futility of the news media maintaining the plague of falsehoods.
- 223
Is America's Constitutional Democracy Dead?
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
Now that the Trumplicans in the Senate abdicated on their duty to hold a fair trial and voted to let Donald Trump remain in office, did that mark the end of our democracy as we know it?Consider:1. There isn't a thing a president can do that will warrant removal if the Senate is made up of a...